Gender disparity in medicine and where are we now in emergency medicine?

Gender Inequality in Leadership Positions in Neurology and Neurosurgery Journals and Societies

OBJECTIVE

Gender inequalities persist in several areas of medicine, despite the growing number of female doctors and medical students. In this study, we aimed to reveal the gender inequality in the top journals' editorial boards and national societies' leadership positions in the field of neurology and neurosurgery.

METHOD

This is a cross-sectional study that uses public information accessed through the internet via journals' and academic societies' public websites. The medical journals are selected and included according to their h5-index in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. We evaluated the gender composition of the editorial boards and academic societies' leadership positions.

RESULTS

The female editorial board member ratio was 44.0% in the top 10 neurology journals. However, this ratio was significantly decreased to 29.7% in the other journals(P < 0.001). The top 10 neurosurgery journals had a female editorial board member ratio of 13.7%. This ratio was significantly decreased to 5.3% in the other 10 journals with lower h5-index(P < 0.001). A significantly lower number of female individuals are present in the editorial boards of the neurosurgery journals than in neurology(P < 0.001). The female president or delegate ratio was 19.3% in the World Federation of Neurology-affiliated countries, and it was 4% in the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies-affiliated countries.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there is a significant gender inequality among editorial board members. The position of neurosurgical societies and journals is far different than the field of neurology. Furthermore, these findings should be evaluated as a continuum of the gender inequality in the professional societies' executive boards and delegates representing the national academical community.

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 distribution of editorial board members in critical care journals: Assessment of gender parity

PURPOSE

To reveal factors related to gender parity on editorial boards of critical care journals indexing in SCI-E.

METHODS

The genders were defined according to data obtained from journals' websites between 01-30 September 2022. Publisher properties and journal metrics were analyzed by using Chi-square, Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Spearman's correlation coefficient. Logistic regression analysis was used to reveal independent factors.

RESULTS

Women's representation on editorial boards was 23.6%. The USA (OR, 0.04, 95% CI, 0.01-0.15, p < 0.001) and Netherlands (OR, 0.04, 95% CI, 0.01-0.16, p < 0.001) as publisher's countries, an IF >5 (OR, 0.25, 95% CI, 0.17-0.38, p < 0.001), publication duration <30 years (OR, 0.09, 95% CI, 0.06-0.12, p < 0.001), multidisciplinary perspective of editorial policy (OR, 0.46, 95% CI, 0.32-0.65, p < 0.001), journals categorized also in nursing (OR, 0.38, 95% CI, 0.22-0.66, p < 0.001), and being a section editor (OR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.32-0.74, p = 0.001) were associated with gender parity. Europe as a journal continent (OR, 36.71, 95% CI, 8.39-160.53, p < 0.001) was related to gender disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

Further efforts are needed to expand diversity policies in critical care medicine.

Trends in female first-author abstracts at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, 1990-2020

OBJECTIVES

To describe first author gender differences and characteristics in 1) Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting abstracts and 2) resulting manuscript publications.

METHODS

We performed cross-sectional evaluation of SAEM abstracts from 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, compiling and reviewing a random sample of 100 abstracts for each year (total n = 700 abstracts). We documented abstract characteristics, including first author gender, and used the 2020 SAEM scoring rubric. We then searched PubMed to identify manuscript publications resulting from abstracts from 1990 to 2015 (n = 600). Finally, among abstracts that resulted in manuscript publication, we identified first and last author gender on both the abstracts and the resulting publication.

RESULTS

Overall, 29% (202/695; n = 5 missing gender) of abstracts had female first authors. Female first authors increased over time (e.g., 17% in 1990 to 35% in 2020). Abstract quality scores were similar (both median [interquartile range] of 11 ([9-12]). Overall, 42% (n = 254/600) of abstracts resulted in a manuscript publication, 39% (n = 65/202) with female and 44% (n = 189/493) with male first authors (p = 0.26). The median time (IQR) from abstract to manuscript publication was longer for abstracts with female first authors vs. those with male first authors (2 [1-3] years and 1 [1, 2] years, p < 0.02); 77% and 78% of publications resulting from abstracts with female and male first authors, respectively, had the same first author. Female first author abstracts more often converted to a male first author manuscript publication (18%, n = 12/65) compared to male first author abstracts converting to female first author publications (7%, n = 14/189).

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of SAEM abstracts, and manuscript publications resulting from them, had female first authors. Abstracts with female first authors took longer to achieve manuscript publication, and almost a fifth of female first author abstracts resulted in male first author manuscript publication.