Gender distribution of editorial board members in critical care journals: Assessment of gender parity

The gender composition of the members of the editorial board of toxicology journals: Assessment of gender equality

In many areas of medicine, gender equality has not yet been fully adopted despite recent developments. The inequality of gender in various areas of medicine is still debated. In this study, we analysed the gender composition of the editorial boards of toxicology journals in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) databases and the factors affecting this composition. The genders of the participants were determined by the data obtained from the official websites of the journals in September 2023. We analysed the journal metrics and publisher properties using Mann-Whitney U, Fisher's exact, Chi-square tests and Spearman's correlation coefficient. We used logistic regression analysis to reveal the independent factors related to gender parity. The representation rates of women were 28.62% on all editorial boards and 23.33% in editor-in-chief positions. The 'Neuroscience' (OR, 2.46 95%CI, 1.68-3.60, p < 0.001), 'Reproductive Biology'(OR, 2.05 95%CI, 1.22-3.42, p = 0.006) and 'Public, Environmental & Occupational Health'(OR, 1.49 95%CI, 1.18-1.88, p = 0.001) as a coverage category, the United States as a journal country (OR, 1.21, 95%CI, 1.04-1.40, p = 0.001), 5-year-IF≥3.6(OR, 1.54, 95%CI, 1.27-1.86, p < 0.001), 5-year H index≥29 (OR, 1.23, 95%CI, 1.01-1.49, p = 0.037) were the independent factors for gender parity. However, 'Oncology' (OR, 0.08 95%CI, 0.01-0.55, p = 0.011), 'Biochemistry, Molecular Biology' (OR, 0.62 95%CI, 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005) and 'Pharmacology & Pharmacy' (OR, 0.69 95%CI, 0.59-0.82, p < 0.001) as a coverage category, Japan as a publisher country (OR, 0.52 95%CI, 0.35-0.77, p = 0.001), and Switzerland as a journal country (OR, 0.61, 95%CI, 0.46-0.81, p = 0.001) were related to gender disparity. Greater endeavours are needed to reduce gender discrimination in toxicology. Toxicology authorities should continuously improve existing policies by optimising the analysis of objective information to eliminate barriers for toxicologists in terms of gender equality.

Gender and racial differences in first and senior authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trial studies from 2000 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Females and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the first and senior authorships positions of academic publications. This stems from various structural and systemic inequalities and discrimination in the journal peer-review process, as well as educational, institutional, and organizational cultures.

METHODS

A retrospective bibliometric study design was used to investigate the representation of gender and racial/ethnic groups in the authorship of critical care randomized controlled trials in 12 high-impact journals from 2000 to 2022.

RESULTS

In the 1398 randomized controlled trials included in this study, only 24.61% of the first authors and 16.6% of the senior authors were female. Although female authorship increased during the study period, authorship was significantly higher for males throughout (Chi-square for trend, p < 0.0001). The educational attainment [χ²(4) = 99.2, p < 0.0001] and the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ²(42) = 70.3, p = 0.0029] were significantly associated with gender. Male authorship was significantly more prevalent in 10 out of 12 journals analyzed in this study [χ²(11) = 110.1, p < 0.0001]. The most common race/ethnic group in our study population was White (85.1% women, 85.4% males), followed by Asians (14.3% females, 14.3% males). Although there was a significant increase in the number of non-White authors between 2000 and 2022 [χ²(22) = 77.3, p < 0.0001], the trend was driven by an increase in non-White male and not non-White female authors. Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ²(41) = 1107, p < 0.0001] but not with gender or educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent gender and racial disparities in high-impact medical and critical care journals underscore the need to revise policies and strategies to encourage greater diversity in critical care research.