Gender representation within radiology conferences in the UK in 2021

Gender and Racial Diversity in Relation to Publication Rates at the Canadian Association of Radiology Annual Scientific Meetings 2016 to 2019

Purpose: To determine the overall rate of publication of abstracts presented at the 2016 to 2019 Canadian Association of Radiology Annual Scientific Meeting (CAR ASM), with an emphasis on gender and racial diversity. Methods: Abstracts from publicly available past programs were analyzed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for publication status, time to publication (TTP), author affiliation, and journal of publication. Past programs were used to determine the abstract format, abstract category, and the subspecialty and imaging modalities explored. First author demographics were identified using the Namsor software. Results: Four hundred and sixty-two abstract presentations were included in the analysis with an overall conversion rate of 34.63%. Two hundred and ninety-two (63.2%) of the first-authors were male-identified, of which 104 (35.62%) were published. In contrast, 170 (36.8%) were female-identified, of which 56 (32.94%) were published. Additionally, 50.87% first-authors were identified as white, 38.31% asian, 6.06% black, 4.76% latino, and 0.00% indigenous. While diversity was seen in demographics, 60% of publications had a white first-author. The following conversion rates were found: 40.85% white, 30.51% asian, 25% black, and 13.64% latino. In terms of abstract category, radiologist-in-training had the highest conversion rate at 60.71%. The median TTP was 14 months, with an average impact factor of 5.26. Conclusion: Less than half of abstracts at the 2016 to 2019 CAR ASM were published and both gender and racial disparities in relation to conversion rates were identified. Measures to improve publication rates and overall diversity in Radiology are warranted.

Unsolicited Invitations to Scientific Meetings: Radiologists' Experience

OBJECTIVE

Unsolicited invitations to speak at medical meetings have proliferated as a type of spam email and phishing strategy to scam unsuspecting victims. We sought to determine the prevalence of such invitations to questionable meetings and determine the factors associated with receiving such solicitations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was collected for the number of speakers' invitations received over a 2-week period (April -May 2023) by radiologists of different subspecialties, academic ranks, and histories of publications and speaking engagements in the past 2-5 years. We analyzed the number of invitations received based on the variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-three of 45 (73.3%) faculty members received 188 inappropriate invitation emails in the 2-week observation period. The mean number of invitation emails was 4.13 for each faculty (SD: 5.03, range 0-20). There was no correlation between the number of invitations and radiologists' subspecialty, academic rank (3.8 ± 5, 3.0 ± 4, and 5.5 ± 5.7 invitations for full, associate, and assistant professors respectively) and previous legitimate speaker invites. Only 6 (3.2%) out of 188 invitations to speak sent to radiologists were for radiology-related meetings. Having more than 10 publications since 2022 was associated with a 5.0 (1.2, 19.4) times higher odds of receiving more than 4 solicitations.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 73.3% of the faculty surveyed received unsolicited invitations to meetings in the 2-week study period and over 96% of the invitations were unrelated to their field of practice. Our results show that publications since 2022 was the most significant factor associated with receiving more solicitations.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE/APPLICATION

Invitations to questionable meetings targeting radiologists are frequent and often are unrelated to their specialties. The risk factors for receiving the invitations are unclear. Understanding these risk factors may enable educators especially junior investigators, to be better prepared to appropriately address such solicitations.