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

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Research Gender Disparities in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Gender disparities have long existed in radiology. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted research activities worldwide and have impacted gender disparities across medical specialties. This study investigates the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender disparities in radiology academic authorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted using data from 110 843 global and 23 977 US radiology articles. The gender of authors was determined using an automated gender inference tool. Descriptive statistics were applied to explore authorship changes overall globally, in the US as well as across countries and states.

RESULTS

Female first-authorship increased globally from 16.9% to 17.6% (p < 0.001), and in the US, from 19.0% to 19.6% (p = 0.19) in the peri-COVID period. The combined female percentage increased from 19.7% to 20.0% globally (p = 0.021), and from 20.2% to 21.1% in the US (p = 0.006). Country-level analysis revealed significant increases in female authorship in Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, France, India, and Japan, while New Zealand demonstrated a decrease in female authorship. In the US, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Ohio experienced increases in female authorship, whereas South Carolina demonstrated a decrease in female authorship.

CONCLUSION

In contrast with other medical fields, the study demonstrates that radiology experienced a slight increase in female authorship in radiology research globally and in the US during the COVID period. While the pandemic may have influenced these findings, further research is needed to establish regional causal relationships and identify best practices for promoting gender equity in radiology research.

Mapping gender and geographic diversity in artificial intelligence research: Editor representation in leading computer science journals

Background

The growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, particularly radiology, requires its unbiased and fair development and implementation, starting with the constitution of the scientific community.

Purpose

To examine the gender and country distribution among academic editors in leading computer science and AI journals.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study analyzed the gender and country distribution among editors-in-chief, senior, and associate editors in all 75 Q1 computer science and AI journals in the Clarivate Journal Citations Report and SCImago Journal Ranking 2022. Gender was determined using an open-source algorithm (Gender Guesser™), selecting the gender with the highest calibrated probability.

Result

Among 4,948 editorial board members, women were underrepresented in all positions (editors-in-chief/senior editors/associate editors: 14%/18%/17%). The proportion of women correlated positively with the SCImago Journal Rank indicator (ρ = 0.329; p = .004). The U.S., the U.K., and China comprised 50% of editors, while Australia, Finland, Estonia, Denmark, the Netherlands, the U.K., Switzerland, and Slovenia had the highest women editor representation per million women population.

Conclusion

Our results highlight gender and geographic disparities on leading computer science and AI journal editorial boards, with women being underrepresented in all positions and a disproportional relationship between the Global North and South.

Towards equality: gender representation at the Royal College of Radiologists' Annual Scientific Meeting 2014-2021

Background: Conferences facilitate career advancement, but gender imbalances in public fora may negatively impact both women and men, and society. We aimed to describe the gender distribution of presenters at the UK's 2014-2021 Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) Annual Scientific Meeting. Methods: We extracted data on presenter name, role and session type from meeting programmes. We classified gender as male or female using names, records or personal pronouns, accepting the limitations of these categories. We classified roles by prestige: lead, other (speakers and workshop faculty), proffered paper or poster presenters. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between gender and binary outcomes using logistic regression.  Results: Women held 1,059 (37.5%) of 2,826 conference roles and presented 9/27 keynotes. Compared to men, women were less likely to hold other roles such as speakers and workshop faculty (OR 0.72 95% CI 0.61-0.83), and more likely to present posters (OR 1.49 95% CI 1.27-1.76). There were 60 male-only and eight women-only multi-presenter sessions. Sessions led by women had higher proportions of women speakers. The odds of roles being held by women increased during online meetings during COVID in 2020 and 2021 (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36-1.91) compared to earlier years. Conclusion: The proportion of women presenters and keynote speakers reflects that of RCR membership, but not of wider society. Disadvantage starts from the earliest career stages, prejudicing career opportunities. Efforts to improve inclusion and diversity are needed; focusing on lead roles and hybrid online/in-person formats may accelerate change.

Exploring Diversity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Journal Editorial Boards

OBJECTIVE

Despite increasing diversity in medical school entrants, disparities exist in academic leadership. This study sought to examine the proportion of women and visible minorities (VMs) among editorial board members (EBMs) of otolaryngology journals.

METHODS

Two reviewers collected journal, editorial board, and editor-in-chief characteristics using journal mastheads or official websites. Gender and VM representation on editorial boards and factors associated with increased representation were investigated.

RESULTS

Forty-one journals were explored, from January to April 2022. Of 2128 EBMs, 663 (31.3%) were VMs and 551 (25.9%) were women. Editor-in-chief roles were held by 12 (25%) VM individuals and 3 (6.2%) women. Gender differences in the distribution of editorial board positions were found (P < .001); women had higher representation as associate editors (24.5%, n = 551 vs 15.4, n = 1577%) and deputy/managing editors (2.2%, n = 551 vs 0.4%, n = 1577), while men were more represented as editor-in-chief (2.9%, n = 1577 vs 0.5%, n = 551). Similar VM representation existed between genders (31.0% male; 31.6% women) (P = .80). Journal impact factor quartile and gender were significantly correlated (P < .001); a higher proportion of women were represented in the first (27.0% vs 24.5%) and fourth (12.0% vs 4.9%) quartile. No significant factors were identified for higher women's editorial board representation. Larger editorial board size (P = .002) and Asian/South American journals (P = .003 to P < .001) had significantly higher representation of VMs.

CONCLUSION

Women and VMs are underrepresented in high-ranking editorial positions. Diversity in editorial boards is needed to ensure fair and balanced journal reviews and equity within otolaryngology.

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.

Towards equality: gender representation at the Royal College of Radiologists’ Annual Scientific Meeting 2014-2021

Background: Conferences facilitate career advancement, but gender imbalances in public fora may negatively impact both women and men, and society. We aimed to describe the gender distribution of presenters at the UK’s 2014-2021 Royal College of Radiologists’ (RCR) Annual Scientific Meeting. Methods: We extracted data on presenter name, role and session type from meeting programmes. We classified gender as male or female using names, records or personal pronouns, accepting the limitations of these categories. We classified roles by prestige: lead, other (speakers and workshop faculty), proffered paper or poster presenters. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between gender and binary outcomes using logistic regression.  Results: Women held 1,059 (37.5%) of 2,826 conference roles and presented 9/27 keynotes. Compared to men, women were less likely to hold other roles such as speakers and workshop faculty (OR 0.72 95% CI 0.61-0.83), and more likely to present posters (OR 1.49 95% CI 1.27-1.76). There were 60 male-only and eight women-only multi-presenter sessions. Sessions led by women had higher proportions of women speakers. The odds of roles being held by women increased during online meetings during COVID (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36-1.91). Conclusion: The proportion of women presenters and keynote speakers reflects that of RCR membership, but not of the patient population. Disadvantage starts from the earliest career stages, prejudicing career opportunities. Efforts to improve inclusion and diversity are needed; focusing on lead roles and hybrid online/in-person formats may accelerate change.

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.

Where are female editors from low-income and middle-income countries? A comprehensive assessment of gender, geographical distribution and country’s income group of editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals

Objective

We aimed to examine the gender, geographical region and income group of the country of affiliation for editorial leadership (eg, editor-in-chief, section editor, associate editor) and advisors (eg, editorial board members) in top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals.

Methods

A list of Scopus indexed, Q1 (25% top) rehabilitation and sports science journals, available under four different journal categories, was prepared based on the data from the Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) website. The information for editorial leadership and advisors for these journals was obtained and their gender was determined through a multistep process. The country of affiliation of editorial leadership and advisors was used to categorise them to World Bank’s different geographical regions and income groups (for countries).

Results

There were 7248 editors (35.7% leadership and 64.3% advisors) across 113 rehabilitation and sports science journals. Of all editors, 1792 (24.7%) were women. Women represented 24.5% of editorial leadership positions, 24.8% of advisory roles and 10.4% of editors-in-chief. Editors from South Asia (0.5%) and sub-Saharan Africa (0.6%) had the least representation, while those affiliated with institutions from high-income countries represented 93.5% of leadership roles and 93.1% of advisory positions. Moreover, editors affiliated with institutions from North America occupied almost half of all editorial roles.

Conclusions

Women and researchers affiliated with institutions from low-income and middle-income countries are under-represented on the editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals indexed in the Scopus database. Editors are responsible for promoting research in their specific field, and therefore, the current leadership in rehabilitation and sports science journals should consider diversifying their editorial boards by providing equitable opportunities to women and researchers from a broader geographical distribution.

Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

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.