Surgical research journals - Under review: An assessment of diversity among editorial boards and outcomes of peer review

Gender representation trends in cardiothoracic surgery journal editorial boards

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to characterize chronologic trends of gender composition of the editorial boards of major cardiothoracic surgery journals in the current era.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed of gender representation in editorial board members of 2 North American cardiothoracic surgery journals from 2008 to 2023. Member names and roles were collected from available monthly issues. Validated software programming was used to classify gender. The annual proportion of women representation was compared to the thoracic surgery workforce.

RESULTS

During the study period, 558 individuals (3641 names) were identified, 14.3% of whom were women. The total number of editorial board women increased for both journals. The proportion of women also increased from 2.5% (3 out of 118) in 2008 to 17.8% (71 out of 399) in 2023 (P < .001), exceeding the percentage of women in the thoracic surgery workforce, which increased from 3.8% in 2007 to 8.3% in 2021 (P < .001). The average duration of participation was longer for men than for women (53.8 vs 44.5 months; P = .01). Women in editorial board senior roles also increased from 3.3% (1 out of 30) in 2008 to 28.6% (42 out of 147) in 2023 (P < .001), almost triple the increase in nondesignated roles from 2.3% (2 out of 88) in 2008 to 11.5% (29 out of 252) in 2023 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, the appointment of women to the editorial boards of high-impact cardiothoracic surgery journals and senior roles have proportionally exceeded the overall representation of women in cardiothoracic surgery. These findings indicate progress in inclusive efforts and offer insight toward reducing academic gender disparities.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in medical education journals: An evaluation of editorial board composition

PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE

As editorial boards (EBs) of medical education journals (MEJs) hold substantial control over framing current medical education scholarship, we aimed to evaluate representation of women as well as geographic and socioeconomic diversity on EBs of these journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In our cross-sectional study, Composite Editorial Board Diversity Score (CEBDS) was used to evaluate diversity at gender, geographic region, and country income level. Websites of MEJs were screened for relevant information. Job titles were categorized into 3 editorial roles and data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.

RESULTS

Out of 42 MEJs, 19 journals (45.2%) were published from the Global South. Among 1219 editors, 57.5% were men. Out of 46 editors in chief (EICs), 34.7% were women, and 60.9% were based in high income countries. No EIC belonged to low-income country. The proportion of female advisory board members was found to be positively correlated with the presence of a female EIC. Moreover, 2 journals achieved the maximum CEBDS. All editors belonged to the same World Bank income group and geographic region for 12 and 8 journals respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to allow a truly global perspective in medical education to prevail, diversity and inclusivity on these journals become important parameters to address. Thus, promoting policies centered on improving diversity in all aspects should become a top priority.

Implementation of a novel peer review academy by Surgery and the Association of Women Surgeons

BACKGROUND

A novel Peer Review Academy was developed as a collaborative effort between the Association of Women Surgeons and the journal Surgery to provide formal training in peer review. We aimed to describe the outcomes of this initiative using a mixed methods approach.

METHODS

We developed a year-long curriculum with monthly online didactic sessions. Women surgical trainee mentees were paired 1:1 with rotating women surgical faculty mentors for 3 formal peer review opportunities. We analyzed pre-course and post-course surveys to evaluate mentee perceptions of the academy and assessed changes in mentee review quality over time with blinded scoring of unedited reviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted upon course completion.

RESULTS

Ten women surgical faculty mentors and 10 women surgical trainees from across the United States and Canada successfully completed the Peer Review Academy. There were improvements in the mentees' confidence for all domains of peer review evaluated, including overall confidence in peer review, study novelty, study design, analytic approach, and review formatting (all, P ≤ .02). The mean score of peer review quality increased over time (59.2 ± 10.8 vs 76.5 ± 9.4; P = .02). In semi-structured interviews, important elements were emphasized across the Innovation, Implementation Process, and Individuals Domains, including the values of (1) a comprehensive approach to formal peer review education; (2) mentoring relationships between women faculty and resident surgeons; and (3) increasing diversity in the scientific peer review process.

CONCLUSION

Our novel Peer Review Academy was feasible on a national scale, resulting in significant qualitative and quantitative improvements in women surgical trainee skillsets, and has the potential to grow and diversify the existing peer review pool.

Preserving the Pipeline of Surgeon Scientists: The Role of a Structured Research Curriculum

INTRODUCTION

With shrinking National Institute of Health support, increased clinical demands, and less time for research training during residency, the future of surgeon scientists is in jeopardy. We evaluate the role of a structured research curriculum and its association with resident academic productivity.

METHODS

Categorical general surgery residents who matched between 2005 and 2019 at our institution were analyzed (n = 104). An optional structured research curriculum, including a mentor program, grant application support, didactic seminars, and travel funding was implemented in 2016. Academic productivity, including the number of publications and citations, was compared between residents who started in or after 2016 (postimplementation, n = 33) and those before 2016 (preimplementation, n = 71). Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U test, multivariable logistic regression, and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed.

RESULTS

The postimplementation group had more female (57.6% versus 31.0%, P = 0.010), and nonwhite (36.4% versus 5.6%, P < 0.001) residents and had more publications and citations at the start of residency (P < 0.001). Postimplementation residents were more likely to choose academic development time (ADT) (66.7% versus 23.9%, P < 0.001) and had higher median (IQR) number of publications (2.0 (1.0-12.5) versus 1.0 (0-5.0), P = 0.028) during residency. After adjusting the number of publications at the start of residency, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the postimplementation group was five times more likely to choose ADT (95% CI 1.7-14.7, P = 0.04). Further, inverse probability treatment weighting revealed an increase of 0.34 publications per year after implementing the structured research curriculum among residents who chose ADT (95% CI 0.1-0.9, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

A structured research curriculum was associated with increased academic productivity and surgical resident participation in dedicated ADT. A structured research curriculum is effective and should be integrated into residency training to support the next generation of academic surgeons.

The History of Women Leaders in Colon and Rectal Surgery

Women started to enter the specialty of colon and rectal surgery in the early 1970s. However, it was rare for a woman to hold a leadership position in the specialty before 2000. Since then, considerable progress has been made, although the percentage of women leaders does not yet approach the percentage of women in the field. This article focuses on the history of women in leadership positions in the American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Research Foundation, and the Association of Program Directors in Colon and Rectal Surgery as well the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum and academic departments. Early women leaders shared some common attributes that have contributed to their success. This article reviews some barriers to increasing the number of women in leadership positions; most will be reviewed in other sections in this issue.

Participant perspectives on a department of surgery faculty mentoring program

BACKGROUND

Mentorship in academic medicine serves to promote career advancement and job satisfaction. This study was to evaluate the initial results of a faculty mentorship program in an academic Department of Surgery.

METHODS

A faculty mentorship program was initiated in July 2015 with 63 participants. Junior faculty mentees (n = 35) were assigned senior faculty mentors (n = 28). After three years, an electronic survey was administered and the results analyzed.

RESULTS

Response rate was 67% (n = 42). 34 (81%) respondents had met with their mentor/mentee at least once. Topics discussed included: research (76%), leadership (52%), work-life balance (45%), and promotion (5%). Mentees endorsed achieving promotion (n = 2), increasing research productivity (n = 2), and obtaining national committee positions (n = 2). 61% of mentors and 53% of mentees felt they benefitted personally from the program. Actionable improvements to the mentorship program were identified including more thoughtful pairing of mentors and mentees with similar research interests.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants felt the mentorship program was beneficial. Further investigation regarding the optimization of the mentor-mentee pairing is warranted to maximize the benefits from structured mentorship in academic surgery.

Historical determinants of neurosurgical inequities in Africa and the African diaspora: A review and analysis of coloniality

The movement to decolonize global health challenges clinicians and researchers of sub-disciplines, like global neurosurgery, to redefine their field. As an era of racial reckoning recentres the colonial roots of modern health disparities, reviewing the historical determinants of these disparities can constructively inform decolonization. This article presents a review and analysis of the historical determinants of neurosurgical inequities as understood by a group of scholars who share Sub-Saharan African descent. Vignettes profiling the colonial histories of Cape Verde, Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Brazil, and Haiti illustrate the role of the colonial legacy in the currently unmet need for neurosurgical care in each of these nations. Following this review, a bibliographic lexical analysis of relevant terms then introduces a discussion of converging historical themes, and practical suggestions for transforming global neurosurgery through the decolonial humanism promulgated by anti-racist practices and the dialogic frameworks of conscientization.

The measurable impact of a diversity, equity, and inclusion editor on diversifying content, authorship, and peer review participation in the Journal of Vascular Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Women and minorities remain under-represented in academic vascular surgery. This under-representation persists in the editorial peer review process which may contribute to publication bias. In 2020, the Journal of Vascular Surgery (JVS) addressed this by diversifying the editorial board and creating a new Editor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The impact of a DEI editor on modifying the output of JVS has not yet been examined. We sought to determine the measurable impact of a DEI editor on diversifying perspectives represented in the journal, and on contributing to changes in the presence of DEI subject matter across published journal content.

METHODS

The authorship and content of published primary research articles, editorials, and special articles in JVS were examined from November 2019 through July 2022. Publications were examined for the year prior to initiation of the DEI Editor (pre), the year following (post), and from September 2021 to July 2022, accounting for the average 47-week time period from submission to publication in JVS (lag). Presence of DEI topics and women authorship were compared using χ² tests.

RESULTS

During the period examined, the number of editorials, guidelines, and other special articles dedicated to DEI topics in the vascular surgery workforce or patient population increased from 0 in the year prior to 4 (16.7%) in the 11-month lag period. The number of editorials, guidelines, and other special articles with women as first or senior authors nearly doubled (24% pre, 44.4% lag; P = .31). Invited commentaries and discussions were increasingly written by women as the study period progressed (18.7% pre, 25.9% post, 42.6% lag; P = .007). The number of primary research articles dedicated to DEI topics increased (5.6% pre, 3.3% post, 8.1% lag; P = .007). Primary research articles written on DEI topics were more likely to have women first or senior authors than non-DEI specific primary research articles (68.0% of all DEI vs 37.5% of a random sampling of non-DEI primary research articles; P < .001). The proportion of distinguished peer reviewers increased (from 2.8% in 2020 to 21.9% in 2021; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a DEI editor to JVS significantly impacted the diversification of topics, authorship of editorials, special articles, and invited commentaries, as well as peer review participation. Ongoing efforts are needed to diversify subject matter and perspective in the vascular surgery literature and decrease publication bias.

The persistent publication glass ceiling: an analysis of gender authorship trends in ANZ Journal of Surgery

BACKGROUND

women historically have been underrepresented in the field of academic publishing. This study aims to analyse ANZJS gender authorship trends and compare this to the proportion of women in surgery in Australia/NZ using RACS demographic data to provide parity context.

METHODS

This is a bibliographic gender analysis of ANZJS publications from 2002 to 2021; articles were analysed using a web-based application classifying gender from names.

RESULTS

There were 7265 articles analysed. Gender was predicted for 87% (6303/7265) first-, 89% (5847/6439) last- and 98% (323/329) editorial first-authors. There were 1269/6303 (20%) women first-authors, this increased from 14% to 27% (p = 0.001) over time. Eleven percent (654/5847) of last-authors were women, this proportion remained unchanged (p = 0.09). Eleven (3%) editorials were first-authored by women, with 3/329 (1%) as solo-author.

CONCLUSION

Numbers of women authors remain low in ANZJS, although the percentage of women first-authors has increased over time. However, if being last-author serves as a measure of senior academic supervision, and, editorial authorship shows leadership in one's field, women authors in these positions, in ANZJS, represent a small minority.

Using the H-index as a factor in the promotion of surgical faculty

Introduction

Academic productivity is an important determinant for promotion. However, the measurement of academic productivity is ill-defined. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the academic productivity at the time of promotions at our institution.

Methods

We reviewed the data of 33 faculty from Department of Surgery at our institution who were promoted from 2006 to 2021. Gender, academic productivity at hiring, and each promotion were obtained. Academic productivity was assessed by bibliometric indices including total number of publications and citations, and H-index, which were obtained from Web of Science. T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test and linear regression analysis were used to assess the association of H-index with length of promotion and gender. P < 0.050 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The medians (interquartile ranges) of indexes at hiring, at promotions from assistant professors to associate professors, and from associate professors to full professors were 6.0 (1.5–9.5), 11.0 (9.0–18.0) and 17.0 (9.0–23.0) respectively. A simple linear regression showed significant correlation between the length of promotion to associate professors and their H-indexes at hiring. (F (1, 27) = 10.55, p = 0.003, R² of 0.281.) There was no statistical significance in the difference of H-indexes at promotions between male and female faculty.

Conclusion

At our institution, the median H-indexes at the time of promotions from assistant professor to associate professor and from associate professor to full professor are 11.0 and 17.0. Using the H-index as an objective measure can be a useful tool to junior surgical faculty as reference for applying promotion.