Gender Disparities Among Editorial Boards of International Urology Journals

Gender distribution in surgical pathology journal publications and editorial boards

AIMS

To investigate trends in representation of women among authors and editorial boards of surgical pathology journals over the last two decades.Secondary aims: to identify barriers and potential solutions.

METHODS

The names and gender of first, middle, last authors and editorial board members were obtained from original articles from seven pathology journals from various geopolitical regions in 2002, 2011 and 2021. The proportion of women first, middle, last authors and editorial board members were compared over time.

RESULTS

1097 publications and 8012 individual authors were extracted. In 2002, 2011 and 2021, respectively, the percentage of women first authors were 28.3% (257 of 907), 31.9% (566 of 1773) and 41.1% (1421 of 3457); women middle authorship rates were 30.0% (159 of 530), 32.8% (375 of 1145) and 40.9% (1067 of 2609) and women last authors were 18.0% (34 of 188), 26.0% (82 of 315) and 36.0% (152 of 422). Women representation on editorial boards has increased (11.3%, 15.8%, 26.5%), but of the chief editors, there was only one woman in 2021, while all were men in 2002 and 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study is the first to document under-representation of women among authors and editorial boards of surgical pathology journals. While women representation has increased over time, predominance of men remains relative to workforce proportions. Our findings are comparable to those from other medical fields and prompt the need to investigate the underlying causes for this imbalance and implement strategies to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in academic surgical pathology.

Gender disparities among publications within international sexual medicine urology journals and the impact of blinding in the review process

BACKGROUND

While female urologists are known to publish at less frequency than their male peers, The Journal of Sexual Medicine was reported to have among the highest growth in female authorship from 2002 to 2020 in urology journals.

AIM

We sought to assess the frequency of female authorship in sexual medicine journals worldwide and the factors that affect this, including the blinded/unblinded review process.

METHODS

Eleven sexual medicine journals were assessed for geographic location, peer review method, and SCImago Journal Rank citation index (a metric of citation frequency and prestige). Journals were grouped into top, middle, and bottom quartiles based on metric score. Web of Science was used to access the publications' first, second, last, and corresponding authors from the past 5 years. An internet search or Gender-API.com was used to determine the gender identities of authors. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were performed.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes included the likelihood of female authorship (first, second, last, and corresponding) based on journal location and ranking, the clustering of female authors, the journal's peer review process, and the frequency of female editorial board members.

RESULTS

Overall, 8938 publications were identified. Women represented 30.7%, 31.3%, 21.3%, and 18.7% of the first, second, last, and corresponding authors, respectively; gender was unable to be assessed for 2.6%, 17.2%, 7.3%, and 2.7%. On univariate analysis, journals from North America, in the top quartile, and with a double-blind review process were more likely to have female authors (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, articles were more likely to have a female first author if they had a double-blind peer review process (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), a female second author (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.26-2.85), or a female corresponding author (OR, 7.80; 95% CI, 6.69-9.10).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Gender-concordant mentoring and universal double-blind manuscript review processes may minimize the impact of gender bias and increase female authorship rates, in turn producing more diverse research.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This is the first study assessing female authorship in sexual medicine journals. Limitations include not assessing every author listed on articles and being unable to determine gender identities for some authors.

CONCLUSION

Female authorship rates are higher than reported rates of practicing female urologists but still lower than their male peers. Female authors were more likely to be published in journals with double-blind peer review processes and when publishing with additional female authors.

Women in Irish urology: An examination of female representation amongst attendees of the Irish Society of Urology annual meeting (2008-2020)

BACKGROUND

There is underrepresentation of women at surgical conferences. We examine the representation of women in Irish urology by looking at gender balance within the Irish Society of Urology (ISU) conference.

AIMS

ISU programmes over thirteen years from 2008 to 2020 were assessed and female representation in session chairs, guest speakers, poster and oral presentations identified. Gender distributions of authors for each year was examined. To investigate changes in female representation temporally, the period of this study (2008-2020) was subdivided and compared: 2008-2013 and 2014-2020.

RESULTS

76 sessions were presided over by 138 chairs, of which 6 (4.3%) were female. Eight conferences had zero female chairs. 62 guest lectures were given, 6 (9.6%) by women. Of total 340 poster and 434 oral presentations, women delivered 24.9% (0-47.5%) of posters and 31.6% (10.3-59.4%) of oral presentations. We found no significant difference in the percentage of female poster presentations between the time periods 2008-2013 (m = 18.2, sd = 13.7) and 2014-2020 (m = 34.3, sd = 17.8), t(11) = -1.4, p > 0.05. However, we found a significant difference in the percentage of female oral presentations between the periods 2008-2013 (m = 18.7, sd = 14.2) and 2014-2020 (m = 40.6, sd = 14.5), t(11) = -2.8, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the second to examine female representation in Irish urology. Session chairs and guest speakers were grossly overrepresented by males as were oral and poster presentations. Despite lacking female influence overall, in more recent years there was an increased representation of women. Societies should strive to increase female representation, as this perpetuates a positive feedback loop, encouraging future female trainees to pursue urological surgery.

Who Is Shaping the Future of Academic Urology? A Descriptive Analysis of Residency Program Directors

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the demographics, educational background, and scholarly characteristics of current urology residency program directors (PDs).

METHODS

Urology programs were identified by the listing on the "Accredited US Urology Programs" section of American Urological Association website as of October 2021. Demographics and academic data were collected via publicly available department website and Google search engine. Metrics obtained included years of service as PD from time of appointment, sex, medical school/residency/fellowship, all-time H-index, dual degrees obtained, and professorial ranking.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven accredited urological residencies were reviewed; every PD was included. The majority were male (78%) and fellowship trained (68%). Women represented only 22% of PDs. The median active time served as PD, as of 11/2021, was 4years (IQR: 2-7). Forty (28%) were faculty at the same program they completed their residency. The median all-time H-index was 12 (IQR: 7-19; range 1-61). Twelve PDs also served as chair of their department.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of PDs are male, fellowship trained, and have served for less than 5years. Future studies are necessary to follow the trends of representation in leaders of urology residency programs.

Primum Non Discernere: Glass Ceilings and Female Representation at the European Association of Urology and European Society for Paediatric Urology Annual Meetings, 2012-2022

Background

The term glass ceiling coined by Loden in 1978 is commonly used to describe difficulties faced by minorities and women when trying to move into senior roles.

Objective

To analyse trends and patterns for female representation at the European Association of Urology (EAU) and European Society for Paediatric Urology (ESPU) annual general meetings over the past decade.

Design setting and participants

We used objective data on female representation in the roles of chairs, moderators, and lecture speakers at the EAU and ESPU meetings from 2012 to 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated gender based representation in paediatric urology sessions at the EAU and ESPU meetings, collecting data on the overall number of sessions, lectures, symposiums, abstract/poster sessions, and courses, and analysed the male/female ratio. Data were derived from printed and digital programmes for the relevant meetings.

Results and limitations

During the period from 2012 to 2022, the percentage female representation varied from 0% (2012) to a maximum of 35% (2022) at EUA paediatric urology sessions, and from 13.5% (2014) to a maximum of 32% (2022) at ESPU meetings. Both associations show clear progression towards equality.

Conclusions

Female representation at EAU and ESPU meetings has risen over the years, reaching 35% and 32%, respectively, in 2022, which is in line with the number of female members. We hope that this motivates a move towards the equality objectives for 2030. A clear and fundamental societal change is needed, with fair and more consistent institutional policies and framework commitments in the areas of science, medicine, and global health. Gender equality and diversity taskforces are essential to achieve these goals.

Patient summary

We analysed the male/female ratio for participants in annual meetings held by the European Association of Urology and the European Society for Paediatric Urology. From a low level in 2012, the ratio increased to over 30% in 2022, in line with the female membership of the societies. Focus on fair and consistent policies is needed to ensure that women are well represented in medicine.

Top 100 Urology Influencers on Twitter: Is Social Media Influence Associated with Academic Impact?

BACKGROUND

Social media use in medicine has exploded, with uptake by most physicians and patients. There is a risk of dissemination of inaccurate information about urological conditions on social media. Physicians, as key opinion leaders, must play a role in sharing evidence-based information through social media.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the top 100 urology influencers on the Twitter social media platform and to correlate Twitter influence with academic impact in urology.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Twitter influence scores for the search topic "urology" were collected in April 2022 using published methodology. The top 100 personal accounts with the highest computed scores were linked to individuals' names, all-time h index, geographic location, specialty, attributed sex, and board certification status in this cross-sectional study.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We examined the correlation between influence rank and h index.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of the top 100 Twitter influencers on the topic of urology, the majority are from the USA (64%), male (85%), and practicing urologists (91%). Some 93% of US urology influencers are board-certified. Only 22 of the 50 US states are represented. The second most frequent country is the UK, with ten urology influencers. The median all-time h index is 42 (interquartile range 28.25-58). There is a weak positive correlation between influence rank and h index (r = 0.23; p = 0.02). Limitations of the study include the inability to validate the accuracy of the proprietary ranking algorithm and investigation of just one social media platform.

CONCLUSIONS

The top Twitter influencers in urology are mostly board-certified US urologists. Collectively, influencers have a relatively greater academic impact in comparison to the average urologist, although there is a weak positive correlation between Twitter influence and h index among top Twitter influencers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Given the explosion of medical information on Twitter, we report the personal accounts with the greatest impact for the topic of "urology". We found that most urology influencers on Twitter are US board-certified urologists with a strong research history.

Gender representation on editorial boards of leading oncology journals

Background

There has historically been women underrepresentation on editorial boards of peer-reviewed medical journals. High-ranked oncology journals showcase cancer-related scientific work at the forefront of the discipline. There is urgent need to investigate gender representation on editorial boards at leading oncology journals.

Materials and methods

Sixty high-ranked oncology journals based on impact factor calculated by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 from Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics were identified. Gender-related information of editorial boards was obtained from each journal’s website. The gender of each member of the editorial team was confirmed by an internet search for picture and/or gender-specific pronoun from journal or personal profile. Fisher’s exact tests and analysis of variance were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Among 4898 members on editorial boards of top oncology journals with the highest impact factor, 1177 were women. Women made up 24% (1177 of 4898) of members on editorial boards in top oncology journals, and there was significantly less women board members than men (P < 0.0001). The mean female composition of editorial boards of oncology journals was 27% (range from 4% to 100%). Among 71 editors-in-chief of the top oncology journals, 14 (20%) were women. There was a positive correlation between the presence of women in journal editorial leadership and the percentage of women on editorial boards (r_s = 0.340, P = 0.008). The underrepresentation of women on oncology journal editorial boards was significantly different among quartiles of journal impact factor. There was no significant correlation between women’s representation on journal editorial boards (%) and journal impact factors (r_s = 0.226, P = 0.086).

Conclusions

The results demonstrated that there are gender disparities among editorial leadership at high-impact oncology journals. There are cultural and structural barriers and prejudices to gender parity and diversity on editorial boards of oncology journals.

•

The representation of women on editorial boards of oncology journals has not been verified.

•

This large-scale study found that women comprised only 24% of editorial boards of top-ranked oncology journals.

•

The results demonstrated that there are gender disparities among editorial leadership at leading oncology journals.