Female Authorship and Ophthalmology Journal Editorial Board Membership Trends Over the Last Decade, 2012-2021

A New Era of Ophthalmology Leadership? A Descriptive and Comparative Analysis of Ophthalmology Department Chairs in 2024

PURPOSE

To (1) characterize and analyze the demographics and scholarly achievements of United States (US) academic ophthalmology department chairs, and (2) to elucidate trends in the academic and demographic profiles of newly hired department chairs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Online search of publicly available resources conducted January 1, 2024.

PATIENT OR STUDY POPULATION

One hundred seven ophthalmology chairs of accredited US departments.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Department chair demographic and academic data.

RESULTS

Of 107 chairs analyzed, 83% (89/107) are male. The mean age of chairs is 60.9 ± 7.9 years and the mean age at appointment is 51.9 ± 7.6 years. There has been significant turnover in department chairs recently, with 47 (44%) chairs having been newly appointed in the past 7 years. Approximately 40% (n = 41) of current chairs completed ≥1 component of their medical training at the program where they are currently chair. Approximately one-third (33/107 [31%]) of current chairs earned an additional graduate degree, most frequently a PhD (17/107 [16%]), MBA (10/107 [8%]), and MS (8/107 [4%]). More than 96% (n = 103) of chairs completed a clinical fellowship, often in vitreoretinal surgery (30/107 [28%]), cornea (27/107 [25%]), or glaucoma (24/107 [22%]). The average number of peer-reviewed publications among chairs is 214.9 ± 294.7 (range 0-1901), and the mean h-index is 35.0 ± 25.4 (range 0-147). When comparing profiles of newly appointed chairs in the past 7 years to chairs appointed before 2017, there was not a statistically significant difference in gender distribution (21% female vs 13% female, respectively, P = .276). Newly hired chairs were significantly older at the time of their appointment to chair (54 years vs 50 years, respectively, P = .008) and averaged significantly more years from residency completion to appointment as chair (23 years vs 19 years, respectively, P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Ophthalmology department chairs remain predominantly fellowship-trained males who have frequently trained at the institution they currently chair. Newly hired chairs have accumulated more experience before their appointment, starting the role later in their careers, with implications for the frequency of future chair turnover. While females compose a higher proportion of newly hired chairs in the past 7 years compared with previous periods of time, females remain underrepresented in ophthalmology chair positions.

Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals

Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.

The status of women in academic ophthalmology: Authorship of papers, presentations, and academic promotions

As the field of ophthalmology has evolved in the last several decades, so has the gender distribution of ophthalmologists. We conducted a narrative review to further characterise the status of women in the realm of publication, presentations, editorial positions, grants, academic promotion, and financial compensation. While the proportion of women publishing, presenting, and filling academic and editorial roles has increased over time, it still does not match that of men. Women are more likely to be first authors instead of senior authors, have lower average h-indices, and are awarded fewer grants. The magnitude of some of these differences is smaller when adjusted for women's shorter career duration on average. Despite increased representation of women in ophthalmology, women continue to receive less compensation for the same work. This review highlights that more can be done to improve gender parity in ophthalmology.