Female Authorship in Emergency Medicine Parallels Women Practicing Academic Emergency Medicine

Trends in female first-author abstracts at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, 1990-2020

OBJECTIVES

To describe first author gender differences and characteristics in 1) Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting abstracts and 2) resulting manuscript publications.

METHODS

We performed cross-sectional evaluation of SAEM abstracts from 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, compiling and reviewing a random sample of 100 abstracts for each year (total n = 700 abstracts). We documented abstract characteristics, including first author gender, and used the 2020 SAEM scoring rubric. We then searched PubMed to identify manuscript publications resulting from abstracts from 1990 to 2015 (n = 600). Finally, among abstracts that resulted in manuscript publication, we identified first and last author gender on both the abstracts and the resulting publication.

RESULTS

Overall, 29% (202/695; n = 5 missing gender) of abstracts had female first authors. Female first authors increased over time (e.g., 17% in 1990 to 35% in 2020). Abstract quality scores were similar (both median [interquartile range] of 11 ([9-12]). Overall, 42% (n = 254/600) of abstracts resulted in a manuscript publication, 39% (n = 65/202) with female and 44% (n = 189/493) with male first authors (p = 0.26). The median time (IQR) from abstract to manuscript publication was longer for abstracts with female first authors vs. those with male first authors (2 [1-3] years and 1 [1, 2] years, p < 0.02); 77% and 78% of publications resulting from abstracts with female and male first authors, respectively, had the same first author. Female first author abstracts more often converted to a male first author manuscript publication (18%, n = 12/65) compared to male first author abstracts converting to female first author publications (7%, n = 14/189).

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of SAEM abstracts, and manuscript publications resulting from them, had female first authors. Abstracts with female first authors took longer to achieve manuscript publication, and almost a fifth of female first author abstracts resulted in male first author manuscript publication.

Overcoming barriers to promotion for women and underrepresented in medicine faculty in academic emergency medicine

Equity in the promotion of women and underrepresented minorities (URiM) is essential for the advancement of academic emergency medicine and the specialty as a whole. Forward-thinking healthcare organizations can best position themselves to optimally care for an increasingly diverse patient population and mentor trainees by championing increased diversity in senior faculty ranks, leadership, and governance roles. This article explores several potential solutions to addressing inequities that hinder the advancement of women and URiM faculty. It is intended to complement the recently approved American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) policy statement aimed at overcoming barriers to promotion of women and URiM faculty in academic emergency medicine. This policy statement was jointly released and supported by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM), and the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM).

Women's representation in emergency medicine journals across two decades: 2000-2019

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to determine women's representation as authors in emergency medicine journals in various authorship positions over the last 20 years. The secondary aim was to compare the two decades to analyze the development over time.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective bibliometric analysis of three emergency medicine journals from the online archives of 2000-2019.

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 7939 original research and review articles. Female authorships at the first (25,8%), last (18,7%), and corresponding (21,6%) positions were limited, despite the relatively high presence rate (72,5%). Women authored 13,1% of all single-authored publications. When the number of authors increased, the odds for women as co-authors increased. However, the odds for last and corresponding authorship decreased, while the odds for the first authorship remained unchanged. When two decades were compared, we found that proportions of women as first and corresponding authorship increased ([23,8% vs. 27,0%] p = 0.001 and [20,0% vs. 22,6%] p = 0.228, respectively) while the representation as the last author remained unchanged ([19,4% vs 18,3%] p = 0.006). The presence of women in any authorship position also increased significantly ([66,1% vs. 76,5%] p = 0.000) across two decades, with similar trends for the different journals studied. However, the yearly analysis shows that women's representation follows a fluctuating pattern with a minimal increase. When analyzing specific journals, we found that the increase in female authors as first and corresponding authors was limited to Academic Emergency Medicine ([24,7% vs 34,5%] p = 0.000 and [21,4% vs 32,1%] p = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study are promising in showing that the representation of women in emergency medicine publications is rising during the recent decade. Although the academic gender gap has not been closed, steps taken for gender equality in academic emergency medicine are clearly notable.

Gender differences in publication in emergency medicine journals

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested gender disparities in both pay and academic promotion which may adversely affect salary and career progression for female physicians. The areas of research output, funding, and authorship have not been fully and systematically examined in the emergency medicine literature. We hypothesize that gender differences may exist in research output, impact, authorship, and funding.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study examining all published articles in the top three emergency medicine journals as determined by Impact Factor between February 2015 and February 2018. We compared the authorship, number of citations of each article, funding, and h-index of each author by gender.

RESULTS

Of the 10,118 authors representing 4166 original articles in our sample, 7562 (74.7%) were male and 2556 (25.3%) were female, with females underrepresented relative to the known proportion of female emergency medicine faculty. Males were proportionally more likely to be last authors (OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.47-1.86) and less likely to be first authors than females (OR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.77-0.94). No difference in proportions of males and females in terms of being named as having funding was found (OR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.78-1.35). Males had higher h-indexes than females (5 vs. 3, p < .001) as well as a higher average number of citations (OR 1.068, 95% CI, 1.018-1.119).

CONCLUSIONS

Males outnumber females in terms of numbers of publications, but also in number of citations, h-index, and last authorship. Future studies on physician gender disparities in emergency medicine need to account for these population differences.

Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Scholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Authorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author.

RESULTS

Of the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Women physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.

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.

Female-Authored Articles Are More Likely to Include Methods-Trained Authors

Objective

Studies with authors trained in research methods are of higher quality than those without. We examined inclusion of authors with master's or doctoral degrees incorporating advanced research methods training on original research articles in high-impact journals, investigating differences between journals and by first-author sex.

Methods

Using all original research articles from 1 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), and JAMA-Internal Medicine/Archives of Internal Medicine (Archives) every alternate month, February 1994 to October 2016, we assessed the prevalence of articles listing authors with master's/doctoral research degrees and its adjusted associations with time of publication, journal, and first-author sex via multivariable logistic regression models (accounting for number of authors, study type, specialty/topic, and continent and for interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent).

Results

Of 3009 articles examined, 84.4% (n=2539) had authors listing research degrees. After adjustment, the prevalence of such articles increased from 1994 to 2016 (P<.001), but patterns differed among journals. Annals and NEJM increased to approximately100% by 2016; JAMA and Archives peaked around 2010 to 2011, then declined. Articles with female first authors were more likely to list authors with research degrees (adjusted odds ratio=1.66; 95% CI, 1.29-2.13; P<.001).

Conclusion

The prevalence of original research articles listing authors trained in research methods in high-impact journals increased significantly but is now declining at some journals, with potential effects on quality. The greater prevalence among female first-authored articles suggests possible sex differences in structuring/crediting research teams or subconscious sex bias during review.

Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)

OBJECTIVE

To examine changes in representation of women among first authors of original research published in high impact general medical journals from 1994 to 2014 and investigate differences between journals.

DESIGN

Observational study.

STUDY SAMPLE

All original research articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for one issue every alternate month from February 1994 to June 2014.

MAIN EXPOSURES

Time and journal of publication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of female first authorship and its adjusted association with time of publication and journal, assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model that accounted for number of authors, study type and specialty/topic, continent where the study was conducted, and the interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent. Estimates from this model were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios against the mean across the six journals, with 95% confidence intervals and P values to describe the associations of interest.

RESULTS

The gender of the first author was determined for 3758 of the 3860 articles considered; 1273 (34%) were women. After adjustment, female first authorship increased significantly from 27% in 1994 to 37% in 2014 (P<0.001). The NEJM seemed to follow a different pattern, with female first authorship decreasing; it also seemed to decline in recent years in The BMJ but started substantially higher (approximately 40%), and The BMJ had the highest total proportion of female first authors. Compared with the mean across all six journals, first authors were significantly less likely to be female in the NEJM (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.89) and significantly more likely to be female in The BMJ (1.30, 1.01 to 1.66) over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The representation of women among first authors of original research in high impact general medical journals was significantly higher in 2014 than 20 years ago, but it has plateaued in recent years and has declined in some journals. These results, along with the significant differences seen between journals, suggest that underrepresentation of research by women in high impact journals is still an important concern. The underlying causes need to be investigated to help to identify practices and strategies to increase women's influence on and contributions to the evidence that will determine future healthcare policies and standards of clinical practice.

Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in translational research organisations: a rationale and study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Translational research organisations (TROs) are a core component of the UK's expanding research base. Equity of career opportunity is key to ensuring a diverse and internationally competitive workforce. The UK now requires TROs to demonstrate how they are supporting gender equity. Yet, the evidence base for documenting such efforts is sparse. This study is designed to inform the acceleration of women's advancement and leadership in two of the UK's leading TROs--the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) in Oxford and London--through the development, application and dissemination of a conceptual framework and measurement tool.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A cross-sectional retrospective evaluation. A conceptual framework with markers of achievement and corresponding candidate metrics has been specifically designed for this study based on an adapted balanced scorecard approach. It will be refined with an online stakeholder consultation and semistructured interviews to test the face validity and explore practices and mechanisms that influence gender equity in the given settings. Data will be collected via the relevant administrative databases. A comparison of two funding periods (2007-2012 and 2012-2017) will be carried out.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Oxford Clinical Trials and Research Governance Team and the Research and Development Governance Team of Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust reviewed the study and deemed it exempt from full ethics review. The results of the study will be used to inform prospective planning and monitoring within the participating NIHR BRCs with a view to accelerating women's advancement and leadership. Both the results of the study and its methodology will be further disseminated to academics and practitioners through the networks of collaborating TROs, relevant conferences and articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Gender trends of urology manuscript authors in the United States: a 35-year progression

PURPOSE

The presence of women in urology has gradually increased in the last 35 years with an accelerated rate in the last decade. We evaluated manuscript authorship trends by gender. Manuscript authorship is a metric that has been used as a marker of academic productivity. We hypothesized that the number of first and last author publications by women has increased proportionately to the number of women in the field during the last 35 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a bibliometric study to examine authorship gender in The Journal of Urology® and Urology®. We reviewed all original articles published from American institutions in 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2009.

RESULTS

Of the 8,313 articles reviewed 5,461 were from American institutions, including 97.5% for which we determined author gender. There were 767 articles with female authors, including 440 first and 327 last authors. First and last female authorship increased from 2.7% of all authors in 1979 to 26.5% in 2009 (test for trend p <0.001). This authorship rate surpasses the rate of growth of women in urology, which increased from 0.24% in 1975 to 6.2% in 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on authorship gender analysis women urologists produce manuscripts at a rate that exceeds their number in the field. Findings show that women in urology are productive, active members of the academic community.