A gender gap in the dermatology literature? Cross-sectional analysis of manuscript authorship trends in dermatology journals during 3 decades

Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research over the past 15 years

Background

In the last 15 years, an increase in U.S. female dermatologists from 41 to 52.2% and a surge in female authorship (FAP) have been noted. Authorship is a pivotal objective measurement of academic productivity and, contribution as first or senior author, plays a major role in the promotion process of active physicians and faculty members.

Objective

To validate, analyze, and clarify trends in FAP in high-quality dermatology research in the last 15 years.

Methods

The Thomson Reuters Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2021 was used to retrieve the 100 most-cited original articles from the top 5 dermatology journals (determined by 2021 impact factors) in 5 consecutive 3-year intervals between 2009 and 2023. Gender application programming interface, a gender algorithm, was used to identify FAP according to country of origin and first name. Monotonic trend test significance level was set at 5%.

Results

In total, 14,187 articles were retrieved and subdivided into the 100 most-cited in 3-year intervals. A total of 418 first and 447 senior authors' gender were identified. FAP was found in 43%, 31%, and 37% of the first, last, and total authors. Trend analysis revealed a decrease in the last 15 years (S = -4610, P = .068) in senior FAP. Similarly, the trend persists in the United States (S = -1606, P = .052).

Limitations

Due to the usage of a binary gender identification algorithm, Nonbinary gender could not be identified in this analysis.

Conclusion

The last 15 years show an inverse relationship, with an increase in female dermatologists and a decrease in senior FAP in high-quality journals in the general dermatology community.

Gender Inequality in Leadership Positions in Neurology and Neurosurgery Journals and Societies

OBJECTIVE

Gender inequalities persist in several areas of medicine, despite the growing number of female doctors and medical students. In this study, we aimed to reveal the gender inequality in the top journals' editorial boards and national societies' leadership positions in the field of neurology and neurosurgery.

METHOD

This is a cross-sectional study that uses public information accessed through the internet via journals' and academic societies' public websites. The medical journals are selected and included according to their h5-index in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. We evaluated the gender composition of the editorial boards and academic societies' leadership positions.

RESULTS

The female editorial board member ratio was 44.0% in the top 10 neurology journals. However, this ratio was significantly decreased to 29.7% in the other journals(P < 0.001). The top 10 neurosurgery journals had a female editorial board member ratio of 13.7%. This ratio was significantly decreased to 5.3% in the other 10 journals with lower h5-index(P < 0.001). A significantly lower number of female individuals are present in the editorial boards of the neurosurgery journals than in neurology(P < 0.001). The female president or delegate ratio was 19.3% in the World Federation of Neurology-affiliated countries, and it was 4% in the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies-affiliated countries.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there is a significant gender inequality among editorial board members. The position of neurosurgical societies and journals is far different than the field of neurology. Furthermore, these findings should be evaluated as a continuum of the gender inequality in the professional societies' executive boards and delegates representing the national academical community.

Gender Disparities in First Authorship in Publications Related to Attention Deficit Hyperkinetic Disorder (ADHD) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The medical profession has experienced a significant increase in the number of women practitioners in recent decades, leading to a reduction in the gender gap. According to the United States Medical Association, approximately 25% of physicians in the United States are now women. Although this progress is evident in the clinical setting, women's representation in academic medicine remains disproportionately low. The underrepresentation of women in academia has various consequences, including limited access to academic resources and hindered career growth. Previous studies have attempted to analyze these disparities, but results have been inconsistent, and the issue's complexity has not been fully understood. This study aims to examine the disparity in the gender of first authors in academic publications related to " Artificial intelligence (AI) and Attention Deficit Hyperkinetic Disorder (ADHD)" between 2010 and 2023. Analysis was conducted on June 21st, 2023, using the database PubMed. The search term "AI" AND "ADHD" was used to derive all articles over a period of 13 years, from January 1st, 2010, to December 31st, 2022, excluding the year 2023 due to limited available publications. The relevant articles were downloaded in Microsoft Excel sheets. The gender of the first authors was determined using the NamSor app V.2, an application programming interface (API) with a large dataset of names and countries of origin. A total of 204 articles were considered for this study. There were 78 female first authors and 126 male first authors. The highest number of publications with a male first author occurred in 2022, with 32 publications. The Netherlands, Singapore, Turkey, and China have the highest gender ratios, indicating a more favourable representation of both genders. The p-value of 0.2664 suggests that there is no significant association between gender and country. The findings revealed a gender disparity, with a higher number of male first authors. By addressing and rectifying these disparities, we can enhance the overall quality, diversity, and inclusivity of research in the field of ADHD and Artificial Intelligence.

Gender Authorship Trends Among Craniofacial Publications: A 20-Year Analysis

This study aims to identify gender disparities within the subspecialty of craniofacial surgery as women surgeons remain underrepresented in academia and leadership, arenas heavily dictated by research productivity.

All craniofacial articles published in 3 major research journals from 2000 to 2020 were reviewed and evaluated in 5-year increments.

Information regarding author gender, authorship distribution, geographic origin, and publication type was collected. ANOVA, χ2, and logistic regression modeling were used for analysis.

In total, there were 3684 articles with 15 206 total authors-3128 (20.6%) were women, including 665 (21.3%) first authors, 1980 (63.2%) middle authors, and 487 (15.7%) senior authors. Mean women authorship increased significantly from 2000 to 2020 (0.33 vs 1.22 P < .001) with corresponding significant increases in first and senior authorship (8.63% vs 27.02; 5.65% vs 16.13%; P < .001). Statistically significant trends across time were observed for first and senior authorships (P < .001). Women were more likely to publish original publications as first and senior authors (OR: 1.83, P < .001; OR: 1.37, P = .0012). Women were less likely to publish editorial articles (OR 0.6, P < .001). The United States ranked third in publication output by female first authors but was behind all regions except Africa for output by female senior authors.

Although female authorship has increased significantly over the last 2 decades, women remain a minority within the craniofacial literature. Further research is needed to elicit the root of these disparities.

Dermatology Journals' Editorial Boards Require Improved Gender Equity: JMIR Dermatology's Future Directions

Gender disparities exist across all facets of academic medicine including within the editorial boards of dermatology journals. Only 22% of these editorial boards comprised women, even though 51% of full-time, faculty dermatologists are female. When inviting academic dermatologists to our editorial board at JMIR Dermatology, we invited 50% women to represent the gender distribution of academic dermatologists; however, we have not sufficiently reached gender equity among accepted editorial board members. We will continue to strive toward the goal of gender equity on our editorial board and invite other dermatology journals to do the same.

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.

Authorship Trends of Women in Retina: A 25-Year Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the trends in first and last authorship of women within clinical retina research over the last 25 years.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

First and last author names were retrieved from original articles published between January 1, 1995, and January 1, 2021, in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology (Archives of Ophthalmology), Ophthalmology, and Retina.

METHODS

The medical subject heading major term "retina" was used in PubMed to filter publications specific to the field of retina. Publications by single authors and collaborative study groups and those classified as comments, letters, and editorials were excluded. First and last author names were obtained, and Gender API was used to assign sex. Names were crosschecked with the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) directory for United States-based authors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of male and female first and last authors throughout the study period and the association between first and last authorship gender were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 4142 articles were included. The percentage of women in first and last authorship positions significantly increased from 23% to 37.7% and 14.2% to 24.6%, respectively, over 25 years (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). When the last authors were women, 32.5% of the first authors were women, and when the last authors were men, 27.1% of the first authors were women (P = 0.002). Based on the ASRS 2020 directory, 17% of practicing retina specialists in the United States were women in 2020. For publications in 2020, 28.2% of the first authors and 22.3% of the last authors of retina publications from the United States were women (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a disparity in authorship persists in the subspecialties of ophthalmology, this data suggest that retina is a field where the gap is improving. Mentorship by senior female authors is associated with a higher proportion of female first authors.

Female Dynamics in Authorship of Scientific Publications in the Public Library of Science: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research

Women are generally underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As scientific production reflects scholarly impact and participation in the scientific process, the number of journal publications forms a pertinent measure of academic productivity. This study examined the prevalence and evolution of female representation in prominent author positions across multidisciplinary biomedical research. Publications from seven exemplar cross-specialty journals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, PLoS One, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases) between January 2010 and December 2020 were extracted from Web of Science. Using Genderize.io, the gender of authors from their first names was estimated using a 75% threshold. The association between female prevalence in first and last authorship and journal was evaluated using a binary logistic regression, and odds ratios were estimated against a 50:50 reference on gender. In 266,739 publications, 43.3% of first authors and 26.7% of last authors were females. Across the ten-year period, female first authorship increased by 19.6% and last authorship by 3.2%. Among all journals, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion of female first authors (45.7%) and PLoS Medicine of female last authors (32%), while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories (23.7% and 17.2%). First authors were less likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.05) except for PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases (odds ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.00), where the odds of female authorship were not significantly different (p = 0.054). Last authors were not more likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.001). Overall, women still appear underrepresented as first authors in biomedical publications and their representation as last authors has severely lagged. Efforts towards gender equality in scholarly authorship will contribute to the representation of women in biomedical research and ensure that their potential is not lost.

Descriptive analysis of cornea and anterior segment fellowship program directors in 2020

PURPOSE

To investigate demographic characteristics, educational backgrounds, and academic achievements among program directors (PDs) of cornea and external disease and anterior segment fellowships in the United States in 2020.

SETTING

Database study of U.S. fellowship programs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

PDs of cornea and external disease and anterior segment fellowships were identified using the San Francisco Match website. Fellowship program features reviewed included academic or private practice type, number of cornea faculty, and sex of chairperson. PD demographic characteristics, educational and training background, and academic productivity were analyzed using publicly available profiles and databases.

RESULTS

76 cornea and external disease and 10 anterior segment fellowships were reviewed. Of 86 reviewed programs, 55 (64.0%) were considered academic, 30 (34.9%) were private practice, and 1 (1.2%) was hybrid. 76 cornea and external disease PDs and 12 anterior segment PDs were identified. Overall, 21 (23.9%) of PDs were women, and the mean age for all PDs was 52.6 ± 11.5 years. Of the 88 PDs, the average number of publications was 45.1 ± 55.9. The mean h-index was 16.7 ± 15.4 and was higher among cornea and external disease than anterior segment PDs (18.2 ± 15.5 vs 7.1 ± 11.4, P = .008) and also higher among academic than private practice PDs (19.9 ± 15.1 vs 11.2 ± 14.7, P = .011). More female PDs were in departments with a female chairperson compared with male PDs (6 [28.6%] vs 4 [6.0%], P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

Cornea and external disease and anterior segment fellowship PDs represent a wide array of backgrounds and scholarly achievements. Female PDs remain in the minority and are more common in departments with female chairpersons.

Trends in female authorship in two major psychiatry journals in India

Women authors are under-represented in academic medicine and academic publishing. We examined the representation of women in key authorship positions in psychiatric journals in India as well as time trends in female authorship across a decade. All articles originating from India and published in two leading Indian psychiatry journals during 2019-2020 were examined and compared with articles published in these journals during 2009-2010. Important outcomes examined were representations of women as first author, corresponding author, and last author, and the number of women in authorship lists. A total of 817 articles was analyzed; of these, 251 (30.7%) were published during 2009-2010 and 566 (69.3%) during 2019-2020. Women first-authored just over a quarter of the articles (n = 218, 26.7%). Nearly half of the articles (n = 389, 47.6%) had no woman author. Representation of women in key authorship positions and in total authorship increased significantly across time. Notably, the proportion of women first authors significantly increased for original papers (24.5% in 2009-2010 vs 38.1% in 2019-2020, p = 0.011). Gender gap in academic psychiatry publishing in India has narrowed during the past decade but is still evident. There is a need to identify and address factors that could narrow the gender gap.

Further Divided Gender Gaps in Research Productivity and Collaboration during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Coronavirus-related Literature

Based on publication data on coronavirus-related fields, this study applies a difference in differences approach to explore the evolution of gender inequalities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the differences in the numbers and shares of authorships, leadership in publications, gender composition of collaboration, and scientific impacts. We find that, during the pandemic: (1) females’ leadership in publications as the first author was negatively affected; (2) although both females and males published more papers relative to the pre-pandemic period, the gender gaps in the share of authorships have been strengthened due to the larger increase in males’ authorships; (3) the share of publications by mixed-gender collaboration declined; (4) papers by teams in which females play a key role were less cited in the pre-pandemic period, and this citation disadvantage was exacerbated during the pandemic; and (5) gender inequalities regarding authorships and collaboration were enhanced in the initial stage of COVID-19, widened with the increasing severity of COVID-19, and returned to the pre-pandemic level in September 2020. This study shows that females’ lower participation in teams as major contributors and less collaboration with their male colleagues also reflect their underrepresentation in science in the pandemic period. This investigation significantly deepens our understanding of how the pandemic influenced academia, based on which science policies and gender policy changes are proposed to mitigate the gender gaps.

Gender Distribution of First and Senior Authorship Across Most Cited Studies Within the Top Ten Surgical Journals From 2015-2020: Cementing Women Academic Surgery Representation

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to investigate the gender distribution of first and senior authors in the most highly cited original research studies published in the top 10 surgical journals from 2015 to 2020 to identify disparities and changes over time.

METHODS

A retrospective study analyzing the gender distribution of first and senior authors in the top 10 most cited studies from the top 10 surgical journals from 2015 to 2020. The genders of the first and senior authors of each study were assessed using National Provider Identifier (NPI) numbers or pronouns from institutional biographies or news articles.

RESULTS

The genders of 1200 first and senior authors from 600 original research studies were assessed. First author gender distribution consisted of 71.8% men, 22.3% women, 0% non-binary, and 5.8% unknown. Senior author gender distribution was 82.3% men, 14.3% women, 0% non-binary, and 3.3% unknown. Studies published by first authors who are women received more citations than those published by first authors that are men in 2015 (169.1 versus 112.9, P = 0.002) and 2016 (144.2 versus 101.5, P = 0.011). There was an increase in first authorship among men from 2015 to 2020 (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Men represent a significantly higher proportion of both first and senior authorships in top surgical research and the gap has widened from 2015 to 2020. However, studies written by women first authors received significantly more citations than those written by men.

Gender Authorship Trends in the Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Literature

PURPOSE

Despite increasing numbers of women oculoplastic surgeons, they remain underrepresented within the subspecialty. The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in gender authorship within the field of ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study sampled articles published in Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (OPRS) and Orbit during the years 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015, and 2020. Data reviewed included article type, total number of authors, and the gender of each article's first and senior author.

RESULTS

Nine hundred ninety-nine articles were analyzed, including 701 in OPRS and 298 in Orbit. Of 3,716 total authors, 1,151 (31%) were women, including 297 (29.7%) first authors, and 191 (21.5%) senior authors. Women authorship in OPRS in 1985 (first, 3.9%; senior, 3.3%; all, 3.2%) significantly increased by 2020 (first, 44.6%; senior, 27.9%; all, 42%). Women authorship in Orbit in 1985 (first, 0%; senior, 4.5%; all, 7.4%) also significantly increased by 2020 (first, 43.3%; senior, 34%; all, 42.9%). In a subanalysis of OPRS original investigations alone, women first authorship increased from 3.1% in 1985 to 35.8% in 2020 (p < 0.001) and women senior authorship increased from 4.3% in 1985 to 25% in 2020 (p = 0.001). In a subanalysis of Orbit original investigations alone, women first authorship increased from 0% in 1985 to 65.4% in 2020 (p < 0.001) and women senior authorship increased from 5.3% in 1985 to 42.3% in 2020 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a significant increase in women authorship over the past several decades, women remain underrepresented within the oculoplastic literature, particularly in regard to senior authorship. When considering original investigations alone, there has been a significant increase in women first and senior authorship in both OPRS and Orbit.

The impact of gender in mentor-mentee success: Results from the Women's Dermatologic Society Mentorship Survey

Background

Mentorship can have a profound impact on the success and happiness of a mentee while also providing a sense of fulfillment and enrichment for the mentor. Both officially designated and spontaneously chosen mentors can be useful for protégés as they navigate through their training and professional work environment while striving to obtain the optimal work–life balance. Different genders can have variable experiences, in both their personal lives managing family obligations and their professional lives as dermatologists, which may affect the advice and guidance offered.

Objective

We studied the impact of gender on the mentor–mentee relationship for both official and spontaneous mentorships through a voluntary survey with a focus on reported outcomes from the perspective of the mentee.

Methods

Participants were selected through e-mail invitation via the Women's Dermatologic Society and program directors of the Association of Professors of Dermatology membership lists and given a link to the anonymous survey tool. The survey included 13 questions looking at official and spontaneous mentorships, the role of gender, and success in the dermatology field.

Results

Of the 288 respondents, 202 (69.9%) were women, 86 (29.8%) were men, and one identified as other. Of the survey participants, 81% had official mentors and 91% had spontaneous mentors, with the overlap indicating that there may have been a history of multiple mentors per individual. Mentoring had an overall significant positive impact, and 98.5% of those in the spontaneous-mentor group rated the mentor as helpful compared with 87.6% in the official-mentor cohort. For official mentorships, 60.1% involved gender-similar mentors, and of those who had officially designated mentors of any type, 55% indicated a preference for mentors of the same gender. When specifically looking at respondents who participated in same-gender official mentorships, 65.5% preferred this type; of those who had a gender-dissimilar equivalent, only 36.7% indicated a preference for gender similarity in a mentor. Comparably, 59% of protégés with spontaneous mentors had a gender-similar one, and of those who had spontaneous mentors of any type, 59.2% preferred gender similarity. When considering only those in gender-similar spontaneous mentorships, 74.5% favored a same-gender pairing compared with 32.9% of those in the gender-dissimilar group. For female–female official mentorships, 75% preferred a female mentor, similar to 80.5% of the spontaneous-mentor cohort.

Conclusion

Spontaneous mentors may provide a greater benefit than officially designated ones. For the majority of the categories, there was no statistical difference between female same-gender mentorships and gender-dissimilar relationships, which is in contrast with previously published literature. Overall, based on the feedback provided, the respondents believed that the quality of the relationship was the most important defining factor, but some noted that same-gender mentorships can provide additional benefit geared toward similar interests and experiences in life.

Trends in Female Authorship in Cornea From 2007 to 2019

PURPOSE

To identify female authorship trends in first author and last author positions in Cornea from 2007 to 2019.

METHODS

First and last authors of all Clinical Science and Basic Investigation publications in Cornea over 13 years were sorted by sex. Identification of sex was based on the author's institutional profile or a Google-based name identifier in cases of equivocal names. The proportion of female board-certified ophthalmologists between 2007 and 2019 was collected from the American Board of Ophthalmology total roster of certified diplomats.

RESULTS

First and last author sexes were collected from 2313 publications (1837 Clinical Science and 476 Basic Investigation). Between 2007 and 2019, the percentage of female first authors increased from 30.5% to 41.5%, although this change was not significant (P = 0.240). Female last author percentage increased significantly from 14.9% to 26.6% (P = 0.016). The percentage of female American Board of Ophthalmology-certified diplomats also increased significantly from 17.4% to 24.5% (P < 0.001). Similarly, when comparing 2007 and 2008 with 2018 and 2019, we noted a significant increase in the proportion of women in the last author (P < 0.001) but not in the first author (P = 0.208) position. We also identified a significantly higher proportion of female first authors than that of female board-certified ophthalmologists (P < 0.001). Finally, there was a strong association between first author sex and last author sex (P < 0.001) across manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of women in last author positions increased over 13 years among manuscripts in Cornea. Despite these advances in academic female representation within the cornea subspecialty, a gender gap in authorship persists.

Female Editorial Authorship Trends in High-Impact Ophthalmology Journals

Importance

Individuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.

Objective

To determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.

Results

Of 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

The proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.

Does Gender Matter in Academic Surgery? Author and Mentor Gender Impact Publication Citations in Surgical Research

OBJECTIVE

To examine female author representation within publications in the field of urology from the United States from 2000-2019.

METHODS

All 25,787 articles with a U.S. correspondence address published in the two largest U.S. headquartered general urology journals, Urology and Journal of Urology, were analyzed from 2000-2019. Gender was assigned to each first and last author based on the author's first name. First names were matched to a database of U.S. Social Security Administration data to determine gender.

RESULTS

Overall female authorship, female senior authorship, and female first authorship exhibited a significant upward trend from 2000 to 2019 (P <0.001, P <0.001, P = 0.002). As the number of female last authors increased, female last authors were significantly more likely to publish with female first authors, and significantly less likely publish with male first authors (P <0.001, P <0.001). Furthermore, we found a significant difference for female authors being less likely to get cited than male authors (p = 0.02), despite the greater proportion of females that authored research articles with higher citation counts compared to males (P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

Despite the significant progress in female representation within urological publications, female-authored publications continue to constitute a smaller proportion of the urological literature and are less likely to be cited. Our study provides the first evidence on the current status of female underrepresentation within academic urology and literature productivity at this watershed moment. As the number of female urologists evolves, these findings will be of significant impact in the advancement of female investigators in urology.

Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review

CONTEXT

Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals.

METHODS

A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women.

RESULTS

A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.

Do Gender-Based Disparities in Authorship and Editorship Exist in Healthcare Simulation Journals? A Bibliometric Review of the Research

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Publication in peer-reviewed journals, and serving on editorial boards, is considered an indicator of academic productivity and success, and a means of influencing discourse and practice in a field. This bibliometric review explored gender in authorship, and editorship, across the 3 existing English language, nonspecialty specific healthcare simulation journals. In total, 40.4% of publications had women first authors and 34.4% had women senior authors. There were no differences by journal and no apparent changes over time. Poor participation of women on editorial boards (38.1% of editorial board members were women) was observed. The observed level of representation of women as first and senior authors, and on editorial boards, is comparable with other health sciences domains but nonetheless warrants attention and improvement. Future research examining the profile of those working within simulation or evaluating strategies to improve the participation of women within healthcare simulation research and journals would be of interest.

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.

DESIGN

Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.

SETTING

NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).

DATA

Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.

RESULTS

Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

Gender and authorship trends in rhinology, allergy, and skull-base literature from 2008 to 2018

BACKGROUND

A recent analysis suggested potential narrowing of the gender gap in research productivity in the field of rhinology. This analysis did not, however, provide insight into how the genders are represented in the rhinologic literature. This study aimed to evaluate 11 years of literature to evaluate for gender differences in authorship position, collaborations, category and content of research, citations, and funding to gain perspective on how gender and authorship has changed over time.

METHODS

Authorship data for all articles on rhinologic subject matter published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2018 in four otolaryngology journals was collected. The gender of authors was determined by protocol. Category and content of research and funding status/source were additionally obtained.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 2666 articles. Gender of 14,510 authors was determined. Female authors accounted for 23% of the overall authors and male authors accounted for 77%. Female first authorship increased significantly over time, but there was no change in female senior authorship. The percentage of female authors steadily increased over time, whereas male authorship decreased slightly. Mixed gender teams were shown to be increasing in frequency. Women published more than expected in basic science and allergy and less than expected in skull base. On funded studies, women were significantly underrepresented as senior authors.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first assessment of gender differences in the rhinology literature. Areas where female representation can improve include senior authorship, increased involvement in skull base publications, and increased funding.

A commentary on gender bias in dermatology and its perceived impact on career development among women dermatologists

Gender bias and gender-based discrimination and harassment are known to affect women across all fields of medicine. Despite acknowledgement of a persistent "gender gap" in dermatology, there has been little formal research to date exploring how gender bias may be impacting the careers of women in the field. In this commentary, we discuss the results of an anonymous, online survey that assessed perceived effects of gender bias and sexual harassment on professional development among women dermatologists. The large majority of respondents reported experiencing significant gender-based obstacles to career advancement in either their current or past practice settings. Lack of equal professional support between men and women and discrimination based on parental status were commonly noted themes. A majority of respondents also reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. These trends, while not unique to the field of dermatology, are unacceptable and need to be confronted and rectified. Promoting gender equity in dermatology is important for clinicians, patients, and the future of dermatology.

Gender gap in medical research: a bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals

Several studies explored gender inequalities in research, but only limited data are available concerning general internal medicine and family medicine. We aimed to assess the level of gender inequalities in Swiss academic medical research. In this bibliometric study conducted in March 2020, we selected all senior hospital physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. The list of these physicians was extracted from the hospitals’ websites. We recorded their socio-demographic characteristics. Then, using Web of Science, we retrieved the number of publications (overall, as first author, per year, per year as first author), the proportion of publications as first author, the number of citations (overall, per year, per publication) and the h-index, and we compared the data by gender. 367 senior physicians were included in the study [female physicians: 172 (47%), internal medicine: 187 (51%)]. Female physicians were four times less likely to be a professor (5% vs. 20%, p value < 0.001) and half as often heads of division or staff physicians (19% vs. 40%, p value < 0.001). The proportion of physicians having published at least one article was lower among women than men (79% vs. 90%, p value 0.003). Finally, all bibliometric indices were associated with male gender (incident rate ratios ranging from 1.9 [(95% CI 1.3–2.8), p value 0.001] for number of citations per publication to 9.3 [(95% CI 5.3–16.2), p value < 0.001] for number of citations), except the proportion of publications as first author that was associated with female gender [odds ratio 1.7 (95% CI 1.2–2.3), p value 0.003). Our data suggest a “leaky pipeline” phenomenon (a lower proportion of women moving up the academic ladder). In addition, with the exception of the proportion of publications as first author, all bibliometric indices were lower for female than male physicians.

Gender Disparity Among American Medicine and Surgery Physicians: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Disparity exists between men and women physicians. We aimed to examine changes in gender disparity in the medical profession over the last two decades. The study reviewed publications on gender differences and the measures which have been implemented or suggested to rectify these disparities.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched in December 2019 using ("gender disparity" OR "gender gap" OR "pay gap" OR "gender discrimination") from 1998-2019. The sources list of reviewed articles was also used to retrieve more relevant articles. Articles about physicians in the United States were included, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used to evaluate the quality of the articles.

RESULTS

In this systematic review that includes 49 studies, there is still disparity and discrimination in research, leadership, and pay between male and female physicians. Women have less leadership roles and progress at a slower rate to associate and full professor. Women publish less articles and have a lower h-index than men. Men earn $20,000 more a year after salary adjustment. More women than men experience negative comments about their gender (36% vs 4%), experience gender discrimination (65% vs 10%) and sexual harassment (30% vs 6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although substantial research exists on this topic, there remains significant room for improvement to achieve gender equality. Institutions and individuals should implement interventions to rectify this disparity .

Gender gap in research: a bibliometric study of published articles in primary health care and general internal medicine

BACKGROUND

Many studies examined gender inequalities in research, but only a few data are available for general biomedical journals. We assessed the prevalence of female first authorship in general biomedical journals and examined its variations across a number of author, article and journal characteristics.

METHODS

This study was nested within a larger project designed to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles. We retrieved 767 randomly selected articles published in 2016 in high impact factor journals of primary healthcare (n = 9) and general internal medicine (n = 9). We extracted the following data: author (gender, number of publications and affiliation of the first author), paper (number of authors, number of participants and study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline and 2015 impact factor). We compared the proportion of articles authored by women and men using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for intra-cluster correlations.

RESULTS

The female authorship proportion was 48% (63% for primary healthcare and 33% for general internal medicine, P-value < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, women published fewer articles (<5 versus >15 publications: OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.4]), were more often affiliated with institutions in the Western world (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), were more likely to publish qualitative studies (versus systematic reviews or experiments: OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-4.8]) and to publish in primary healthcare journals (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1-2.7]).

CONCLUSIONS

The underrepresentation of women in articles published by general internal medicine journals, in articles from the non-Western world and in systematic reviews and trials should be addressed.

Trends in the Gender Ratio of Authorship at the Robert Graham Center

Gender disparities in medical publication have been demonstrated in several specialties. This descriptive bibliometric analysis aims to determine the gender ratio of scholarly authorship at the Robert Graham Center (RGC) over an 11-year period. We examined publications by RGC researchers and assessed first, second, and last author gender. Of 229 publications, 65.5% had a male first author and 34.5% had a female first author. Of the 217 publications with a last author, 13.4% had a female last author. This study aims to inform the broader discussion about authorship gender parity in academic medicine using a one-site case-study approach.

What Are the Rates and Trends of Women Authors in Three High-impact Orthopaedic Journals from 2006-2017?

BACKGROUND

The gender gap among authors publishing research in journals is narrowing in general medicine and various medical and surgical subspecialties. However, little is known regarding the gender gap among authors publishing research in orthopaedic journals.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the proportion of women first and last authors of original research articles in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017? (2) What is the proportion women first authors of original research by orthopaedic subspecialty from 2006 to 2017?

METHODS

A sample of original research publications from the even numbered months of issues of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume (JBJS), and the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) were examined from 2006 to 2017. These journals were selected because of their clinical relevance, target audience, and relatively high impact factors. Over the studied period, a single author extracted and reviewed pertinent data, including the gender of the first and last authors and the primary subspecialty of the research article. The senior author refereed disputes regarding the primary subspecialty of each included article. The proportion of women first and last authors in each journal was compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis. The proportion of women first authors according to orthopaedic subspecialty in which an article primarily focused its study was also compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 6292 articles, 13% (800) of which were first-authored by women and 10% (604) of which were last-authored by women. From 2006 to 2017, the overall percentage of women first authors in the examined journals increased (from 11% in 2006 to 17% in 2017; odds ratio 1.6563 [95 % CI 1.4945 to 1.8356]; p < 0.001). Overall across the period studied, the percentage of women first authors in JBJS was 14% while 12% of first authors in CORR and AJSM were women. Regarding subspecialty, the percentage of women first authorship ranged from 9% in the shoulder subspecialty to 21% in pediatric orthopaedics across all three journals.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an increase in the percentage of women first authors in articles published in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017. This observed increase is encouraging in terms of promoting gender diversity in orthopaedics and may be reflective of a modest increase in the number of women entering the orthopaedic workforce.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Between 2006 and 2017, the overall number of women first authors in CORR, JBJS, and AJSM modestly increased. This may suggest a nascent narrowing of the gender gap in orthopaedics. Although this is a welcome finding in terms of promoting and encouraging gender diversity in this man-dominated field, the overall percentage of women authorship remains modest, at best. Future investigations should examine whether the modest increase in women first authorship over time found in this study translates into an increased percentage of senior/last authorship in the future, as this may have implications for women orthopaedic workforce retention.

Assessing the Gap in Female Authorship in Neurosurgery Literature: A 20-Year Analysis of Sex Trends in Authorship

BACKGROUND

Publications are considered a major factor for advancement in academia. An effort has been made to study authorship trends in neurosurgery publications. The objective of this study was to investigate authorship trends in the neurosurgery literature for the last 20 years (1998-2018).

METHODS

Articles for the years 1998, 2008, and 2018 were extracted from Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, and World Neurosurgery for this retrospective study. Only original articles, case reports, and review articles were included. The gender of the first, senior, and corresponding author was determined. Subspecialty topic, type of paper, geographic origin of articles, and the number of citations for each article were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 3912 articles were included. The number of articles, the total number of authors, and nonexperimental studies increased in the successive decades. A total of 744 women (19.0%) were first authors and 520 (13.3%) were senior authors of their respective publications. A decreasing trend (P < 0.05) was noted between female first authors and male senior authors over time. All 3 journals showed an increasing pattern of female authorships across the 2 decades.

CONCLUSIONS

A rapid rise in female authorship positions in particular and authorship positions in general demonstrates the diversity that is slowly burgeoning to cater to perspectives and issues that require a multidimensional approach in neurosurgery. Increasing linkages among researchers in neurosurgery on a global scale are evident by the increase in multinational collaborations. Expansive efforts are needed at institutional and individual levels to eradicate sex-based pitfalls that hinder excellence in neurosurgery research.

Representation of women as editors in dermatology journals: A comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Despite a substantial increase in the number of women matriculating into medical school, a gender gap still exists with respect to academic leadership positions. This gap is apparent in the field of dermatology, particularly in the composition of dermatology journal editorial boards. To address this gap, we must first acknowledge its existence, examine potential reasons for its existence, and propose strategies to narrow the gap.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to determine the representation of women as editors in dermatology journals.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed for dermatology journals indexed in Medline, Journal Citation Reports, Scopus, and Embase in August, September, and October 2018. The editorial board of each journal was analyzed for the number and percentage of male and female editors in four different positions. We verified the accuracy of editorial boards listed on publisher websites by emailing administrative personnel. We also recorded the number of years from terminal degree for editorial board members of the 10 journals with the highest impact factors using SCImago Journal Rankings.

RESULTS

Women occupied 18% of editor-in-chief positions, 36% of deputy editor roles, 22% of overall editorial board positions, and 22% of other board roles. The average number of years since terminal degree was not statistically different between women and men, with women averaging 30.2 years and men averaging 28.0 years since completion of terminal degree (p = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that women are underrepresented as editors at all levels in dermatology journals. This supports prior findings reporting a minority of women in academic leadership roles. Thus, although women have made major advancements in the medical field over the past century, there remains room for progress with regard to equal representation in academic leadership roles, including editorial positions, professorships, and department chair roles.

International and Geographic Trends in Gender Authorship within Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Professional advancement in academic plastic surgery may depend on scholarly activity. The authors evaluate gender-based publishing characteristics in three international plastic surgery journals.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all articles published in 2016 in the following journals was undertaken: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, European Journal of Plastic Surgery, Annals of Surgery, and New England Journal of Medicine. Data were collected on lead author gender (first or senior author) and differences in author gender proportions, by journal, by article topic, and by geographic location were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 2610 articles were retrieved: 34.1 percent were from plastic surgery journals, 12.8 percent were from the Annals of Surgery, and 53.1 percent were from the New England Journal of Medicine. There was a lower proportion of female lead authors among plastic surgery journals compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine (31 percent versus 39 percent versus 39 percent; p = 0.001). There were no differences in female lead author geographic location in the Annals of Surgery or the New England Journal of Medicine; within the plastic surgery journals, there were differences (p = 0.005), including a lower proportion arising from East Asia (15 percent) and a higher proportion arising from Canada (48 percent). Within plastic surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the lowest proportion of female lead author (p < 0.001). The proportion of female lead author varied by article topic (p < 0.001) and was notably higher in breast (45.6 percent) and lower in head and neck/craniofacial-orientated articles (25.0 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

There are gender disparities in three mainstream plastic surgery journals-Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, the European Journal of Plastic Surgery-and there are lower proportions of lead female authorship compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine. Further research should focus on understanding any geographic disparities that may exist.

The influence of first author sex on acceptance rates of submissions to Anaesthesia Cases

More than 50% of medical students and 45% of practising doctors are female in the UK. In the specialty of anaesthesia, 32% of consultants are female. However, compared with males, females are under-represented as authors of articles published in high-impact journals. We investigated the proportion of female first authors by examining the case reports submitted to Anaesthesia Cases since its inception in 2013. We defined authors by their sex (male or female), that is, biological characteristics, rather than their gender. There were a total of 802 submissions to Anaesthesia Cases over 4.5 years. Sixteen submissions were excluded and of the remaining 786 submissions, 279 were accepted and 507 rejected, an acceptance rate of 35.5%. Twenty (2.5%) authors' sex could not be identified. The overall proportion of female first authors was 37.1%. The proportion of female first authors of accepted case reports was 42.1% and females were first authors of rejected case reports in 34.4%. We found that, compared with previous studies on female sex and gender bias in publishing, there was a relatively high proportion of female first authors publishing in Anaesthesia Cases and female first authors were more likely to be accepted than male first authors. Authorship is considered to reflect career success and there continues to be sex/gender inequity that must be tackled at all levels, from application to medical school, through research funding, journals and Editorial Boards.

Patterns of North American Women Authorship in 2 Allergy/Immunology Journals: 1997-2017

BACKGROUND

Disparities in the frequency of publications by gender have been reported in various medical subspecialties.

OBJECTIVE

Review author gender in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology from 1997 to 2017.

METHODS

Data on frequency and patterns of authorship by gender were collected in 5-year intervals and analyzed by journal, article type, and year of publication. Logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with a greater likelihood of first authors being women. We compared these patterns with the frequency of women AAAAI (American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology) members and AAAAI fellows-in-training.

RESULTS

Women were first authors in 36.5% of publications, increasing from 26.6% in 1997 to 48.1% in 2017 (P < .001). Their share as first author was highest (42.5%) for original articles and lowest (17.1%) for editorials. Share of women as last authors increased from 18.1% in 1997 to 30.9% in 2017 (P = .001). Women were less likely to be sole authors: 17.7% (P < .001). Articles with women as first authors were observed more frequently when women were last authors (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; P < .0001). This association was more likely in original investigations (OR, 2.1; P < .001) and articles published more recently (2007, 2012, 2017) (OR, 1.75; P < .001). The increasing rate of women first authors correlated with rising proportions of women AAAAI members (Pearson correlation = 0.96; P = .01) and fellows-in-training (Pearson correlation = 0.96; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Women authorship has become more frequent in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The probability of women being first authors is more likely in articles with women as last authors, implying that mentorship of women by women may encourage women to become more active in scholarship.

An Analysis of Female Plastic Surgery Authorship: Where Are We Today?

BACKGROUND

Authorship in a peer-reviewed journal is highly regarded in both the academic and private sectors of plastic surgery. Recently, several articles have cited an increased contribution from women in the plastic surgery literature; however, none to date has analyzed the demographic trends of these female authors. The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of female authors in three well-known plastic surgery journals.

METHODS

Articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and Aesthetic Surgery Journal between January of 2015 and December of 2015 were reviewed. Supplemental journal, review, and CME articles were excluded. First, second, and last authors from the United States were reviewed and stratified by a number of categories, including sex, geographic location, and title.

RESULTS

Two-thousand fifty authors were reviewed. Of these, 20 percent of first authors, 24 percent of second authors, and 15 percent of last authors were women. Female representation was fairly equal among the journals, and 39 percent of women authors were international. Overall, 16 percent of fully trained plastic surgeon authors and 25 percent of resident authors were women, as compared to 15 percent female fully trained plastic surgeons and 36.2 percent female residents represented in the overall community.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty are on par with national percentages of women plastic surgeons; however, women residents have lower representation in the literature than in the community as a whole. Residents and faculty must promote productivity of the younger generation of women plastic surgeons to continue increasing contributions of women to the specialty.