Gender and Radiology Publication Productivity: An Examination of Academic Faculty From Four Health Systems in the United States

Female Representation on Radiology Journal Editorial Boards Around the World: Geographical Differences and Temporal Trends

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We examined the status of women's representation on radiology journal editorial boards around the world and evaluated temporal trends in female board representation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on the gender of editorial board members, deputy editors, and editors-in-chief of top general radiology journals from the United States and from five continents outside North America was collected, based on listings in mastheads of each journal at 5-year intervals from 1998 to 2018. Female editorial board representation was compared to female membership in national professional radiology organizations and national physician registries.

RESULTS

One of 42 editors-in-chief (2.4%), 24 of 135 deputy editors (17.8%), and 345 of 2545 (13.6%) editorial board members were female for the 20-year period. The overall percentage of female editorial board members increased from 9.7% (41 of 423) in 1998 to 17.0% (97 of 569) in 2018 (p < 0.0001). In 2018, women were less represented on the editorial boards than female professional society membership for all geographic regions except Australia/New Zealand; this difference reached statistical significance in Korea, Brazil, Europe, and China. Female editorial board representation ranged from 11.3% to 33.3%, with no significant difference between the United States (21.5%) and other countries.

CONCLUSION

Although the proportion of female editorial board members of radiology journals worldwide has increased over the past two decades, female editorial board composition generally underrepresents the percentage of female radiologists. Editorial board female representation does not differ significantly between the United States and other countries.

Gender-based Survey Analysis of Research and Mentoring in Interventional Radiology

PURPOSE

This study sought to define the gender-related differences in attitudes, perceptions, and aspirations among trainees interested in interventional radiology (IR) and analyze their experiences in research and mentorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey study was conducted among members of the Society of Interventional Radiology Resident, Fellow and Student section and Medical Student Section in the summer of 2020. The anonymous, internally validated 27-item survey assessed demographics, research attitudes and experiences, mentorship, and career aspirations. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Fischer's exact analyses and student's t-tests. The Institutional Review Board approved the protocols for this study.

RESULTS

Of the 105 respondents who indicated their gender, 30% were women and 70% were men. Although both genders reported similar levels of research experience, female trainees were less likely to feel valued and encouraged by their institution to engage in research (2.79 vs. 3.16 out of 4, p=0.02) and were less likely to indicate that their program requires them to participate in research (2.47 vs. 3.06, p=0.01). Female residents and fellows reported more difficulty in finding a mentor (2.88 vs. 3.28, p=0.04) and received less mentorship relating to IR education (29% vs. 64%, p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

This work provides perspective on the obstacles faced by female trainees in pursuing research and finding effective mentorship in the field of interventional radiology. This data may guide future interventions to boost interest and engagement in IR research and residency programs in a way that promotes gender diversity and equity in the field.

Research Output by Medical Doctors After PhD Graduation in Radiology: 17-Year Experience From the Netherlands

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To determine the frequency and predictors of lack of research output by medical doctors after PhD graduation in radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included all 272 PhD theses by medical doctors in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2016, with radiology as the field of research of the primary doctoral supervisor. Post-PhD research output was considered lacking if no original research, systematic review, or meta-analysis was published as first, second, or last author in the post-PhD period.

RESULTS

The percentage of PhD graduates without research output was 41.9% (78/186) at 5 years, 28.6% (24/84) at 10 years, and 16.1% (5/31) at 15 years in the post-PhD period. On univariate Cox regression analysis, only female gender emerged as a significant predictor of a lack of research output in the post-PhD period (odds ratio: 1.456, 95% confidence interval: 1.023-2.073, p = 0.038). PhD student's age, being a radiologist or not before PhD graduation, the radiologic subspecialty topic of the PhD thesis, the H-index of the primary doctoral supervisor, the institution at which the PhD was performed, and the number of publications in the PhD period, were not significantly associated with lack of post-PhD research output.

CONCLUSION

A considerable proportion of medical doctors has no active research output after obtaining a PhD degree in radiology, and this should be taken into account when relying on PhD programs to replenish the physician-scientist workforce. Females appear to be more prone to lack active research output, and this should be addressed by the scientific community and society.

Challenges and Initiatives in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Cancer Molecular Imaging

A diverse biomedical workforce is essential to achieve excellence in patient care, clinical translational, and basic research. Diversity, equity, and inclusion challenges in cancer molecular represent a combination of the challenges facing the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) field, and challenges in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. Although there is a growing awareness of conscious and unconscious bias that negatively affect the cancer imaging world, many challenges remain such as overcoming barriers to entry into the pipeline, avoiding program dropout, and providing long-term career prospect. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant setback and further highlighted problems faced by women and underrepresented minorities. In this perspective, we have identified some of the challenges faced and highlighted ongoing and future initiatives to address these challenges.

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Considering that radiology is still a male-dominated specialty in which men make up more than two thirds of the workforce, this systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current role of women in radiological imaging, focusing on the main aspects such as career progression, leadership, academic practice, and perceived discrimination. Three electronic databases were searched up to 21 October 2020. To identify additional records, weekly automatic email alerts were set up on PubMed until December 2020 and reference lists of key studies and included papers were screened. Two reviewers independently performed the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was involved. Across the 61 included articles, women worked more often part-time and held fewer positions of power in hospitals, on editorial boards, and at the academic level (associate and full professors). Women were less often in relevant positions in scientific articles, had fewer publications, and had a lower H-index. Discrimination and sexual harassment were experienced by up to 40% and 47% of female radiologists, respectively. Our study highlights that women in radiology are still underrepresented and play a marginal role in the field, struggling to reach top and leading positions.

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.

Representation of Women on Radiology Journal Editorial Boards: A 40-Year Analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We examined female representation on editorial boards of four prominent radiology journals. We compared editorial board representation to female academic radiology career advancement and the proportion of female authorship in three journals over four decades.

METHODS

We collected data on the gender of editorial board members as listed on mastheads of Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), Academic Radiology, and the Journal of the American College of Radiology in 5-year intervals plus the most recent year available (1973-2017), and the gender of their editors-in-chief for all years since each journal's inception. We compared Radiology, AJR, and Academic Radiology data to published data on gender of the journals' authors, all US medical students, and academic radiologists over time.

RESULTS

Gender was determined for 171 editors-in-chief (100%) and 2139 (100%) editorial board members listed in the selected journals for each of the study years. The proportion of women on editorial boards increased from 1.4% (1 of 69) in 1978 to 18.8% (73 of 388) in 2013 (P < .001), but remained below the proportion of female first authors (7.5% in 1978 and 27.1% in 2013) and female faculty in radiology (11.5% in 1978 and 28.1% in 2013). None of the four general radiology journals had a female editor-in-chief during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Female representation on editorial boards has increased over time, but still lags behind increases seen in female first authorship in radiology journals and radiology faculty appointments over the last four decades. There was no female editor-in-chief during the study period.