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

Mind the gap: Gender disparities in authorship in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

INTRODUCTION

Research studies tracking gender and academic publication productivity in healthcare find gender disparities in research activity, publication, and authorship. Article authorship is one of the important metrics to track when seeking to understand gender inequality in academic career advancement. Research on gender disparities in publication productivity in the field of Medical Radiation Science (MRS) is very limited thus this study analyses and explains potential gender differences in article authorship and acceptance for publication in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences (JMIRS) for a 5-year period (2017-2021).

METHODS

Gender was inferred based on the author's first name or title (e.g., Mr, Mrs or Ms). For those who left the title blank or reported as 'Dr' or 'Prof,' a series of steps were taken to identify their gender. Where gender was impossible to ascribe, these authors were excluded. Descriptive and inferential statistics are reported for the study population. Descriptive and inferential statistics are used. Percentages of females are reported, and males constitute the other portion. Chi-square, slope analysis and z-tests were used to test hypotheses.

RESULTS

Results show that female authorship overall and in all categories of authorship placement (i.e., first, last and corresponding) increased over the timeframe reviewed. The percentage gain in the increase was higher than that for male authorship. However, male authorship started from a higher baseline in 2017 and has also increased year on year and overall, as well as in each placement category examined. More female authors were in the MRS sub-specialism Radiation Therapy (RT) than in the other MRS sub-specialisms. Analysis of the acceptance rate of articles with female authors shows a weak downward trend, and this may be related to higher submission and acceptance rates of articles by male authors during the same period.

CONCLUSION

Male authors are overrepresented in all categories, which raises questions about the persistence of gender disparities in JMIRS authorship and article acceptance. Positive trends in female authorship indicate progress, yet there is the persistence of the significant under-representation of women in the Medical Radiation Sciences workforce in academic publishing. Recruiting more males to address the gender imbalance in the profession should not be at the expense of females' career progression.

Are Academic Emergency Radiologists Systematically Disadvantaged Compared With Diagnostic Radiology Subspecialty Counterparts When It Comes to Promotion?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess academic rank differences between academic emergency and other subspecialty diagnostic radiologists.

METHODS

Academic radiology departments likely containing emergency radiology divisions were identified by inclusively merging three lists: Doximity's top 20 radiology programs, the top 20 National Institutes of Health-ranked radiology departments, and all departments offering emergency radiology fellowships. Within departments, emergency radiologists (ERs) were identified via website review. Each was then matched on career length and gender to a same-institutional nonemergency diagnostic radiologist.

RESULTS

Eleven of 36 institutions had no ERs or insufficient information for analysis. Among 283 emergency radiology faculty members from 25 institutions, 112 career length- and gender-matched pairs were included. Average career length was 16 years, and 23% were women. The mean h indices for ERs and non-ERs were 3.96 ± 5.60 and 12.81 ± 13.55, respectively (P < .0001). Non-ERs were twice as likely as ERs (0.21 versus 0.1) to be associate professors at h index < 5. Men had nearly 3 times the odds of advanced rank compared with women (odds ratio, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-8.26; P = .045). Radiologists with at least one additional degree had nearly 3 times the odds of advancing rank (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-7.40; P = .045). Each additional year of practice increased the odds of advancing rank by 14% (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.21; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Academic ERs are less likely to achieve advanced rank compared with career length- and gender-matched non-ERs, and this persists even after adjusting for h index, suggesting that academic ERs are disadvantaged in current promotions systems. Longer term implications for staffing and pipeline development merit further attention as do parallels to other nonstandard subspecialties such as community radiology.

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.

Mapping the knowledge domain of the evolution of emergy theory: a bibliometric approach

Bibliometric and visualization tools are effective for uncovering information contained in vast amounts of literature data. We retrieved publications from the Web of Science (2008-2020) and used the Statistical Analysis Toolkit for Informetrics (SATI) and CiteSpace to conduct a bibliometric analysis of emergy studies, review the focus of the studies, summarize current research, and identify academic trends. The SATI-based charts provided an overall description of yearly published articles, literature sources, high-frequency keywords, authors, institutions, and highly cited papers. CiteSpace was applied to determine the frontiers and hotspots of emergy theory. A dual-map analysis was used to reveal the connection between multiple disciplines. Keyword clustering analysis was performed to evaluate research hotspots. Moreover, burst analysis and timeline maps presented a holistic picture of cutting-edge issues and the evolutionary trajectory of emergy studies in recent years. An alluvial flow map analysis of the landmark literature depicted the transmission of knowledge in the emergy field. In addition, this article also evaluated the current status of collaborative research in emergy-related fields. The results can provide a reference for researchers to explore hot issues or target a specific field of study.