The evolving gender distribution in authorship over time in American surgery

Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Background

Health research that significantly impacts global clinical practice and policy is often published in high-impact factor (IF) medical journals. These outlets play a pivotal role in the worldwide dissemination of novel medical knowledge. However, researchers identifying as women and those affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been largely underrepresented in high-IF journals across multiple fields of medicine. To evaluate disparities in gender and geographical representation among authors who have published in any of five top general medical journals, we conducted scientometric analyses using a large-scale dataset extracted from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and Nature Medicine.

Methods

Author metadata from all articles published in the selected journals between 2007 and 2022 were collected using the DimensionsAI platform. The Genderize.io API was then utilized to infer each author's likely gender based on their extracted first name. The World Bank country classification was used to map countries associated with researcher affiliations to the LMIC or the high-income country (HIC) category. We characterized the overall gender and country income category representation across the medical journals. In addition, we computed article-level diversity metrics and contrasted their distributions across the journals.

Findings

We studied 151,536 authors across 49,764 articles published in five top medical journals, over a long period spanning 15 years. On average, approximately one-third (33.1%) of the authors of a given paper were inferred to be women; this result was consistent across the journals we studied. Further, 86.6% of the teams were exclusively composed of HIC authors; in contrast, only 3.9% were exclusively composed of LMIC authors. The probability of serving as the first or last author was significantly higher if the author was inferred to be a man (18.1% vs 16.8%, P < .01) or was affiliated with an institution in a HIC (16.9% vs 15.5%, P < .01). Our primary finding reveals that having a diverse team promotes further diversity, within the same dimension (i.e., gender or geography) and across dimensions. Notably, papers with at least one woman among the authors were more likely to also involve at least two LMIC authors (11.7% versus 10.4% in baseline, P < .001; based on inferred gender); conversely, papers with at least one LMIC author were more likely to also involve at least two women (49.4% versus 37.6%, P < .001; based on inferred gender).

Conclusion

We provide a scientometric framework to assess authorship diversity. Our research suggests that the inclusiveness of high-impact medical journals is limited in terms of both gender and geography. We advocate for medical journals to adopt policies and practices that promote greater diversity and collaborative research. In addition, our findings offer a first step towards understanding the composition of teams conducting medical research globally and an opportunity for individual authors to reflect on their own collaborative research practices and possibilities to cultivate more diverse partnerships in their work.

Representation of Women Authorship in the Top 5 Transplantation Journals in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States, only 13% of transplant surgeons are women. We evaluated gender distribution and trends of American authorship over the past 10 y in high-impact solid organ transplantation journals to gain insight into the current status of women authorship in transplantation.

METHODS

Original articles from 2012 to 2021 from the 5 highest-impact solid organ transplantation journals were extracted from Scopus. First and last author's gender was predicted using Genderize.io. Data of first and last authors, article type and topic, location, citation, and funding metrics were analyzed. Chi-square, logistic regression, and trend tests were performed where appropriate. Statistical significance was set at <0.05.

RESULTS

Women's first and last authorship increased over time among all journals. There was an increase in women first authors in the American Journal of Transplantation and in senior women authors in Liver Transplantation and Transplantation . Significant differences in gender authorship in lung, intestine, pancreas, general, and islet cell transplantation were found. Women's last authorship was associated with 1.69 higher odds of having a woman first author when adjusting for year and journal. There was an increase in the rate of women's first and last author collaborations over the years. Women last authors had 1.5 higher odds of being funded by the National Institutes of Health over the years.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in women transplant surgeons and physicians, the gap in women authorship in transplantation persists. Women's last authorship was associated with higher odds of having a woman first author, pointing to the importance of mentorship for women joining the transplant academia.

The power of partnership: Exploring collaboration dynamics in U.S. transplant research

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration is one of the hallmarks of academic research. This study analyzes collaboration patterns in U.S. transplant research, examining publication trends, productive institutions, co-authorship networks, and citation patterns in high-impact transplant journals.

METHODS

4,265 articles published between 2012 and 2021 were analyzed using scientometric tools, logistic regression, VantagePoint software, and Gephi software for network visualization.

RESULTS

16,003 authors from 1,011 institutions and 59 countries were identified, with Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and University of Pennsylvania contributing the most papers. Odds of international collaboration significantly increased over time (OR 1.03; p ​= ​0.040), while odds of citation in single-institution collaborations decreased (OR 0.99; p ​= ​0.016). Five major scientific communities and central institutions (Harvard University and University of Pittsburgh) connecting them were identified, revealing interconnected research clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration enhances knowledge exchange and research productivity, with an increasing trend of institutional and international collaboration in U.S. transplant research. Understanding this community is essential for promoting research impact and forming strategic partnerships.

Gender disparity trends in genitourinary oncology academic publishing over the past 3 decades: A bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine gender disparities in genitourinary (GU) oncology academic publishing over the past three decades.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a bibliometric analysis of eight academic journals featuring GU oncology research articles: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, European Urology, Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. After selecting four time points (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020), we recorded the gender of the first and senior authors and investigated their association with independent variables including publication year, research field, and geographic continent. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 14,786 articles were included in our analyses. Females comprised 25.7% of first and 18.1% of senior authors. Compared to 1990, there was a trend of progressively higher female first author (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.27-1.69] in 2000; 2.28 [95% CI 2.00-2.59] in 2010; 3.10 [95% CI 2.71-3.55] in 2020) and senior author positions (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.05-1.45] in 2000; 1.67 [95% CI 1.45-1.93] in 2010; 2.55 [95% CI 2.20-2.96] in 2020). Compared to GU oncology, non-GU oncology articles were more likely to have female first (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.38-2.86) or senior authors (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.35-2.91). Articles from Asia (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.51), Africa (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.91), and international collaborations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76) had a lower proportion of female first authors compared to North America. First authors were significantly more likely to be female when senior authors were also female (OR 2.45, 95% CI 2.23-2.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the bridging trend demonstrated, GU oncology remains a male-predominant discipline. Female leadership and mentorship are pivotal in achieving gender parity in the academic medicine community.

Surgical Fellowships Demonstrate Variable Improvement in Gender Representation Despite Greater Female Enrollment in General Surgery Residencies

OBJECTIVE

Despite increasing female representation in General Surgery (GS) residency training programs, proportional improvement of female enrollment in surgical fellowships has yet to be quantified. We aimed to assess if female enrollment in surgical fellowships has improved at an equivalent rate in 7 different surgical fellowship options after GS.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data were collected from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) resources which disclosed active resident and fellow characteristics. Gender identification was self-reported by residents to ACGME. Gender data collected for GS programs and surgical fellowships including Surgical Critical Care, Colon, and Rectal Surgery, Pediatric Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Thoracic Surgery, and Vascular Surgery from annual reports. Pearson Chi-squared analysis was conducted between GS residencies and fellowship programs in their corresponding years using Stata15 software.

RESULTS

In all years examined, fellowships in Vascular, Thoracic, and Plastic Surgery had significantly lower female enrollment in proportion to the number of female GS residents (p = <0.02). In all years examined, Surgical Oncology, Pediatric, Colon and Rectal, and Surgical Critical Care had female enrollment that was, at minimum, proportional to female enrollment in GS residency, indicating equitable gender representation. Surgical Oncology (2016), Pediatric (2020) and Surgical Critical Care (2016) fellowships each had 1 year where female enrollment was significantly higher than General Surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The enrollment of female surgeons in Plastic, Vascular, and Thoracic Surgery fellowships has not improved proportionally despite an increase in female GS residents. These results suggest the possibility of persistent factors that deter female enrollment in Vascular, Thoracic and Plastic Surgery fellowships that are not present to the same degree in fields with equitable fellowship female enrollment. Female representation in surgical fellowships is vital to improving gender diversity in all disciplines of surgery, particularly academic surgery.