The proportion of male and female editors in women's health journals: A critical analysis and review of the sex gap. Int J Womens Dermatol 2020;6:7-12. [PMID: 32025554 PMCID: PMC6997826 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.11.005]

Academic Promotions in Medicine: An Appraisal of Fairness

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the process of conferring academic rank or components of the promotion packet contribute to the lack of parity in academic advancement for women and individuals underrepresented in medicine (URMs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed prospective promotion applications to the position of associate professor or professor at Mayo Clinic from January 2, 2015, through July 1, 2019. Individuals with doctorate degrees who applied for either rank were included in the study. Data collected included demographic characteristics, curriculum vitae at time of application, committee score sheets, and deferral and approval decisions. Deferral rates for women compared with men and for URMs compared with non-URMs was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 462 people who applied for associate professor, 10% (n=46) were deferred. Those promoted had worked longer at Mayo Clinic (median, 6 years vs 2 years; P=.01), had more mentees (median, 6 vs 4; P=.02), authored more publications (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 39 [32-52] vs 30 [24-35]; P<.001), and were more likely to be on a National Institutes of Health or institutional grant (P<.05). Of the 320 people who applied for professor, 8.8% (n=28) were deferred. Those promoted had authored more publications (median [IQR], 77 [60-99] vs 56 [44-66]; P<.001) and were less likely to hold an elected office to a professional society (22.6% vs 39.3%; P=.05). There was no significant association between deferral status and sex (P>.4) or race/ethnicity (P>.9) for either rank.

CONCLUSION

The process for academic advancement for professorships does not contribute to the gap in promotion rates for women and URMs.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.

Gender Equity in Medicine and Dermatology in the United States: The Long Road Traveled and the Journey ahead

Over the past 50 years there has been an increase in the representation of women in medicine with similar rates of men and women graduating from medical training today. Nevertheless, gender gaps in leadership, research publications, and compensation persist. Herein, we review trends in gender differences among leadership positions in academic medicine with a particular focus on dermatology, evaluate the roles of mentorship, motherhood, and gender bias on gender equity, and discuss constructive solutions for addressing gender inequities that persist in academic medicine today.

Female representation among editorial boards of social, clinical, and educational pharmacy journals

BACKGROUND

Recent studies on editorial team members of healthcare journals have been showing disparities in this distribution. However, there are limited data with respect to pharmacy journals. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the distribution of women among editorial board members of social, clinical, and educational pharmacy research journals around the globe.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between September and October 2022. Data were extracted from Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports The top 10 journals in each region of the world (continents) were analyzed. Editorial board members were categorized into four groups and determined based on information available on the journal's website. The sex was classified in binary form through name and photography, the personal and institutional web pages, or the Genderize program.

RESULTS

A total of 45 journals were identified in the databases, of which 42 of them were analyzed. We identified 1482 editorial board members with only 527 (35.6%) being female. Analyzing the subgroups, there were 47 total editors-in-chief, 44 total co-editors, 272 associate editors, and 1119 editorial advisors. Of these, 10 (21.27%), 21 (47.72%), 115 (42.27%), and 381 (34.04%) were female, respectively. Only 9 journals (21.42%) presented more females among their editorial board members.

CONCLUSION

A notable sex disparity among social, clinical, and educational pharmacy journals' editorial board members was identified. Efforts should be made to involve more female sex in their editorial teams.

Gender Composition in Occupational Therapy Journals' Editorial Boards

This paper analyses the Editorial Board (EB) distribution of Occupational Therapy journals from a gender perspective. The "Occupational Therapy" field in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) and the "Occupational Therapy" term in the title search of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) were used to find the Occupational Therapy-specific journals. The following indicators were calculated: Editorial Board Member (EBM) gender distribution by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, and journal quartile. Thirty-seven journals were located, including 667 individuals, 206 males (31%) and 461 females (69%). Referring to the EB positions, most members (557) were EB members, 70 were listed as Associate Editors, and 20 as Editorial Leaders. The results show that the proportion of women in the EB's of Occupational Therapy journals represents a majority. Regarding the distribution by gender of the EBMs, six journals had a female proportion below the cut-off point revealed in this study (69%). Four did not reach parity, with female representation below 50%. Additionally, the balance among the EBMs is significantly underrepresented compared to the percentage of female Occupational Therapy practitioners.

A Comparison of the Representation of Women in Editor Positions at Major Medical Journals in 2021 vs 2011

PURPOSE

There continues to be a disparity in the representation of women across medicine, including in editor positions at major medical journals. The authors repeated a study they had conducted in 2011 to compare the representation of women in editor-in-chief and editorial board member positions in 2011 and 2021.

METHOD

The authors included in their analysis the 60 journals from their original 2011 study and the top 5 ranked journals by Journal Impact Factor in each of 12 disciplines in 2021. This led to the inclusion of 86 journals. The authors collected the names and genders of the editors-in-chief and editorial board members at these journals, using information provided by the journals and a Google search for the photos and/or pronouns of the remaining editors. They compared results across years (2021 vs 2011), editor positions, disciplines, Journal Impact Factors, and ranks.

RESULTS

Twenty-two of the 90 editors-in-chief (24.4%) were women in 2021 compared with 10 of 63 (15.9%) in 2011, an increase of 8.5%. Of the 6,285 editorial board members, 1,756 were women (27.9%) in 2021 compared with 719 of 4,112 (17.5%) in 2011, an increase of 10.4%. Journals with women editors-in-chief gained 3.5 ranks and 9.1 points in Journal Impact Factor on average over this 10-year period, compared with no gain in rank and an increase of 4.7 points in Journal Impact Factor for journals with men editors-in-chief; both are statistically significant differences (P = .045 and P = .016, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In almost all evaluated disciplines and editor positions, there was an increase in the percentage of women at top-ranked medical journals over a 10-year period. Despite this increase, improvements are still needed to accelerate the currently slow rate of change in these positions to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion for women in medicine.

Building consensus around the assessment and interpretation of Symbiodiniaceae diversity

Within microeukaryotes, genetic variation and functional variation sometimes accumulate more quickly than morphological differences. To understand the evolutionary history and ecology of such lineages, it is key to examine diversity at multiple levels of organization. In the dinoflagellate family Symbiodiniaceae, which can form endosymbioses with cnidarians (e.g., corals, octocorals, sea anemones, jellyfish), other marine invertebrates (e.g., sponges, molluscs, flatworms), and protists (e.g., foraminifera), molecular data have been used extensively over the past three decades to describe phenotypes and to make evolutionary and ecological inferences. Despite advances in Symbiodiniaceae genomics, a lack of consensus among researchers with respect to interpreting genetic data has slowed progress in the field and acted as a barrier to reconciling observations. Here, we identify key challenges regarding the assessment and interpretation of Symbiodiniaceae genetic diversity across three levels: species, populations, and communities. We summarize areas of agreement and highlight techniques and approaches that are broadly accepted. In areas where debate remains, we identify unresolved issues and discuss technologies and approaches that can help to fill knowledge gaps related to genetic and phenotypic diversity. We also discuss ways to stimulate progress, in particular by fostering a more inclusive and collaborative research community. We hope that this perspective will inspire and accelerate coral reef science by serving as a resource to those designing experiments, publishing research, and applying for funding related to Symbiodiniaceae and their symbiotic partnerships.

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.

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.

Representation of women as editors in andrology journals

BACKGROUND

Surveys of gender diversity in editorial boards of journals have been conducted in several disciplines, but not in andrology.

OBJECTIVES

The present study was designed to investigate the gender distribution of editorial boards of andrology journals.

METHODS

A total of eight andrology journals were included in the study, and the gender information and geographical location of editors were identified based on the information obtained from the Internet.

RESULTS

A total of 382 editors' gender information was confirmed. Women made up 1 of the 9 editors-in-chief (11.1%), 13 of the 68 deputy/associate editors (19.1%), 37 of the 270 editorial/advisory board members (13.7%) and 0 of the 35 other types of editors (0%). There was no significant difference in the journal impact factor between male and female editors-in-chief (3.060±1.274 vs 3.482, p = 0.156), and no significant association was found between impact factor and the proportion of female editor (Spearman's r = -0.204, P = 0.629).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Andrology-related journals lacked adequate gender diversity, not all journals reserved reasonable editorial positions for women. Besides, increased impact factor did not bring additional gender bias. Women should be given more reasonable seats to improve gender diversity in andrology-related journals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Gender equity in health research publishing in Africa

Introduction

Women researchers find it more difficult to publish in academic journals than men, an inequity that affects women’s careers and was exacerbated during the pandemic, particularly for women in low-income and middle-income countries. We measured publishing by sub-Saharan African (SSA) women in prestigious authorship positions (first or last author, or single author) during the time frame 2014–2016. We also examined policies and practices at journals publishing high rates of women scientists from sub-Saharan Africa, to identify potential structural enablers affecting these women in publishing.

Methods

The study used Namsor V.2, an application programming interface, to conduct a secondary analysis of a bibliometric database. We also analysed policies and practices of ten journals with the highest number of SSA women publishing in first authorship positions.

Results

Based on regional analyses, the greatest magnitude of authorship inequity is in papers from sub-Saharan Africa, where men comprised 61% of first authors, 65% of last authors and 66% of single authors. Women from South Africa and Nigeria had greater success in publishing than those from other SSA countries, though women represented at least 20% of last authors in 25 SSA countries. The journals that published the most SSA women as prominent authors are journals based in SSA. Journals with overwhelmingly male leadership are also among those publishing the highest number of SSA women.

Conclusion

Women scholars in SSA face substantial gender inequities in publishing in prestigious authorship positions in academic journals, though there is a cadre of women research leaders across the region. Journals in SSA are important for local women scholars and the inequities SSA women researchers face are not necessarily attributable to gender discrepancy in journals’ editorial leadership.

Participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas en Latinoamérica

Introducción.

La participación femenina en el campo de la medicina y la investigación se ha incrementado en los últimos años; sin embargo, aún existen inequidades en la proporción de hombres y mujeres, especialmente en los cargos directivos y la participación en los comités editoriales de revistas científicas.

Objetivo.

Establecer la participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas en Latinoamérica, y explorar su asociación con los cargos editoriales y los indicadores de impacto.

Materiales y métodos.

Se hizo un estudio descriptivo de tipo bibliométrico de revistas médicas de Latinoamérica indizadas en Scopus, actualizadas y vigentes en el 2020, las cuales se seleccionaron del portal de Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Los equipos editoriales se categorizaron en tres grupos según sus funciones y, posteriormente, se registró el sexo de sus miembros a partir de sus nombres.

Resultados.

Se incluyeron 113 revistas. En cuanto al liderazgo editorial, entre los 264 directores de comités editoriales, las mujeres representaban el 12,9 %. En lo concerniente a las diferentes funciones, de 1.449 miembros, las mujeres eran el 28,9 %, en tanto que, de los 4.575 miembros de comités consultivos, el 19,0 % correspondía a mujeres. Se observó una mayor presencia de mujeres en los comités editoriales de revistas de Chile, Brasil y Venezuela, y en las especialidades de salud pública, pediatría y anestesiología.

Conclusiones.

La participación femenina en los comités editoriales de revistas médicas de Latinoamérica es escasa.

Gender imbalance in gynecologic oncology authorship and impact of COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Despite increased participation of women in academic medicine in recent decades, gender disparities persist. The gender gap in authorship and editorial boards in gynecologic oncology, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, have not been recently evaluated. We examined gender representation and the impact of COVID-19 on authorship and editorial boards of two major peer-reviewed gynecologic oncology journals.

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of original articles published in Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, comparing the most contemporary 5-year period (2016-2020) to single years in the two prior decades (1996, 2006). To assess the early impact of COVID-19, we compared publications from May 2020-April 2021 to 2019. Editorial boards were analyzed for gender composition. First names, pronouns, and institutional photographs were used to determine gender.

RESULTS

There were 3022 original articles published between 2016 and 2020, 763 in 2006, and 203 in 1996. Gender was identified for 91.3% of first authors (3641 articles) and 95.6% of senior authors (3813 articles). Men comprised the majority of the editorial boards in 2021 at 57% and 61% for Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, respectively. Men were overrepresented as senior authors across all study periods: 93% in 1996, 77% in 2006, and 58% in 2016-2020. Over time, representation of women as first and senior authors increased (7% in 1996, 42% in 2016-2020, p<0.00001). There was no immediate impact of the early pandemic on gender distribution of authorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite greater representation of women over time as authors in gynecologic oncology journals, there remains gender disparity in senior authorship and editorial board representation. This presents an opportunity for the academic publishing community to advocate for deliberate strategies to achieve gender parity. Although no impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic was found, this requires ongoing surveillance.

Where are female editors from low-income and middle-income countries? A comprehensive assessment of gender, geographical distribution and country’s income group of editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals

Objective

We aimed to examine the gender, geographical region and income group of the country of affiliation for editorial leadership (eg, editor-in-chief, section editor, associate editor) and advisors (eg, editorial board members) in top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals.

Methods

A list of Scopus indexed, Q1 (25% top) rehabilitation and sports science journals, available under four different journal categories, was prepared based on the data from the Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) website. The information for editorial leadership and advisors for these journals was obtained and their gender was determined through a multistep process. The country of affiliation of editorial leadership and advisors was used to categorise them to World Bank’s different geographical regions and income groups (for countries).

Results

There were 7248 editors (35.7% leadership and 64.3% advisors) across 113 rehabilitation and sports science journals. Of all editors, 1792 (24.7%) were women. Women represented 24.5% of editorial leadership positions, 24.8% of advisory roles and 10.4% of editors-in-chief. Editors from South Asia (0.5%) and sub-Saharan Africa (0.6%) had the least representation, while those affiliated with institutions from high-income countries represented 93.5% of leadership roles and 93.1% of advisory positions. Moreover, editors affiliated with institutions from North America occupied almost half of all editorial roles.

Conclusions

Women and researchers affiliated with institutions from low-income and middle-income countries are under-represented on the editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals indexed in the Scopus database. Editors are responsible for promoting research in their specific field, and therefore, the current leadership in rehabilitation and sports science journals should consider diversifying their editorial boards by providing equitable opportunities to women and researchers from a broader geographical distribution.

Global Research on Coronaviruses: Metadata-Based Analysis for Public Health Policies

BACKGROUND

Within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper suggests a data science strategy for analyzing global research on coronaviruses. The application of reproducible research principles founded on text-as-data information, open science, the dissemination of scientific data, and easy access to scientific production may aid public health in the fight against the virus.

OBJECTIVE

The primary goal of this paper was to use global research on coronaviruses to identify critical elements that can help inform public health policy decisions. We present a data science framework to assist policy makers in implementing cutting-edge data science techniques for the purpose of developing evidence-based public health policies.

METHODS

We used the EpiBibR (epidemiology-based bibliography for R) package to gain access to coronavirus research documents worldwide (N=121,231) and their associated metadata. To analyze these data, we first employed a theoretical framework to group the findings into three categories: conceptual, intellectual, and social. Second, we mapped the results of our analysis in these three dimensions using machine learning techniques (ie, natural language processing) and social network analysis.

RESULTS

Our findings, firstly, were methodological in nature. They demonstrated the potential for the proposed data science framework to be applied to public health policies. Additionally, our findings indicated that the United States and China were the primary contributors to global coronavirus research during the study period. They also demonstrated that India and Europe were significant contributors, albeit in a secondary position. University collaborations in this domain were strong between the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, confirming the country-level findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings argue for a data-driven approach to public health policy, particularly when efficient and relevant research is required. Text mining techniques can assist policy makers in calculating evidence-based indices and informing their decision-making process regarding specific actions necessary for effective health responses.

Representation of Women Among Editors in Chief of Leading Medical Journals

IMPORTANCE

Women remain underrepresented among editors of scientific journals, particularly in senior positions. However, to what extent this applies to medical journals of different specialties remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the gender distribution of the editors in chief at leading medical journals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study of the editors in chief at the top 10 international medical journals of 41 categories related to the medical specialties of the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports in 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of women as editors in chief.

RESULTS

This study found that, overall, women represented 21% (94 of 44) of the editors in chief, with wide variation across medical specialties from 0% to 82%. There were 5 categories for which none of the editors in chief were women (dentistry, oral surgery and medicine; allergy; psychiatry; anesthesiology; and ophthalmology) and only 3 categories for which women outnumbered men as editors in chief (primary health care, microbiology, and genetics and heredity). In 27 of the 41 categories, women represented less than a third of the editors in chief (eg, 1 of 10 for critical care medicine, 2 of 10 for gastroenterology and hepatology, and 3 of 10 for endocrinology and metabolism).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that women are underrepresented among editors in chief of leading medical journals. For the benefit of medical research, a joint effort from editorial boards, publishers, authors, and academic institutions is required to address this gender gap.

Leadership diversity in prosthodontics: Number and percentage of women chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The number and percentage of women chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this observational study was to calculate and compare the number and percentage of women and men chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A list of the dental journals, as ranked by impact factor, was obtained through the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2020 using the category "Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine." Of the 91 journals listed in the Journal Citation Report, 28 published scientific findings related to prosthodontics. The chief editors of these 28 journals were identified, and their gender was recorded. The percentage of women and men chief editors was compared with the percentage of women and men members of the International Association of Dental Research (IADR) and the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP) by using the binomial test (α=.05).

RESULTS

Of the 28 included journals, a total of 32 chief editors were identified; of whom, 4 (12.5%) were women and 28 (87.5%) were men. There were 7886 members of the IADR who reported their gender; of whom, 3448 (43.7%) were women. There were 906 members of the ICP; of whom, 248 (27.5%) were women. Compared with the percentage of women and men members of the IADR and ICP, women chief editors were significantly underrepresented (P<.001 and P=.039, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The number and percentage of women chief editors of journals publishing prosthodontic science is of concern.

Gender, Geographic, and Socioeconomic Representation in Medical Student Journals: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Introduction Women make up the majority of medical school students in most high-income countries. Despite this, women remain underrepresented in senior academic leadership positions including editorial boards of mainstream biomedical journals. Many studies show the underrepresentation of women in mainstream medical journals; however, gender representation in medical student journals (MSJs) is not well documented. Assessing diversity and inclusion in MSJs is vital to understanding the point at which biases in academic medicine are established. Understanding when biases in medical authorship manifest may allow for a more targeted approach to alleviating these biases. This study explores diversity in MSJs by examining gender representation on editorial boards, geographic region, and socioeconomic status of the country of origin. Methodology In November 2019, Google^©, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines as well as PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for English-language MSJs using standardized criteria. The websites of identified journals were screened and relevant journal and editorial board-related data were collected. The gender of board members was determined using a sequential approach. Results A total of 21 MSJs were included with over half (n = 12, 57.1%) established during the last decade (median years of operation = 9, range = 3-97 years). Most MSJs (n = 17, 81%) are based in North America and Europe. All but one (published in an upper-middle-income country) of the 19 journals originating from a specific country are published in high-income countries. Of the total 348 board members identified (33 editors-in-chief and 315 other editors), 169 were women (48.6%) and 179 were men (51.4%). Women occupied 48.5% of editor-in-chief positions and 48.6% of other editorial board roles. Conclusions The gender gap in medical journal leadership appears early during medical education and continues to widen after joining the workforce. Geographic and socioeconomic disparities present in mainstream medical journals also extend to MSJs. Future research should seek to determine whether gender bias is also seen in medical student authorship across MSJs. Approaches to minimizing gender gaps in medical journal leadership should target current medical students as the biases begin to manifest during this period of their education.

Women's health in The BMJ: a data science history

OBJECTIVE

To determine how the representation of women's health has changed in clinical studies over the course of 70 years.

DESIGN

Observational study of 71 866 research articles published between 1948 and 2018 in The BMJ.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of women-specific health topics over time. General linear, additive and segmented regression models were used to estimate trends.

RESULTS

Over 70 years, the overall odds that a word in a BMJ research article was 'woman' or 'women' increased by an annual factor of 1.023, but this rate of increase varied by clinical specialty with some showing little or no change. The odds that an article was about some aspect of women-specific health increased much more slowly, by an annual factor of 1.004. The incidence of articles about particular areas of women-specific medicine such as pregnancy did not show a general increase, but rather fluctuated over time. The incidence of articles making any mention of women, gender or sex declined between 1948 and 2005, after which it rose steeply so that by 2018 few papers made no mention of them at all.

CONCLUSIONS

Over time women have become ever more prominent in BMJ research articles. However, the importance of women-specific health topics has waxed and waned as researchers responded ephemerally to medical advances, public health programmes, and sociolegal changes. The appointment of a woman editor-inchief in 2005 may have had a dramatic effect on whether women were mentioned in research articles.

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

IMPORTANCE

The inclusion of authors from diverse backgrounds and with different lived experiences is critical to ensuring the questions addressed in systematic reviews (SRs), as well as the subsequent conclusions and recommendations made, are representative of the global community.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the gender and geographic diversity of authors among all Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision as compared with a random sample of non-Cochrane SRs of interventions in the field of eyes and vision.

DESIGN

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite maintains a database of SRs in the field of eyes and vision. We selected all (n = 313) eyes and vision intervention SRs published in The Cochrane Library and a random sample of 313 eyes and vision intervention SRs published elsewhere for this study. We determined gender of the first and corresponding authors ("woman," "man," or "unknown") using a previously developed algorithm and their location based on institution country and the World Health Organization region.

RESULTS

From the 626 reviews included in our sample, we identified 751 unique authors who comprised 887 author positions (i.e., first and/or corresponding authors). We were able to ascertain the gender of 647/751 (86%) authors: 276 women and 371 men. Among Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the proportions of women in first and/or corresponding author positions were consistent and approximately equal to men. Among non-Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the representation of women was markedly lower as corresponding authors than other positions. Most authors of Cochrane eyes and vision SRs were from the UK (31%) and USA (26%), whereas most authors of non-Cochrane SRs were from China (34%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with authors of non-Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision, authors of Cochrane SRs appear to have approximately equal representation of women and men among perceived important author positions and be located in European and North American countries, possibly due to the locations of the Cochrane editorial teams. Cochrane Eyes and Vision should continue to recruit authors from around the world in locations that reflect the global burden of eye disease.