Trends in Female Plastic Surgery Resident Authorship - Signs of Changing Times?

A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review

INTRODUCTION

Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities.

METHODS

Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles.

RESULTS

Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.

"Top 20" residency-trained academic orthopaedic surgeons have higher academic productivity and funding in their careers

"Top 20" status on Doximity, an online networking service for medical professionals, is an indicator of the reputation of a residency program. The study assesses how training at a Top 20 (T20) orthopaedic residency program impacts career productivity and funding. Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used in 2022 to identify active orthopaedic residency programs. Demographic and training data was collected for each orthopaedic surgeon using institutional websites and Doximity. The Residency Navigator feature on Doximity was used to rank residency programs by "reputation." Programs were categorized as either T20 or non-T20. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was calculated using the NIH iCite tool and Hirsch index (h-index) was calculated using Scopus. Industry funding was collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (CMS) for all available years (2014-2020). A total of 2812 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included in the study. Among academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, T20 trained orthopedists had more publications and citations (p < 0.001), along with higher h-indices (p < 0.001), RCR (p < 0.001), and industry funding (p = 0.043). Additionally, T20 trained orthopedists were 1.375 times more likely to obtain professor status (95% confidence interval: 1.150-1.645, p < 0.001). Even after propensity-matched analysis, T20 trained orthopedists maintained these differences. Training at a T20 residency program is associated with promotion, productivity, and funding. These findings are especially of concern to medical students who must consider the importance of a residency program's reputation when deciding where to apply for residency.

Trends in Research Payments for Diabetic Macular Edema from 2015 to 2021

Purpose

To evaluate characteristics of research payments for diabetic macular edema (DME) studies and correlations to current management trends.

Design

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Subjects

Research payments for DME.

Methods

Studies with keywords of "diabetic macular edema" or "DME" in the title were extracted from the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients, payors, and payment amounts were identified. Industry funding was compared with public research funding by the National Eye Institute (NEI).

Main Outcome Measures

Trends and total value of industry and public fundings for DME from 2015 to 2021.

Results

From 2015 to 2021, 451 beneficiaries received 6062 industry payments for a total of $120 148 997.41 for DME-related research. The total value of industry funding increased from $8 225 859.08 in 2015 to $50 092 778.45 in 2021. Of the 6062 industry payments, 5367 (88.5%) were reported by male recipients compared with 695 (11.5%) female beneficiaries. Payments to female recipients increased from 60 (7.1%) in 2015 to 335 (13.7%) in 2021. In comparison, public funding for DME-related research from the NEI was comprised of $18 863 266.00 to 17 principal investigators from 2015 to 2021. The total value of public funding increased from $973 590.00 in 2015 to $3 354 376.00 in 2021. Of 59 public research payments, 46 (78.0%) were reported by male recipients and 13 (22.0%) by female recipients. Payments to female recipients increased from 1 (25.0%) in 2015 to 3 (30.0%) in 2021. The most highly invested product by industry were anti-VEGF agents, accounting for $89 955 595.20 (74.9%) of total payment value.

Conclusions

There was an increase in both industry and public-sponsored funding for DME-related research from 2015 to 2021. There seemed to be a possible discrepancy in both industry and public funding based on sex for DME studies during the study period.

Financial Disclosures

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Representation of Women Authorship in the Top 5 Transplantation Journals in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States, only 13% of transplant surgeons are women. We evaluated gender distribution and trends of American authorship over the past 10 y in high-impact solid organ transplantation journals to gain insight into the current status of women authorship in transplantation.

METHODS

Original articles from 2012 to 2021 from the 5 highest-impact solid organ transplantation journals were extracted from Scopus. First and last author's gender was predicted using Genderize.io. Data of first and last authors, article type and topic, location, citation, and funding metrics were analyzed. Chi-square, logistic regression, and trend tests were performed where appropriate. Statistical significance was set at <0.05.

RESULTS

Women's first and last authorship increased over time among all journals. There was an increase in women first authors in the American Journal of Transplantation and in senior women authors in Liver Transplantation and Transplantation . Significant differences in gender authorship in lung, intestine, pancreas, general, and islet cell transplantation were found. Women's last authorship was associated with 1.69 higher odds of having a woman first author when adjusting for year and journal. There was an increase in the rate of women's first and last author collaborations over the years. Women last authors had 1.5 higher odds of being funded by the National Institutes of Health over the years.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in women transplant surgeons and physicians, the gap in women authorship in transplantation persists. Women's last authorship was associated with higher odds of having a woman first author, pointing to the importance of mentorship for women joining the transplant academia.

Article Factors Influencing Gender Disparities in Senior Authorship of Plastic Surgery Publications

INTRODUCTION

Female plastic surgeons publish fewer and lower impact articles. To better understand how to address this gender gap, we explored the temporal trends in female senior authorship and evaluated predictive factors for female senior authorship.

METHODS

A retrospective review of articles published in the 3 highest impact plastic surgery journals published from 2010 to 2020 was conducted. Trends with female senior authorship across time were analyzed with respect to study type, subspeciality, and geographical origin.

RESULTS

Of the 5425 articles included, 13% (n = 720) had a female senior author, and female senior authorship increased across time ( R = 0.84, P = 0.033). Over the decade, an increased proportion of cohort studies ( R = 0.82, P = 0.045), systematic reviews ( R = 0.96, P = 0.003), breast-related articles ( R = 0.88, P = 0.022), and reconstruction-related articles ( R = 0.83, P = 0.039) were published by female senior authors. Subspecialty and geography predicted female senior authorship; articles focused on aesthetic (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3, P = 0.046) and breast (OR = 1.7, P < 0.001) subspecialties or those originating from Canada (OR = 1.7 P = 0.019), Europe (OR = 1.5, P < 0.001), and Latin America (OR = 3.0, P < 0.001) were more likely to have a female senior author. Articles from East Asia were less likely to have female senior authors (OR = 0.7, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Female senior authorship in plastic surgery has increased over the last decade, and the proportion of female plastic surgeons leading cohort studies and systematic reviews is increasing. Sex of the senior author is influenced by plastic surgery subspecialty and geographical origin, but article type did not impact the odds of female senior authorship.

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.

The Influence of Training Pathway, Institution Type, Gender, and a Global Pandemic on Post Graduation Career Plans in Plastic Surgery

Background

Anecdotal statements are often made about what percentage of residents go into fellowship versus private practice versus academia after graduation. However, few objective studies have been completed on this topic. This project is designed to shed light on the career choices of plastic surgery residents immediately after graduation from 2018 to 2022. A secondary objective was to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic had any measurable impact on postgraduation plans.

Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval, publicly available data were obtained from institution websites or via program queries. Comparison between pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 (2018-2019 versus 2020-2022), integrated versus independent, and private versus public cohorts were analyzed using Fisher exact test. A two-sided P value less than 0.01 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Data were collected for 690 graduates across 64 plastic surgery training programs. Responses were obtained from 60 of 88 (68%) integrated and 30 of 47 (64%) independent programs. Most graduates pursued fellowship training (61%), followed by private practice (28%), academic practice (5%), or military post (1%). Independent residents were more likely to pursue private practice (40% versus 26%, P = 0.001), whereas integrated residents were more likely to pursue fellowship (49% versus 70%, P < 0.0001). Public institution graduates were more likely to go into private practice (37% versus 23%, P = 0.0002), whereas private institution residents were more likely to pursue fellowship (55% versus 72%, P < 0.0001). Public institutions were more likely to graduate women (45% versus 35%, P = 0.009). The COVID-19 pandemic (P = 0.31) had no impact on postgraduation plans.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that training pathway and institution type have a significant impact on postgraduation plans, whereas a global pandemic does not. This information can be used by educators, residents, and medical students as they plan for the future.

The Medical Student Race to Research: Who Presents More at National Plastic Surgery Conferences?

BACKGROUND

presentations increase research output and facilitate networking for medical students applying to plastic surgery. We aim to determine predictors of increased medical student presentation at national plastic surgery conferences, identifying disparities in access to research opportunities.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the 2 most recent meetings of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and Plastic Surgery Research Council were extracted from online archives. Presenters without MDs or other professional credentials were classified as medical students. Presenter gender, medical school ranking, plastic surgery division/department, National Institutes of Health funding, number of total and first-author publications, H-index, and research fellowship completion status were recorded. Students with 3 or more (>75th percentile) presentations were compared with those with less by χ2 tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors associated with 3 or more presentations.

RESULTS

Of 1576 abstracts, 549 (34.8%) were presented by 314 students. The gender distribution was 46.5% male and 53.5% female. Most were from the Northeast (36.9%), 35% came from top 20 medical schools, and 85% attended schools with home plastic surgery programs. While 61.8% presented once, 14.6% presented 3 or more times. Those who previously presented, completed research fellowships or had more publications or higher H-indices were likely to present more ( P ≤ 0.007). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, completing research fellowships (odds ratio [OR], 2.34-2.52; P = 0.028-0.045), affiliation with institutions having higher National Institutes of Health funding (OR, 3.47-3.73; P = 0.004-0.006), or having more total number of publications (OR, 3.81; P = 0.018) or first-author publications (OR, 3.84; P = 0.008) was associated with 3 or more presentations. Presenter gender, geographic region, medical school ranking, home program status, and H-indices were not significant predictors on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several potential inequities in access to research opportunities for medical students, disadvantaging those with less well-funded plastic surgery programs and existing research experience. Improving the equitability of these opportunities is crucial for limiting bias in trainee recruitment and diversifying representation in the field.

Diversity Drives Innovation: The Impact of Female-Driven Publications

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities are pervasive in academic plastic surgery. Previous research demonstrates articles authored by women receive fewer citations than those written by men, suggesting the presence of implicit gender bias.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe current citation trends in plastic surgery literature and assess gender bias. The expectation was that women would be cited less frequently than their male peers.

METHODS

Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were collected from 8 representative plastic surgery journals stratified by impact factor. Names of primary and senior authors of the 50 most cited articles per year per journal were collected and author gender was determined via online database and internet search. The median numbers of citations by primary and senior author gender were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Among 1167 articles, women wrote 27.3% as primary author and 18% as senior author. Women-authored articles were cited as often as those authored by men (P > 0.05) across all journal tiers. Articles with a female primary and male senior author had significantly more citations than articles with a male primary author (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

No implicit gender bias was identified in citation trends, a finding unique to plastic surgery. Women primary authors are cited more often than male primary authors despite women comprising a small fraction of authorship overall. Additionally, variegated authorship pairings outperformed homogeneous ones. Therefore, increasing gender diversity within plastic surgery academia remains critical.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Ophthalmology Resident Research Productivity in the United States

Background The extent and impact of ophthalmology resident scholarly output is not well known. The authors aim to quantify scholarly activity of ophthalmology residents during residency and assess what factors may be associated with greater research productivity of these residents.

Material and Methods Ophthalmology residents who graduated in 2021 were identified from their respective program Web sites. Bibliometric data published by these residents between the beginning of their postgraduate year 2 (July 1, 2018) until 3 months after graduation (September 30, 2021) were captured through searches via PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The association of the following factors with greater research productivity numbers was analyzed: residency tier, medical school rank, sex, doctorate degree, type of medical degree, and international medical graduate status.

Results We found 418 ophthalmology residents from 98 residency programs. These residents published a mean (±standard deviation [SD]) number of 2.68 ± 3.81 peer-reviewed publications, 2.39 ± 3.40 ophthalmology-related publications, and 1.18 ± 1.96 first-author publications each. The mean (±SD) Hirsch index (h-index) for this cohort was 0.79 ± 1.17. Upon multivariate analysis, we discovered significant correlations between both residency tier and medical school rank and all bibliometric variables assessed. Pairwise comparisons revealed that residents from higher tier programs had greater research productivity numbers than those from lower tier programs.

Conclusion We obtained bibliometric standards for ophthalmology residents on a national scale. Residents who graduated from higher-ranked residency programs and medical schools possessed higher h-indices and published more peer-reviewed publications, ophthalmology-related articles, and first-author publications.