Representation of Women on Radiology Journal Editorial Boards: A 40-Year Analysis

Women in Radiology: A perspective from Spain

INTRODUCTION

There are gender inequalities in all fields, including radiology. Although the situation is improving, the presence of radiologists in leadership positions continues to be a minority. The objective of this article is to analyse the situation of women in the spanish radiology, comparing it with Europe and the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We selected the years 2000-2022 as reference period to make a comparison with feminization data throughout history. In addition, relevant specific data from the just begun 2023 were also included. The variables in which we investigated feminization were the following: medical students, medical graduates, radiology residents and specialists, section chiefs, department chairs, radiology residency programme directors, radiology university professors, presidents of the main radiological entities and societies in Spain, Europe and the United States, recipients of the main awards given by these radiological societies and chief editors of their journals. In order to perform this analysis we conducted an in-depth bibliographic research, we contacted the radiological societies of Spain, Europe and the USA and we carried out a survey in the main Spanish radiology departments.

RESULTS

The female presence in radiology decreases as we rise to leadership positions, a situation that is patent in Spain, Europe and the US, comparison that will be analysed in depth throughout the article. In Spanish hospitals in 2021 there were 58.1% female radiology residents, 55% female radiologists, 42.9% female section chiefs and 24.4% female department chairs. In SERAM's history there have been 10% female presidents, 22% female gold medallists and 5% female editors-in-chief. If we analyse data from 2000 to 2023, female presidents reach 32% and female gold medallists 31%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although gender inequality is declining, in radiology women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. Work must be done in order to build a diverse and inclusive profession that reflects demographic reality.

The gender composition of the members of the editorial board of toxicology journals: Assessment of gender equality

In many areas of medicine, gender equality has not yet been fully adopted despite recent developments. The inequality of gender in various areas of medicine is still debated. In this study, we analysed the gender composition of the editorial boards of toxicology journals in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) databases and the factors affecting this composition. The genders of the participants were determined by the data obtained from the official websites of the journals in September 2023. We analysed the journal metrics and publisher properties using Mann-Whitney U, Fisher's exact, Chi-square tests and Spearman's correlation coefficient. We used logistic regression analysis to reveal the independent factors related to gender parity. The representation rates of women were 28.62% on all editorial boards and 23.33% in editor-in-chief positions. The 'Neuroscience' (OR, 2.46 95%CI, 1.68-3.60, p < 0.001), 'Reproductive Biology'(OR, 2.05 95%CI, 1.22-3.42, p = 0.006) and 'Public, Environmental & Occupational Health'(OR, 1.49 95%CI, 1.18-1.88, p = 0.001) as a coverage category, the United States as a journal country (OR, 1.21, 95%CI, 1.04-1.40, p = 0.001), 5-year-IF≥3.6(OR, 1.54, 95%CI, 1.27-1.86, p < 0.001), 5-year H index≥29 (OR, 1.23, 95%CI, 1.01-1.49, p = 0.037) were the independent factors for gender parity. However, 'Oncology' (OR, 0.08 95%CI, 0.01-0.55, p = 0.011), 'Biochemistry, Molecular Biology' (OR, 0.62 95%CI, 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005) and 'Pharmacology & Pharmacy' (OR, 0.69 95%CI, 0.59-0.82, p < 0.001) as a coverage category, Japan as a publisher country (OR, 0.52 95%CI, 0.35-0.77, p = 0.001), and Switzerland as a journal country (OR, 0.61, 95%CI, 0.46-0.81, p = 0.001) were related to gender disparity. Greater endeavours are needed to reduce gender discrimination in toxicology. Toxicology authorities should continuously improve existing policies by optimising the analysis of objective information to eliminate barriers for toxicologists in terms of gender equality.

Gender parity in high impact neurology journals

Background

Although female representation has been growing among physicians, women continue to be underrepresented in neurology, particularly regarding academic research in authorship and leadership. Analyzing recent trends in high-impact neurology journals highlights the underrepresentation of women and helps explore barriers to female representation in academic neurology.

Methods and results

Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for 2021 was used to screen neurology journals for selection. The first 15 journals with the highest impact factors (JIF) were included. 15,404 total articles in neurology were examined for gender distribution of editorial staff and authorship with the highest total citations from January 1st, 2018 to October 31st, 2021. Gender was classified using biographical information from public and personal media sources. Genderize.io was used in cases of ambiguity, predicting gender at probability of ≥95%. Our data demonstrated that these journals only had 13% female editor-in-chiefs and 35% female editorial staff. The data further demonstrated that females accounted for 39% of first authors and 26% for last authors. During the four years examined males continued to account for the vast majority of both first and last authors for publications accepted and journal editorial staff members.

Conclusion

Women are significantly under-represented in the field of neurological research in leadership positions as editor-in-chiefs, editorial board members as well as first or senior authors in top neurology medical journals. With continued underrepresentation of women occupying leading publishing roles, parity with men is still a work in progress. Additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for women physicians in academic neurology.

Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology Authorship: A 13-Year Review

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Underrepresentation of women in many scientific fields has been linked to biases against female-authored publications in peer-reviewed journals, thereby reducing their opportunities for career development and promotions. The objective of this study is to determine the representation of female academic radiologists in four flagship general radiology journals to elucidate gender-specific trends and disparities in academic radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 23,741 peer-reviewed articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology and Academic Radiology from 2007 to 2020. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for author gender, first and last authorship, research funding, and number of citations and grants. Baseline demographics data of academic radiologists was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

RESULTS

A total of 72.4% of authors were male with 54% of articles were written by a male first author and male last author. When compared with assumed random pairing, there were significantly fewer Male/Female author combinations and more Female/Female author combinations than expected (p<0.01). Over the 13-year time period, the rate of increase in the number of female authors exceeded the rate of increase in women in academic radiology as reported by the AAMC. Female last authors received on average 3.2 less citations than their male counterparts (p=.03). Of manuscripts with last female authors, 31.7% of female last authors were funded compared to 25.9% of last male authors.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the increasing numbers and higher productivity of female authors in academic radiology, suggesting progress is being made in overcoming gender disparities.

Gender Parity in High Impact Cardiology Journals

Despite increased female representation in medical training, women physicians continue to be under-represented in academic cardiology, particularly in senior roles of authorship and leadership. We analyzed the top 20 most-cited cardiology journals (31,540 total articles) between January 1, 2018 and October 31, 2021 for gender distribution of editorial staff and authorship. Our data demonstrated that only 27% of articles had women as first authors and 20% as senior authors. Women constituted 23% of editorial staff. There is a statistically significant negative correlation (R = 0.67, P = 0.0011) between the percentage of women as first authors and the percentage of men on editorial boards. Overall, female authorship increased from 26% first and 19% senior authors in 2018, to 29% first and 22% senior authors in 2021. Women authors are significantly under-represented in academic cardiology publications, and additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to publishing and academic advancement for women in cardiology.

Gender Composition in Occupational Therapy Journals' Editorial Boards

This paper analyses the Editorial Board (EB) distribution of Occupational Therapy journals from a gender perspective. The "Occupational Therapy" field in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) and the "Occupational Therapy" term in the title search of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) were used to find the Occupational Therapy-specific journals. The following indicators were calculated: Editorial Board Member (EBM) gender distribution by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, and journal quartile. Thirty-seven journals were located, including 667 individuals, 206 males (31%) and 461 females (69%). Referring to the EB positions, most members (557) were EB members, 70 were listed as Associate Editors, and 20 as Editorial Leaders. The results show that the proportion of women in the EB's of Occupational Therapy journals represents a majority. Regarding the distribution by gender of the EBMs, six journals had a female proportion below the cut-off point revealed in this study (69%). Four did not reach parity, with female representation below 50%. Additionally, the balance among the EBMs is significantly underrepresented compared to the percentage of female Occupational Therapy practitioners.

Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals

OBJECTIVES

Gender inequities in editorial board representation and physician compensation are well documented, but few studies have focused on how editors of journals are compensated.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we examined industry-related compensation (from 2014 to 2020) among physician editors of 35 pathology journals using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database.

RESULTS

Of the physician editors included, 135 (69.9%) were men and 58 (30.1%) were women. Similar percentages of men and women physicians who were eligible received payments (112/135 [83.0%] men and 51/58 [87.9%] women; P = .38, χ2 test). Of the total transfer of value ($211,192,532), 112 men received $192,727,555 (91.3%), and 51 women received $18,464,978 (8.7%). Mean total payment per person was $1,720,782 for men and $362,058 for women (P = .05). The payment range for men was $18-$47,568,400 and the range of payments for women was $31-$2,375,637.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight significant gender inequities in industry-related payments to physician editors of pathology journals. The financial relationships of journal editors and industry deserve further study, particularly as they relate to advancing science and closing both workforce and patient care inequities.

Women’s visibility at European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism congresses from 2011 to 2019: Is the floor yours?

Purpose

Participating in international conferences is an essential way to promote scholarly work. We aimed to assess the trend of women’s visibility at the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) congress by describing the evolution of the proportion of women speakers between 2011 and 2019.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective study including public data obtained from the 2011, 2015, and 2019 ESPEN congresses. The primary endpoint was the percentage of women speakers in major oral sessions (oral communications and specific conferences including prestigious lectures). The secondary endpoints were the proportion of women in other high-visibility positions (moderators, industry-led symposia interventions) and countries of origin.

Results

The proportion of women speakers in oral communications remained stable between 2011 and 2019 [43% (43/100) vs. 41% (46/111), respectively; p = 0.89]. The proportion of women moderators in oral communications sessions significantly increased between 2011 and 2019 [13% (6/45) vs. 41% (19/46), respectively; p = 0.004]. The percentage of women speakers and moderators in industry-led symposia significantly increased between 2011 and 2019 [11% (2/18) vs. 41% (11/27), p = 0.05; 0% (0/6) vs. 60% (6/10), p = 0.03, respectively]. The percentage of women moderators in educational sessions also remained stable during the period with a marked under-representation of women in 2015. During all three congresses, women from the host countries were over-represented as moderators compared to women from other countries.

Conclusion

The percentage of women speakers in oral communications remained stable in the last 8 years at ESPEN congresses, although women’s representation in other high-visibility positions has increased. As men remained over-represented, women should be more encouraged to promote their academic work in the field of clinical nutrition, particularly during this international congress.

'You can't be what you can't see': equity, diversity and inclusivity of editorial teams of dental journals

Introduction Equity, diversity and inclusivity in research is critical to ensure all of society contributes.Aim This study analysed the gender and location (workplace) of editorial teams across 124 dental journals.Methods All chief editors of the 91 dental journals listed on the journal citation report for 2021 were contacted to provide details of the numbers of chief editors, other editors and the editorial board members, plus a summary of their demographic information including gender, age (group) and location. If chief editors did not respond, publicly available information was collated for the analysis. The same publicly available information of 45 PubMed indexed journals not on the citation report and three emerging online journals was also retrieved.Results Of the 159 chief editors across the 124 journals, 131 (82%) were men and 30% were based in the USA. Of the 1,265 other editors, two-thirds were from the USA, UK, Brazil and Japan. Of the 3,044 editorial board members, half were from the same four countries.Conclusions 'You can't be what you can't see': women and people from many parts of the world cannot see themselves as chief editors, other editors or editorial board members of dental journals.

Female participation or "feminization" of medicine

More and more women chose medicine as their profession. Female students and graduates outnumber their male colleagues in Austria and the EU. However, the career paths of men and women differ after a certain point, and more and more female talent is lost along the career stages. Women hold only 30% of professor positions at state medical universities in Austria and only 11.9% of all chief physicians are female. Motherhood and related absence is the main career obstacle, but gender bias and missing role models are also factors hindering women to thrive. Improved working conditions would be beneficial for all members of the medical profession. Future generations (Generation Y, Generation Z) will likely expedite changes toward a better work-life balance and claim the right to find fulfillment besides work. Compatibility of family and work and the chance to individualize career paths could be important factors for employers to find and bind their employees. Additionally, (gender) diverse teams improve the group process and collective intelligence. Therefore, patient care and innovation can only benefit from a diverse medical workforce.

Diversity in Radiology: Current Status and Trends Over the Past Decade

Background There have been growing efforts nationally and institutionally toward diversity in radiology. Purpose To analyze sex and racial and ethnic diversity over time (2010-2019) for the various levels of the U.S. academic radiology physician workforce in context of the available pipeline of medical students and trainees. Materials and Methods Data on sex and race and ethnicity were collected among medical school applicants, graduates, radiology residency applicants, residents, and different levels of academic radiology faculty. All trainee data were obtained from two time points, 2010-2011 and 2019-2020. Radiology faculty data were collected from 2010 to 2019. The sex and racial and ethnic composition at each academic level was compared between 2010 and 2019 using the χ² test and a significance level of P < .05. Results In 2019, the percentage of female faculty among radiology instructors was 38% (251 of 655); assistant professors, 31% (1503 of 4801); associate professors, 28% (600 of 2161); professors, 22% (424 of 1901); and department chairs, 17% (37 of 220). The proportion of female faculty increased from 2010 to 2019, with the greatest relative increase in percentages among the more senior faculty positions. However, the proportion of female department chairs has only increased from 13% (27 of 203) in 2010 to 17% (37 of 220) in 2019. Across training levels, the most abrupt change in composition of female trainees occurred from medical school matriculates (52%, 11 160 of 21 614) to radiology residency applicants (29%, 656 of 2274), which largely stayed unchanged from 2010 to 2019. The proportion of Black or African American department chairs was 5% (10 of 220) in 2019, which was higher compared with that of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor levels for Black or African American faculty (3% [130 of 4949], 2% [41 of 2208], and 2% [35 of 1924], respectively), with proportions of Hispanic faculty at 5% (240 of 4949), 4% (96 of 2208), and 3% (60 of 1924), respectively. These proportions have not changed since 2010. Conclusion Identifying and addressing reasons for the low proportion of female radiology residency applicants despite a highly diverse pool of medical students would be key to increasing female representation in the field. The low representation of African American and Hispanic individuals in academic radiology is seen at all levels and has not changed much over time. Efforts to increase diversity may need to be focused toward the medical school and residency application levels. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pandharipande and Shah in this issue.

Representation of women as editors in andrology journals

BACKGROUND

Surveys of gender diversity in editorial boards of journals have been conducted in several disciplines, but not in andrology.

OBJECTIVES

The present study was designed to investigate the gender distribution of editorial boards of andrology journals.

METHODS

A total of eight andrology journals were included in the study, and the gender information and geographical location of editors were identified based on the information obtained from the Internet.

RESULTS

A total of 382 editors' gender information was confirmed. Women made up 1 of the 9 editors-in-chief (11.1%), 13 of the 68 deputy/associate editors (19.1%), 37 of the 270 editorial/advisory board members (13.7%) and 0 of the 35 other types of editors (0%). There was no significant difference in the journal impact factor between male and female editors-in-chief (3.060±1.274 vs 3.482, p = 0.156), and no significant association was found between impact factor and the proportion of female editor (Spearman's r = -0.204, P = 0.629).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Andrology-related journals lacked adequate gender diversity, not all journals reserved reasonable editorial positions for women. Besides, increased impact factor did not bring additional gender bias. Women should be given more reasonable seats to improve gender diversity in andrology-related journals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

New England Women in Radiology (NEWR) Invited Lectureship Series: A Novel Program to Advance the Careers of Junior Female Faculty in Academic Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the New England Women in Radiology (NEWR) program, a new program aimed to generate speaking and networking opportunities for junior women radiologists in New England, by providing opportunities to speak at other academic institutions in the region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 12 academic radiology departments and 20 faculty members at various New England institutions participated in the program during its first year. An institutional survey was sent to all participating institutions and a faculty survey was sent to all participating faculty to assess their experience with the program. Experience was measured using a Likert scale. A word cloud was used to visualize common themes in free response survey questions.

RESULTS

Hundred percent of participating institutions and 67% of participating faculty responded to the corresponding surveys. Hundred percent of responding faculty indicated that they would participate in the program again. Ninety-two percent of faculty said that they would recommend the program to a colleague. Fifty-eight percent found the networking opportunity valuable; while 83% believed that participation in the NEWR program would help them achieve a promotion. Hundred percent of the participating institutions who completed the survey strongly agreed that 1) the program was easy to administer, 2) participating in the program was valuable to their educational mission, and 3) participating in the program benefited the promotion of junior women faculty in their department.

CONCLUSION

Initial experience with the NEWR program in its first year was positive amongst both faculty and institutional participants. To further help female junior faculty advance their careers in academia, the NEWR program could be adapted to other geographical locations to incorporate a greater number of institutions and faculty.

Presence of women on the editorial boards of the language and linguistics journals in Spain

Many international studies have pointed out the under-representation of women on Editorial Boards of both Science and Social Science journals. Their presence as Editorial Board members is relevant as they influence and reflect the policies of the journal itself. This study analyses the participation of women on the Editorial Boards of the Spanish Language and Linguistics journals in SCOPUS. To this end, 54 journals indexed in SCOPUS were analysed, thus discriminating the gender of all members and the role that each member plays on the Editorial Board. The results show no significant differences in the participation of men and women in these Editorial Boards. It was not found any evidence of gender bias in these journals.

Participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas en Latinoamérica

Introducción.

La participación femenina en el campo de la medicina y la investigación se ha incrementado en los últimos años; sin embargo, aún existen inequidades en la proporción de hombres y mujeres, especialmente en los cargos directivos y la participación en los comités editoriales de revistas científicas.

Objetivo.

Establecer la participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas en Latinoamérica, y explorar su asociación con los cargos editoriales y los indicadores de impacto.

Materiales y métodos.

Se hizo un estudio descriptivo de tipo bibliométrico de revistas médicas de Latinoamérica indizadas en Scopus, actualizadas y vigentes en el 2020, las cuales se seleccionaron del portal de Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Los equipos editoriales se categorizaron en tres grupos según sus funciones y, posteriormente, se registró el sexo de sus miembros a partir de sus nombres.

Resultados.

Se incluyeron 113 revistas. En cuanto al liderazgo editorial, entre los 264 directores de comités editoriales, las mujeres representaban el 12,9 %. En lo concerniente a las diferentes funciones, de 1.449 miembros, las mujeres eran el 28,9 %, en tanto que, de los 4.575 miembros de comités consultivos, el 19,0 % correspondía a mujeres. Se observó una mayor presencia de mujeres en los comités editoriales de revistas de Chile, Brasil y Venezuela, y en las especialidades de salud pública, pediatría y anestesiología.

Conclusiones.

La participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas de Latinoamérica es escasa.

Female Representation on Radiology Journal Editorial Boards Around the World: Geographical Differences and Temporal Trends

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We examined the status of women's representation on radiology journal editorial boards around the world and evaluated temporal trends in female board representation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on the gender of editorial board members, deputy editors, and editors-in-chief of top general radiology journals from the United States and from five continents outside North America was collected, based on listings in mastheads of each journal at 5-year intervals from 1998 to 2018. Female editorial board representation was compared to female membership in national professional radiology organizations and national physician registries.

RESULTS

One of 42 editors-in-chief (2.4%), 24 of 135 deputy editors (17.8%), and 345 of 2545 (13.6%) editorial board members were female for the 20-year period. The overall percentage of female editorial board members increased from 9.7% (41 of 423) in 1998 to 17.0% (97 of 569) in 2018 (p < 0.0001). In 2018, women were less represented on the editorial boards than female professional society membership for all geographic regions except Australia/New Zealand; this difference reached statistical significance in Korea, Brazil, Europe, and China. Female editorial board representation ranged from 11.3% to 33.3%, with no significant difference between the United States (21.5%) and other countries.

CONCLUSION

Although the proportion of female editorial board members of radiology journals worldwide has increased over the past two decades, female editorial board composition generally underrepresents the percentage of female radiologists. Editorial board female representation does not differ significantly between the United States and other countries.

Representation of women in editorial boards of infectious disease and microbiology journals - Cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess whether there is an association between the proportion of women editors-in-chief and members of editorial boards in infectious disease (ID) and microbiology journals.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional observational study included ID or microbiology journals according to the 2019 Clarivate Journal Citation Reports. Journals' Q ranking, open-access status, number and gender of editors-in-chief and editorial board members were collected from the journals' official websites. We conducted binary gender assignment for each editor using names, pictures, and other online descriptors. Journals with over 100 editorial board members and those with over 25% of board members for which we could not determine the gender, were excluded. Editorial teams with > 50% women were considered women dominant. Univariate and multivariable analyses for women editor dominance were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 167 journals were included, with total 6057 editorial members, 1655 (28%) women. Of 214 editors-in-chief, 48 (22%) were women, and only 25% (40/162) of journals had women dominant editor-in-chief personnel. Factors associates with women editor-in-chief dominance in univariate analysis were higher quartile rank, higher impact factor, and open access. Open access journals remined significant in multivariable analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.521, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.140-5.576, p=0.022). Larger editorial boards were less likely to have women dominance. Women editor-in-chief dominance was significantly associated with women-dominant editorial board.

CONCLUSIONS

ID and microbiology journals have significantly few women editors-in-chief and editorial board members. Understanding the reasons for this inequality is required as an important step to confront and resolve it.

Gender differences in gastroenterology and hepatology authorship and editorial boards

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Women are numerically under-represented in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. This study aims to characterize the gender distribution of first and senior authors and editorial board members across high impact factor journals in gastroenterology and hepatology.

METHODS

Publications from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 were reviewed from 29 journals. Gender of editorial board leadership, editorial board members, first, and senior authors was identified using publicly available data. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess for a relationship among editorial board, first author, and senior author gender and impact factor.

RESULTS

Of 29 journals (median impact factor 5.55) with 357 journal issues and 8036 articles, there were 3 of 39 female chief editors (7.7%), 601 of 3455 female editorial board members (17.4%), 2547 of 8036 female first authors (31.7%), and 1390 of 7335 female senior authors (19%). No statistically significant correlations existed between impact factor and chief editor gender with gender distribution of editorial boards, first authors, or senior authors. Positive correlations existed between male-dominated editorial boards and male first (+.52, P = .005) and senior authorship (+.56, P = .002), whereas negative correlations occurred between male-dominated editorial boards and female first (-.51, P = .006) and senior authorship (-.56, P = .002). Positive correlations also existed between publication of first and senior authors of the same gender (+.57, men [P = .001]; +.58, women [P = .001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Although gender distribution of female first authorship approaches current distributions in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, editor-in-chief positions, editorial board membership, and senior authorship continue to be primarily men. Future endeavors to improve proportionate gender representation include improved journal leadership selection transparency, targeted diversity statements, and enhanced mentorship.

Impact of COVID-19 on Radiology Faculty - An Exacerbation of Gender Differences in Unpaid Home Duties and Professional Productivity

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic stresses the tenuous balance between domestic obligations and academic output for women across professions. Our investigation aims to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the home duties and workplace productivity of academic radiologists with respect to gender.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 49-question survey was distributed to 926 members of Association of University Radiologists in October 2020. Several categories were addressed: demographics; workplace changes; stress levels and personal experiences with illness; time spent on domestic obligations; and perception of productivity during COVID-19. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

A total of 96 responses across 30 states, 53.1% male and 46.9% female were received. Women report spending more time on unpaid domestic duties than men prior to COVID-19, with men spending a median of 5-10 h/wk and women spending a median of 10-15 h/wk (p = 0.043). With pandemic onset, both genders reported that women did more of the homecare, when not split equally. Women with young children reported a significant decrease in work-from-home productivity compared to men with young children (p = 0.007). Men reported they had more time to be productive compared to women (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to disrupt the advancement of women in radiology leadership roles by creating disparate effects on productivity due to increased workloads at home for women. This could potentially lead to decreases in promotions and research productivity in years to come that far outlast the acute phases of the pandemic.

Gender inequalities on editorial boards of indexed pediatrics journals

BACKGROUND

The presence of women in decision-making positions, such as on editorial committees of biomedical journals, is not the same as that of men. This paper analyzes the gender composition of editorial committees (EBMs) and editors-in-chief (ECs) positions of pediatric journals.

METHODS

The gender of EBMs and ECs of 125 journals classified in the pediatrics area of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) was analyzed. The following indicators were calculated: gender distribution of ECs and EBMs by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, quartile of the journal in JCR and country of affiliation of the members.

RESULTS

The total number of EBMs was 4242. The distribution by sex of the ECs was 19.44% women and 80.56% men, while that of the EBMs were 33.05% women and 66.95% men. Twenty journals exhibited a greater representation of women than of men, and in four there was parity. Journals with greater participation of women specialized in nursing and physical therapy and were related to nutrition (lactation and breastfeeding).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one-fifth of ECs and one-third of EBMs are females. Women's participation is higher in journals related to nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and nutrition. The United States has the highest number of EBMs, followed by the European Union.

IMPACT

Only one-fifth of Editors-in-chief in pediatrics journals are female. Only one-third of Editorial Board Members in pediatrics journals are female. Women's participation is higher in editorials committees in pediatrics journals related to nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and nutrition. Medical and pediatric associations and societies must work together to eliminate the disparities that exist between women and men. Achieving gender equity and empowering all women is one of the World Health Organization's Sustainable Development Goals.

Gender disparities among leadership in academic surgical publishing over the past decade

BACKGROUND

Women account for 19 % of practicing surgeons in the United States, with representation decreasing with higher academic rank. Less is known about the proportion of women in editorial leadership positions at surgical journals. The objective of this study was to examine gender representation among editorial leadership at high-impact surgical journals.

METHODS

The five journals with the highest impact factors in general, cardiothoracic, plastics, otolaryngology, orthopedics, urology, vascular, and neurosurgery were identified. Data were abstracted on the proportion of women editors-in-chief (EIC) and editorial board members between 2010 and 2020 to determine how these demographics changed over time.

RESULTS

Multiple fields had no women EIC over the past decade (orthopedics, urology, cardiothoracic, neurosurgery). In all other fields, women were a minority of EIC. In 2020, women made up 7.9 % of EIC and 11.1 % of editorial boards in surgical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Women remain under-represented among leadership at high-impact surgical journals, with varying improvement over the past decade among different subspecialties.

Emergency Medicine Journal Editorial Boards: Analysis of Gender, H-Index, Publications, Academic Rank, and Leadership Roles

INTRODUCTION

Our goal in this study was to determine female representation on editorial boards of high-ranking emergency medicine (EM) journals. In addition, we examined factors associated with gender disparity, including board members' academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we examined EM editorial boards with an impact factor of 1 or greater according to the Clarivate Journal Citations Report for a total of 16 journals. All board members with a doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine degree, or international equivalent were included, resulting in 781 included board members. We analyzed board members' gender, academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.

RESULTS

Gender disparity was clearly notable, with men holding 87.3% (682/781) of physician editorial board positions and women holding 12.7% (99/781) of positions. Only 6.6% (1/15) of included editorial board chiefs were women. Male editorial board members possessed higher h-indices, total citations, and more publishing years than their female counterparts. Male board members held a greater number of departmental leadership positions, as well as higher academic ranks.

CONCLUSION

Significant gender disparity exists on EM editorial boards. Substantial inequalities between men and women board members exist in both the academic and departmental realms. Addressing these inequalities will likely be an integral part of achieving gender parity on editorial boards.

Leadership diversity in prosthodontics: Number and percentage of women chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The number and percentage of women chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this observational study was to calculate and compare the number and percentage of women and men chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A list of the dental journals, as ranked by impact factor, was obtained through the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2020 using the category "Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine." Of the 91 journals listed in the Journal Citation Report, 28 published scientific findings related to prosthodontics. The chief editors of these 28 journals were identified, and their gender was recorded. The percentage of women and men chief editors was compared with the percentage of women and men members of the International Association of Dental Research (IADR) and the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP) by using the binomial test (α=.05).

RESULTS

Of the 28 included journals, a total of 32 chief editors were identified; of whom, 4 (12.5%) were women and 28 (87.5%) were men. There were 7886 members of the IADR who reported their gender; of whom, 3448 (43.7%) were women. There were 906 members of the ICP; of whom, 248 (27.5%) were women. Compared with the percentage of women and men members of the IADR and ICP, women chief editors were significantly underrepresented (P<.001 and P=.039, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The number and percentage of women chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science is of concern.

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Considering that radiology is still a male-dominated specialty in which men make up more than two thirds of the workforce, this systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current role of women in radiological imaging, focusing on the main aspects such as career progression, leadership, academic practice, and perceived discrimination. Three electronic databases were searched up to 21 October 2020. To identify additional records, weekly automatic email alerts were set up on PubMed until December 2020 and reference lists of key studies and included papers were screened. Two reviewers independently performed the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was involved. Across the 61 included articles, women worked more often part-time and held fewer positions of power in hospitals, on editorial boards, and at the academic level (associate and full professors). Women were less often in relevant positions in scientific articles, had fewer publications, and had a lower H-index. Discrimination and sexual harassment were experienced by up to 40% and 47% of female radiologists, respectively. Our study highlights that women in radiology are still underrepresented and play a marginal role in the field, struggling to reach top and leading positions.

Representation of Women on Journal Editorial Boards Affiliated with the Association of American Medical College's Council of Faculty and Academic Societies

Background: The Council of Faculty and Academic Societies (CFAS) comprises representatives from medical schools and professional societies who guide the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Given the AAMC's stated mission to improve diversity and inclusion, we used gender-related representation on journal editorial boards as a proxy for evaluating CFAS member societies' commitments to equity. Methods: From screenshots of journal mastheads (n = 44) collected June 3-6, 2019, individuals were categorized by editorial position. Outcome measures included numbers of men and women among faculty, deans, department chairs, physicians, and nonphysicians on editorial boards. Outcomes were compared with 2018 AAMC and US Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce data. Results: Overall, the proportion of women among journal editors was 29.0% (364 of 1,255), range 0%-53.3%. This proportion was significantly less than the proportion of women among US medical school faculty and medical scientists. The lowest percentages of women were found among journals' section or topic editors (19.2%) and editors-in-chief (20.4%). Men were significantly more likely to be a professor or department chair and women were significantly more likely to be an associate professor or assistant professor, suggesting a bidirectional process between rank and editorial position that may inhibit the advancement of academic women, particularly women physicians. Conclusions: This study revealed disparities in the equitable representation of women among CFAS member-affiliated journal editors. Because CFAS member societies participate in a mutually beneficial relationship with the AAMC, they should strive to attain the equity goals set forth by the AAMC.

Gender diversity among editorial boards of radiology-related journals

PURPOSE

To investigate gender diversity in editorial boards among a wide range of radiology-related journals, the trend in time, and its association with the journal's impact factor (IF).

METHOD

The Journal Citation Reports website was searched for radiology-related journals journals with IF>2.0. Gender of the editor-in-chief and all editorial board members as listed on each journal's official website were determined. Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's rho test were used for statistical analyses. Current data were compared to historical data.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven radiology-related journals were included. The names of 4176 persons were extracted. A woman was in charge as the only editor-in-chief in 5 of 57 journals (8.8%). Median percentage of female editorial board members was 21.5% (range 3.2%-52.0%). Female editorial board members were in the majority in only two journals, with proportions of 51.4% and 52.0%. IFs between journals with female and male editors-in-chief were not significantly different (median 3.00, range 2.21-7.82 vs. median 3.31, range 2.02-10.98; P = 0.951). There was no significant association between percentage of female editorial board members and a journal's IF (Spearman's rho = -0.019, P = 0.889). The proportion of women has increased compared to historical data.

CONCLUSION

Women are underrepresented in a wide range of radiology-related journals. Comparison with historical data shows that the proportion of women on editorial boards has increased. Nevertheless, gender composition of the editorial board shows no association with IF. This suggests similar gender bias exists across a broad spectrum of high impact factor journals, with no added bias in journals with higher IF.

Are Women Disadvantaged in Academic Radiology?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in radiology. We sought to determine if 1) women are equitably represented in the senior author positions in radiology journals and 2) if women's contributions to the radiology literature and their individual productivity are proportional to their representation at senior academic rank.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The gender of 3,702 first and last authors listed for manuscripts published in nine high-impact American radiology journals was assessed between 2002-2017. For the same years, the gender composition of academic faculty and ranks based on AAMC data was queried. Statistical tests were employed to detect discrepancies and changes over time.

RESULTS

First authorship by women grew from 26.9% to 37.4% and from 15.7% to 23.9% as senior author between 2002-2017 (P<.0001). Although the index of manuscript productivity rate was nearly equal for men and women over the 16-year study period, women remained under-represented in senior radiology faculty rank over the same period.

CONCLUSIONS

Although women have proportionally increased their contribution to the radiology literature over the years, commensurate increased representation of women in senior authorship and faculty positions was not observed. Despite increased involvement of women in research over time, they remain disproportionately at junior faculty positions.

Gender and Invited Authorship in the Journal of Pediatric Urology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evolving role of gender in invited authorship and editorial positions in the Journal of Pediatric Urology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recorded editorial board members and first and senior authors for all editorials and invited commentaries for all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Urology from 2005 to August 2018. We also recorded first and senior authors for original research articles from selected years for comparison. Gender was confirmed for each individual by visiting institutional websites and performing internet searches. The same was done for the Societies for Pediatric Urology membership.

RESULTS

A total of 143 editorials and 162 invited commentaries were identified within the study period, with numbers increasing each year. Overall, these publications had 448 first and senior authorships, of which 10% were female. Of the 898 editorial board positions over the study period, 7% were held by females. The proportion of female authorships increased over time (P = .04), while the proportion of female board members did not (P = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

Female invited authorship has increased over the past 13 years in the Journal of Pediatric Urology. However, editorial board membership has lagged, indicating an opportunity for improvement.

Women in radiology: why is the pipeline still leaking and how can we plug it?

Today, >50% of medical students are women. This proportion, however, dramatically decreases throughout the higher levels of academia, a phenomenon described as the "leaky pipeline." This gender disparity is particularly pronounced in academic radiology, mirrored by a significant lack of women in editorial board positions, key authorship positions, and conference keynote lectures. The scientific invisibility is not only a key hurdle facing women in radiology, the lack of female role models and mentors in this context might also negatively affect career choices of young female radiologists thereby further widen the existing gender gap. In this article, the origins of the "leaky pipeline," the reasons for women's choice or rejection of careers in academic medicine, as well as solutions as to how the continued loss of a large part of the talent pool can be prevented, are discussed. Active monitoring and intervention are needed to identify problems, plan targeted actions, and evaluate their efficacy. Among those are measures that address a lack of support in the workplace, specific mentoring needs of women, flexible working hours and opportunities to align work and family, financial constraints, and support for returners after career breaks. Cooperative steps of politics and universities need to be taken that ensure a sustainable way forward to enable many talented women in radiology to achieve their full potential.

Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine

Women currently represent nearly half of all medical school graduates and assistant professors at academic institutions. Despite the large pool of women in the academic medicine pipeline, relatively few ascend to top leadership positions and women remain grossly underrepresented among full professors, permanent department chairs, and highest-level deans/interim deans. Considerable evidence suggests that the gender imbalance observed at the top tiers of academic medicine is, in part, due to gender differences in promotional rates, with women being promoted more slowly than their male colleagues. The well-documented gender gaps in publications, grant support, recognition awards, speaker invitations, and leadership positions contribute to the slow progression of women in medicine, as promotions committees rely heavily upon these traditional measures of academic success to select candidates for career advancement. Additionally, implicit biases, which have been shown to favor men over women in science and leadership, influence decision-making processes relevant to the promotion of women in academia. With the large number of highly qualified women entering medicine, it is imperative that organizations, academic institutions, and leaders in the medical community address the systemic inequities that are preventing half the workforce from reaching its full potential.

Gender Differences Among Academic Pediatric Radiology Faculty in the United States and Canada

OBJECTIVE

It is currently unknown whether efforts in recent years to create equal opportunities for female faculty in academic medicine have succeeded. We looked at faculty members in academic pediatric radiology departments across the United States and Canada to assess for evidence of gender disparities and differences in academic performance between males and females.

METHODS

The analysis included diagnostic radiology programs across the United States and Canada, as specified by the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA Online) and the Canadian Resident Matching Service website. The Scopus database was used to retrieve the H-index, number of publications, and number of citations for each faculty member. We examined the distribution of male and female faculty members across geographical regions, academic ranks, and leadership roles. Academic performance was also compared.

RESULTS

Across all regions and academic ranks, disparities exist between the number of male and female faculty members. The greatest disparity was found amongst the professor rank, where more than 70% of positions were occupied by males. Female professors were found to demonstrate similar levels of academic performance compared to their male counterparts, although this parity was not observed amongst assistant and associate professors.

CONCLUSION

Women occupied almost half (46.6%) of the total academic pediatric radiology workforce, despite having been previously shown to make up only 21% of radiologists. However, gender disparities currently exist among academic pediatric radiology faculty, with a significantly higher percentage of men in pediatric radiology faculty positions. Women, however, currently occupy a greater percentage of leadership positions compared to men, even though the majority of senior academic ranks are held by men.