Gender differences in gastroenterology and hepatology authorship and editorial boards

Gender Trends in Authorship of Gastroenterology Randomized Controlled Trial Literature

INTRODUCTION

We describe female authorship trends in gastroenterology (GI) randomized controlled trial literature as a novel focus on gender bias in academic GI.

METHODS

Using a systematic PubMed search, we extracted GI randomized controlled trial reports published from 2011 to 2022. We describe time trends in proportions of females among first and last authors overall and within GI subspecialties and high-impact journals.

RESULTS

The proportion of females increased from 25.4% to 36.8% and from 14.3% to 24.8% among first and last authors, respectively. Smaller increases in female authorship occurred in most subgroups, although there were proportionately fewer females among authors in high-impact journals and advanced therapeutic endoscopy publications.

DISCUSSION

Over the past decade, female authorship in GI RCT reports has increased. However, female representation, particularly among senior authors and in high-impact journals, remains significantly lower. Despite recent improvements, female still constitutes a minority of the authors of original GI RCTs.

On achieving gender equity within the liver transplantation medical and surgical workforce

Until relatively recently there has been a paucity of readily available information pertaining to the demographics of the medical and surgical workforces for the subspecialty of liver transplantation. This is relevant as it relates to whether gender equity is now being achieved across this particular workforce. This manuscript focuses on what eventually led to the recognition that more comprehensive data were required along with what is now actually known with respect to the gender ratios of the liver transplant workforce along with their related academic activities. Potential solutions to address any ongoing imbalances are also examined. The extent and range of gender disparities previously reported for other cohorts of physicians and surgeons, are also apparent amongst the liver transplant workforce in most regions of the world. This also pertains to the higher leadership positions within liver transplant centers as well as for the related editorial and scientific congress roles. Common themes/recommendations are now emerging as to how best to address the lack of progress towards gender equity. These include the development and implementation of policies, the removal of barriers to career progression, and proper governance. Ongoing actions are going to be required to achieve gender equity across the workforce in liver transplantation around the world.

Using social media for patient care, research, and professional development: A North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition position paper

The advent of social media has changed numerous aspects of modern life, with users developing and maintaining personal and professional relationships, following and sharing breaking news and importantly, searching for and disseminating health information and medical research. In the present paper, we reviewed available literature to outline the potential uses, pitfalls and impacts of social media for providers, scientists and institutions involved in digestive health in the domains of patient care, research and professional development. We recommend that these groups become more active participants on social media platforms to combat misinformation, advocate for patients, and curate and disseminate valuable research and educational materials. We also recommend that societies such as NASPGHAN assist its members in accessing training on effective social media use and the creation and maintenance of public-facing profiles and that academic institutions incorporate substantive social media contributions into academic promotion processes.

Gender parity in high impact neurology journals

Background

Although female representation has been growing among physicians, women continue to be underrepresented in neurology, particularly regarding academic research in authorship and leadership. Analyzing recent trends in high-impact neurology journals highlights the underrepresentation of women and helps explore barriers to female representation in academic neurology.

Methods and results

Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for 2021 was used to screen neurology journals for selection. The first 15 journals with the highest impact factors (JIF) were included. 15,404 total articles in neurology were examined for gender distribution of editorial staff and authorship with the highest total citations from January 1st, 2018 to October 31st, 2021. Gender was classified using biographical information from public and personal media sources. Genderize.io was used in cases of ambiguity, predicting gender at probability of ≥95%. Our data demonstrated that these journals only had 13% female editor-in-chiefs and 35% female editorial staff. The data further demonstrated that females accounted for 39% of first authors and 26% for last authors. During the four years examined males continued to account for the vast majority of both first and last authors for publications accepted and journal editorial staff members.

Conclusion

Women are significantly under-represented in the field of neurological research in leadership positions as editor-in-chiefs, editorial board members as well as first or senior authors in top neurology medical journals. With continued underrepresentation of women occupying leading publishing roles, parity with men is still a work in progress. Additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for women physicians in academic neurology.

Gender equity of authorship in pulmonary medicine over the past decade

BACKGROUND

Gender disparity in authorship broadly persists in medical literature, little is known about female authorship within pulmonary medicine.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021 in 12 journals with the highest impact in pulmonary medicine was conducted. Only original research and review articles were included. Names of the first and last authors were extracted and their genders were identified using the Gender-API web. Female authorship was described by overall distribution and distribution by country/region/continent and journal. We compared the article citations by gender combinations, evaluated the trend in female authorship, and forecasted when parity for first and last authorship would be reached. We also conducted a systematic review of female authorship in clinical medicine.

RESULTS

14,875 articles were included, and the overall percentage of female first authors was higher than last authors (37.0% vs 22.2%, p<0.001). Asia had the lowest percentage of female first (27.6%) and last (15.2%) authors. The percentages of female first and last authors increased slightly over time, except for a rapid increase in the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Parity was predicted in 2046 for the first authors and 2059 for the last authors. Articles with male authors were cited more than articles with female authors. However, male-male collaborations significantly decreased, whereas female-female collaborations significantly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the slow improvement in female authorship over the past decade, there is still a substantial gender disparity in female first and last authorship in high-impact medical journals in pulmonary medicine.

Gender balance in infectious diseases and hospital epidemiology journals

Objective

Diversity is recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. Women represent a significant part of the infectious diseases (ID) and hospital epidemiology (HE) workforce. We aimed to assess gender representation among editors of top ID and HE journals and explore potential correlations with the gender of first and last authors in published articles.

Methods

Using Scimago Journal & Country Rank, we identified 40 ID and 4 HE high-ranking journals. Editorial members were categorized by decision-making influence (levels I-III). We retrieved names of first and corresponding authors from 12 ID-focused journals' 2019 research articles. Gender assignment for editors, first authors, and last authors utilized digital galleries and manual searches.

Results

Among 2,797 editors from 44 journals, 33% were women. Female representation varied across editorial levels: 26% at level I, 36% at level II, and 31% at level III. Gender balance disparities existed among journals. Female first authors accounted for 50%, and female last authors accounted for 36% of the 2,725 published articles. We found weak but significant correlations between the editors' gender and the gender of the first and last authors.

Conclusion

Gender representation among ID and HE journal editors displayed unevenness, but no overt vertical segregation was observed. A generational transition among authors may be underway. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors.

Gender representation in rheumatology journals: an assessment of editors, editorial boards, and authors

Diversity is widely recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. In recent years, women have become an increasingly significant part of the rheumatology workforce. We aimed to assess the gender representation of the leading rheumatology journals' editors and to explore whether editors' gender correlates with the gender of the first and last authors of published articles. We conducted a cross-sectional study and extracted editorial members of rheumatology journals in quartiles 1 to 3 (Clarivate Analytics) from each journal's website. We categorized editorial positions according to the level of influence in manuscript acceptance decision-making (levels I to III). The gender of editors and of the first and last authors in all 2019 original articles published in a sample of 15 rheumatology journals was assigned using a combination of digital gallery and manual searches. There were 2242 editors' names retrieved from 43 journals, 24 (26%) of the 94 editors at level I, 139 (36%) of 385 editors at level II, and 469 (27%) of 1763 at level III were female. The imbalance between journals was heterogeneous. Females were the first authors in 1342 (48%) and the last authors in 969 (35%) of the 2797 published articles. However, we found no significant correlation between editors' and authors' gender. Our data showed uneven gender representation on the editorial boards of most rheumatology journals, but we did not find any apparent vertical segregation or influence on publishing by gender. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors.

Poor Representation of Developing Countries in Editorial Boards of Leading Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journals

Evidence suggests a limited contribution to the total research output in leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals by researchers from the developing world. Editorial bias, quality of scientific research produced and language barriers have been attributed as possible causes for this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to understand the prevalence of editorial board members based out of low and lower-middle income countries in leading journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. The top 21 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were selected based on their impact factor, SCImago ranking and literature search. The composition of the editorial boards of these journals was studied based on World Bank Income Criteria to understand the representation status of researchers from low and lower-middle income countries. A total of 1315 board members make up the editorial composition of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. The majority of these editors belong to high-income countries (n = 1148; 87.3%). Low (n = 6; 0.45%) and lower-middle income (n = 55; 4.18%) countries make up for a very minuscule proportion of editorial board members. Only a meagre 9 out of 21 journals have editorial board members from these countries (42.85%). Low and low-middle countries have poor representation in the editorial boards of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. Poor representation in research from these countries has grave consequences for a large proportion of the global population and multidisciplinary collaborative efforts must be taken to rapidly change this statistic with immediate effect.

Gender Parity in High Impact Cardiology Journals

Despite increased female representation in medical training, women physicians continue to be under-represented in academic cardiology, particularly in senior roles of authorship and leadership. We analyzed the top 20 most-cited cardiology journals (31,540 total articles) between January 1, 2018 and October 31, 2021 for gender distribution of editorial staff and authorship. Our data demonstrated that only 27% of articles had women as first authors and 20% as senior authors. Women constituted 23% of editorial staff. There is a statistically significant negative correlation (R = 0.67, P = 0.0011) between the percentage of women as first authors and the percentage of men on editorial boards. Overall, female authorship increased from 26% first and 19% senior authors in 2018, to 29% first and 22% senior authors in 2021. Women authors are significantly under-represented in academic cardiology publications, and additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to publishing and academic advancement for women in cardiology.

Association between women's authorship and women's editorship in infectious diseases journals: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Gender inequity is still pervasive in academic medicine, including journal publishing. We aimed to ascertain the proportion of women among first and last authors and editors in infectious diseases journals and assess the association between women's editorship and women's authorship while controlling for a journal's impact factor.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we randomly selected 40 infectious diseases journals (ten from each 2020 impact factor quartile), 20 obstetrics and gynaecology journals (five from each 2020 impact factor quartile), and 20 cardiology journals (five from each 2020 impact factor quartile) that were indexed in Journal Citation Reports, had an impact factor, had retrievable first and last author names, and had the name of more than one editor listed. We retrieved the names of the first and last authors of all citable articles published by the journals in 2018 and 2019 that counted towards their 2020 impact factor and collected the names of all the journals' editors-in-chief, deputy editors, section editors, and associate editors for the years 2018 and 2019. We used genderize.io to predict the gender of each first author, last author, and editor. The outcomes of interest were the proportions of women first authors and women last authors. We assessed the association between women's editorship and women's authorship by fitting quasi-Poisson regression models comprising the variables: the proportion of women last authors or women first authors; the proportion of women editors; the presence of a woman editor-in-chief; and journal 2020 impact factor.

FINDINGS

We found 11 027 citable infectious diseases articles, of which 167 (1·5%) had an indeterminable first author gender, 155 (1·4%) had an indeterminable last author gender, and seven (0·1%) had no authors indexed. 5350 (49·3%) of 10 853 first authors whose gender could be determined were predicted to be women and 5503 (50·7%) were predicted to be men. Women accounted for 3788 (34·9%) of 10 865 last authors whose gender could be determined and men accounted for 7077 (65·1%). Of 577 infectious diseases journal editors, 190 (32·9%) were predicted to be women and 387 (67·1%) were predicted to be men. Of the 40 infectious diseases journals, 13 (32·5%) had a woman as editor-in-chief. For infectious diseases journals, the proportion of women editors had a significant effect on women's first authorship (incidence rate ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·06-1·63; p=0·012) and women's last authorship (1·92, 1·45-2·55; p&lt;0·0001). The presence of a woman editor-in-chief, the proportion of women last or first authors, and the journal's impact factor exerted no effect in these analyses.

INTERPRETATION

The proportion of women editors appears to influence the proportion of women last and first authors in the analysed infectious diseases journals. These findings might help to explain gender disparities observed in publishing in academic medicine and suggest a need for revised policies towards increasing women's representation among editors.

FUNDING

The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Gender Parity in Geriatrics Editorial Boards

Gender equality, with an emphasis on female education, has been designated by the United Nations as one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be completed by 2030, since gender disparity is a major impediment to scientific and economic progress. This study was carried out in an effort to address the gender gaps that can be seen in academic and scientific publications. The purpose of this study is to describe the gender distribution of editorial board members and editors-in-chief across geriatrics journals with high impact factors. Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 were used to guide the selection of geriatric and gerontology journals utilizing Scopus All Science Journal Classification Codes. The genders of the editors-in-chief and editorial board members were determined and analyzed using publicly accessible data. A total of 47 geriatric journals with an average impact factor of 4.27 were examined. Of the 65 editors-in-chief, 21 (32%) were women, whereas 876 female editorial members were found out of a total of 2414, which constitutes 36% in total. Despite making up 60% of the geriatric medical workforce, women are still underrepresented on editorial boards and as chief editors in well-known geriatric periodicals.

Authorship diversity in Gastroenterology-related Cochrane systematic reviews: Inequities in global representation

The need for promoting diversity and equitable authorship representation in academics faces increasing recognition, with some articles pointing out the lack of diversity in specific fields. Currently, there are no such articles scrutinizing the author diversity in the field of Gastroenterology. Cochrane systematic reviews are perceived worldwide to be amongst the highest quality of evidence available, thereby its conclusions often impact policy and practice globally. However, little is known about the current state of authorship diversity in Gastroenterology-related Cochrane reviews.