Authorship and Impact of Gender-Specific Research in Major Radiology Journals

Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology Authorship: A 13-Year Review

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Underrepresentation of women in many scientific fields has been linked to biases against female-authored publications in peer-reviewed journals, thereby reducing their opportunities for career development and promotions. The objective of this study is to determine the representation of female academic radiologists in four flagship general radiology journals to elucidate gender-specific trends and disparities in academic radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 23,741 peer-reviewed articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology and Academic Radiology from 2007 to 2020. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for author gender, first and last authorship, research funding, and number of citations and grants. Baseline demographics data of academic radiologists was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

RESULTS

A total of 72.4% of authors were male with 54% of articles were written by a male first author and male last author. When compared with assumed random pairing, there were significantly fewer Male/Female author combinations and more Female/Female author combinations than expected (p<0.01). Over the 13-year time period, the rate of increase in the number of female authors exceeded the rate of increase in women in academic radiology as reported by the AAMC. Female last authors received on average 3.2 less citations than their male counterparts (p=.03). Of manuscripts with last female authors, 31.7% of female last authors were funded compared to 25.9% of last male authors.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the increasing numbers and higher productivity of female authors in academic radiology, suggesting progress is being made in overcoming gender disparities.

Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines

BACKGROUND

Career prospects in academic medicine are strongly linked to scientific authorship and this marker has been widely used as an indicator of gender equity in academia. However, direct comparisons of medical disciplines regarding their proportion of female physicians (FP) in different countries are missing. This study examines the gender parity and gender cooperation using first authorships (FA) and senior authorships (SA) of scientific publications in five medical disciplines and six different OECD countries over a 10-year time-trend.

METHODS

Articles from three high-impact journals in each of the medical discipline radiology, urology, surgery, gynecology, and pediatrics from the years 2007/8 and 2017/18 were retrospectively reviewed. The gender and affiliation location of the FA and SA of original research articles and reviews were assigned and compared with the proportion of in each discipline for the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. Mantel-Haenszel test and multinomial logistic regression models were used to calculate differences in proportions of women authors and FP and to assess trends and proportions of FA and SA.

RESULTS

30,803 articles were evaluated. Equally, with rising proportions of FP in all disciplines, the number of women authors increased across years. The shares of women FAs were either significantly higher (urology/surgery/gynecology) or balanced (pediatrics/radiology) compared to the proportion of FP. In contrast, the shares of women SA were balanced only in disciplines with a low proportion of FP (urology and surgery) and otherwise reduced. Women same-gender cooperation was as common as men same-gender cooperation and preferred over a women-led mixed gender cooperation in disciplines where this seemed to be practicable due to the high proportions of FP.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to FA, a significant disparity persists in SA, particularly in disciplines with a high proportion of FP. The discrepancy between FA and SA may reflect, among others, dropout from an academic career in early or mid-academic levels, for example, due to structural inequality; together with the findings on gender preference in authorship collaborations, this may inform future strategies for promoting equal career advancement for women physicians.

Female author representation differs between journals from the United States of America, Europe, and Asia: a 10-year comparison of five medical disciplines

To provide information for targeted support of female scientists, the objective of this study was to evaluate how female authors are represented in journals of five medical disciplines with varying rates of female physicians from the United States of America (USA), Europe, and Asia. For this retrospective bibliometric study 15 representative gynecologic, pediatric, radiologic, urologic, and surgical journals from the USA, Europe, and Asia were selected from the Web of Science database. From these, all n = 24182 publications of the years 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 were included. Gender and affiliations were assigned to first and senior authors using a software (Gender API, Passau, Germany), native speakers, and a web-based search. For statistics mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression were applied. In pediatrics, radiology, and urology, highest female first and senior author shares were consistently found in journals from the USA. In European journals proportions across all disciplines tripled (odds ratio 2.96 [95% CI 2.60–3.37], P < .0001). Asian journals showed three-times fewer female authorships than journals from the USA or Europe and the smallest increase (1.36 [1.11–1.66], P = .0026). Compared to the proportion of female physicians within each specialty, female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals and female senior authors in journals of all regions. In journals from the USA most female authors originated from institutes within the USA (36.2%), in European journals from the USA (21.1%) or Europe (21.7%). Women from Asian institutes were worst represented in journals of all regions with lowest rates in Asian journals (9.4%). In conclusion female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals, female senior authors and women from Asian institutes in journals from all regions. Programs for gender equality in science are thus particularly necessary to support female senior authors, for Asian journals, and women from Asian institutes.

Trends in gender of first and senior authors of articles published in JMIRO

INTRODUCTION

Despite progress of women in science and medicine, women remain underrepresented in academic publication. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential gender differences in women authorship in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (JMIRO).

METHODS

Gender of the first and senior author of all articles published in JMIRO between 2012 and 2021 were examined. Changes over time and differences among groups were compared using the chi-square test.

RESULTS

In total, 1,138 articles were assessed. Women were first and senior authors on 34% and 25% of all articles respectively. The proportion of women as first author was 30%, 41% and 36% for medical imaging (MI), radiation oncology (RO) and combined MI/RO articles respectively. Similarly, the proportion of women as senior author was lower than men at 22%, 32% and 23% for MI, RO and MI/RO articles respectively. Women first authorship over the study period remained stable from 2014 (36%) to 2020 (38%); however, it decreased dramatically in 2021 to 28%. There was a trend of increasing women senior authorship from 2013 (15%) to 2017 (35%) but decreased to 23% in 2021.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 10 years of publications, one in three first authors were women and only one in four senior authors were women. The acknowledgement of this imbalance is the first step to pave the way towards addressing underlying systemic issues related to academic publication and disparities in gender and other inequities.

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.

Diversity in high-impact psychiatric publishing: gender parity within reach?

Gender parity and authorship diversity are declared goals in the publishing world. This study assessed the progress of authorship gender distribution over a quarter of a century and geographic diversity over the last 15 years in high-impact psychiatric journals. All articles published in 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the British Journal of Psychiatry, and JAMA Psychiatry were included and compared with data from three points in time starting in 1994. Descriptive statistics were gathered, and chi-square tests were performed. All tests were conducted as two-tailed, and p-values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Inter-rater reliability was calculated via Cohen's kappa. In 2019 a total of 473 articles were published. Forty percent of all authors, 42.3% of first authors, and 29.4% of senior authors were female. Counting original research articles only, female first authorship reached 50.4%. In the 25-year period between 1994 and 2019, female first (p < .001), female senior (p < .001), and female overall (p < .001) authorship has increased. In the specific period between 2014 and 2019, overall female senior authorship in all articles (p = .940) as well as first (p = .101) and senior (p = .157) in original research plateaued. In non-original research articles, female first authorship was higher in 2019 compared to 2014 (p = .014), whilst female senior authorship plateaued (p = .154). Geographic diversity was low and did not change over time. Gender parity in the subcategory original research articles was reached for the first time in 2019. Senior female authorship and geographic diversity remain areas of concern that need further investigation and specific interventions.

Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

Family Medicine Academic Workforce of Medical Schools in Taiwan: A Nationwide Survey

Little is known about family medicine academic workforce in Taiwan, and basic data on this may aid healthcare decision-makers and contribute to the limited literature. We analyzed data from 13 medical schools in Taiwan collected by the Taiwan Association of Family Medicine from June to September 2019, regarding characteristics of medical schools, and total staff, gender, age, degree, working title (adjunct/full-time), academic level, and subspecialty of each current family medicine faculty member. Total 13 medical schools in Taiwan with an undergraduate education program in family medicine, but only nine of the 13 medical schools had family medicine departments, while four still do not. A total of 116 family medicine faculty members ranging from 33–69 years. Of these, most were male (n = 85, 73.3%), with a mean age of 43.3 years. Most faculty members possessed a master’s degree (n = 49, 42.2%), were academic lecturers (n = 49, 42.2%), were located in northern Taiwan (n = 79, 68.1%), and subspecialize in gerontology and geriatrics (n = 55, 47.4%) and hospice palliative care (n = 53, 45.7%). Additionally, most family medicine faculty in medical schools were adjunct faculty (n = 90, 77.6%), with only about one-fourth (n = 26, 22.4%) working full-time. Our study provides the most holistic census to date on academic family medicine faculty from all medical schools in Taiwan. The novel information can provide educational leaders, health policy managers, and decision-makers about the current developments of the family medicine departments in Taiwan’s medical schools. The basic data will help formulate an effective medical school family medicine education plan and improve the establishment and development of the family medicine faculty workforce to help medical education and national health policy development in the future in Taiwan.

Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology-a 10-year perspective

Objectives

To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals.

Methods

In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination.

Results

The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p < .0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p < .0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p < .0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p < .0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships.

Conclusion

The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals.

Key Points

• Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals.

• Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals.

• Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas.

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.

Gender diversity among editorial boards of radiology-related journals

PURPOSE

To investigate gender diversity in editorial boards among a wide range of radiology-related journals, the trend in time, and its association with the journal's impact factor (IF).

METHOD

The Journal Citation Reports website was searched for radiology-related journals journals with IF>2.0. Gender of the editor-in-chief and all editorial board members as listed on each journal's official website were determined. Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's rho test were used for statistical analyses. Current data were compared to historical data.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven radiology-related journals were included. The names of 4176 persons were extracted. A woman was in charge as the only editor-in-chief in 5 of 57 journals (8.8%). Median percentage of female editorial board members was 21.5% (range 3.2%-52.0%). Female editorial board members were in the majority in only two journals, with proportions of 51.4% and 52.0%. IFs between journals with female and male editors-in-chief were not significantly different (median 3.00, range 2.21-7.82 vs. median 3.31, range 2.02-10.98; P = 0.951). There was no significant association between percentage of female editorial board members and a journal's IF (Spearman's rho = -0.019, P = 0.889). The proportion of women has increased compared to historical data.

CONCLUSION

Women are underrepresented in a wide range of radiology-related journals. Comparison with historical data shows that the proportion of women on editorial boards has increased. Nevertheless, gender composition of the editorial board shows no association with IF. This suggests similar gender bias exists across a broad spectrum of high impact factor journals, with no added bias in journals with higher IF.

Are Women Disproportionately Represented in Education Compared to Other Roles in Academic Radiology?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Women in academic medicine, and radiology specifically, are underrepresented in departmental leadership roles and achieve fewer professional metrics of success. We have observed, however, that women are more broadly represented in medical education leadership. The purpose of this study was to determine if women in academic radiology are overrepresented in educational scholarship and educational leadership compared to general research scholarship and leadership positions, and to determine if there is any difference in the distribution of women in these roles compared to internal medicine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a PubMed search of education articles in radiology and internal medicine over the last 5 years, and the gender of the authors was determined. Data on gender for authorship of general research topics, departmental leaders, and society leadership was obtained via literature and internet searches and the data was aggregated. Representation ratios (RR of 1.0 = parity) were obtained via risk ratio calculation to compare education versus general scholarship, and the distribution of leadership roles within and between these fields.

RESULTS

Women make up 28.5% of academic radiologists and 40.1% of academic internists. A higher proportion of education articles were first authored by women than would be expected in both fields with an RR of 1.46 (p < 0.001) in radiology and 1.23 (p < 0.001) in internal medicine. This overrepresentation was significant compared to general research scholarship in both fields (p < 0.001). In both fields, women were overrepresented in the position of Medical Student Director (RR of 1.47 and 1.22, respectively). For Program Directors, women were overrepresented in radiology (RR of 1.12) and underrepresented in internal medicine (RR of 0.69-0.75). Women in radiology were overrepresented in education society leadership (RR = 1.63) compared to general society leadership (0.98, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We found that women in radiology are overrepresented in authorship of education articles, and in departmental and society education leadership roles. This trend was also seen in internal medicine, suggesting that women are more broadly represented in medical education.

The Archivesof Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at 100: A Century of Authorship

OBJECTIVE

To describe the authors who have contributed articles to the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (APM&R) over the 100 years of its existence.

DESIGN

Extraction of relevant information from a sample of APM&R articles.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 4933 authors contributing to 1787 articles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of authors and their gender, professional education, and country of residence.

RESULTS

The average number of authors per article increased from 1.1 in 1922 to 5.8 in 2017. The percentage of women authors grew from <5% to about 40%. In 1922 the majority of authors had an MD degree (85%); this declined to <30% by 2017, while the percentage of authors with a PhD grew from about 10% to about 30%. The percentage of contributors with a bachelor's degree initially was about 1%, grew to 13%, and then declined again. While in APM&R's early years, >90% of authors were from the United States, this percentage went into a steep decline beginning in about 1997 and now is around 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

The APM&R has seen major transformations in the nature of its contributors over a century of publication; many of these parallel the changes seen in other areas of health care and medical science, but some characteristics and shifts (especially in gender and level of training of its authors) appear unique.