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

Gender disparity trends in genitourinary oncology academic publishing over the past 3 decades: A bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine gender disparities in genitourinary (GU) oncology academic publishing over the past three decades.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a bibliometric analysis of eight academic journals featuring GU oncology research articles: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, European Urology, Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. After selecting four time points (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020), we recorded the gender of the first and senior authors and investigated their association with independent variables including publication year, research field, and geographic continent. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 14,786 articles were included in our analyses. Females comprised 25.7% of first and 18.1% of senior authors. Compared to 1990, there was a trend of progressively higher female first author (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.27-1.69] in 2000; 2.28 [95% CI 2.00-2.59] in 2010; 3.10 [95% CI 2.71-3.55] in 2020) and senior author positions (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.05-1.45] in 2000; 1.67 [95% CI 1.45-1.93] in 2010; 2.55 [95% CI 2.20-2.96] in 2020). Compared to GU oncology, non-GU oncology articles were more likely to have female first (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.38-2.86) or senior authors (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.35-2.91). Articles from Asia (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.51), Africa (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.91), and international collaborations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76) had a lower proportion of female first authors compared to North America. First authors were significantly more likely to be female when senior authors were also female (OR 2.45, 95% CI 2.23-2.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the bridging trend demonstrated, GU oncology remains a male-predominant discipline. Female leadership and mentorship are pivotal in achieving gender parity in the academic medicine community.

Engaging and Empowering Female Urologists in Academic Publishing and Peer Review

N/A.

Women in urology: Gender differences in urologists' authorship in high impact journals

BACKGROUND

The number of women among medical doctors and surgeons continues to rise. However, urology remains one of the least preferred specialties by female physicians, resulting in the inadequate academic representation of female urologists. In this study we examined changes in the representation of female urologists in the journals European Urology (EU) and Journal of Urology (JOU) and investigated in which urology subspecialties female urologists focus their academic studies.

METHODS

Original articles, reviews and case reports published in EU and JOU were included in the study. The analysis was limited to 4 years, starting with 2004 and continuing at 5-year intervals until 2019.The publications were also classified according to urology subspecialty and geographic location.

RESULTS

In total, 2708 articles were analysed. Overall, women accounted for 9.9% of first authors (267/2708) and 5.9% of senior authors (161/2708).The proportion of female first authors was 8.2% in 2004 and increased to 10.7% in 2009, 10.6% in 2014, and 11.6% in 2019 (P = 0.062). The proportion of female last authors was 7% in 2004 and 5.3%, 6.1%, and 2.5% in 2009, 2014, and 2019, respectively (P = 0.011). Women accounted for a significantly higher proportion of first authors than men in publications related to female and paediatric urology (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing number of women urologists worldwide is not reflected in the scientific authorship of female urologists. Multicenter studies focusing on the elimination of gender disparity in academic representation are needed in surgical branches such as urology.

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.

Redefining the Gender Gap in Urology Authorship: An 18-Year Publication Analysis

BACKGROUND

Academic authorship is a critical productivity metric used for academic promotion.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize temporal changes in female representation in academic authorship in ten primary urology journals as the complement of female urologists is increasing.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Publication records were retrieved from 2002 to 2020 for the ten urology journals with the highest impact factor. The names of all authors were gathered and gender was inferred using first names.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Trends in first and last/senior authorship by gender were evaluated overall, within journals, and by geographic region.

RESULTS

A total of 59,375 articles were analyzed, of which 94.1% had gender information for the first author and 94.2% had gender information for the last author. The percentage of overall female authors increased positively from 17.2% (95% highest density interval [HDI] 12.9-21.4%) in 2002 to 27.2% (HDI 21.7-33.6%; p < 0.01) in 2020. Overall female first authorship increased from 15.2% (95% HDI 11.0-19.5%) to 28.5% (95% HDI 21.8-35.6%; p < 0.01). There was also significant growth for female senior authors from 10.4% (95% HDI 7.6-13.5%) to 18.6% (95% HDI 13.6-23.8%; p < 0.01). Assessment of journal-specific changes revealed that Neurourology and Urodynamics (12.6%, 95% HDI 9.9-15.1%) and The Journal of Sexual Medicine (16.2%, 95% HDI 13.6-19.0%) had significantly higher growth in female authorship when compared to Journal of Endourology (7.2%, 95% HDI 5.5-8.7%) and Urologic Oncology (4.5%, 95% HDI 2.0-6.8%; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall female authorship increased between 2002 and 2020, women remain underrepresented in urology authorship. The percentage of females in senior (last) author positions is less than the percentage of females in first author positions. Journal-specific differences can probably be attributed to gender-based differences in subspecialized fields.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we characterized the underrepresentation of women as authors in urology journals and analyzed the change in female authorship for ten academic urology journals over the course of 18 years. Although the proportion of female authors has increased over that time, the percentage of females in senior authorship roles is less than the percentage of females in first author positions.

Diversity in Plastic Surgery Authorship: A 14-Year Analysis of 2688 Articles Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is a duty and privilege. It is essential to the advancement of evidence-based medicine and often used as a proxy for academic achievement, contributing to decisions around promotion in academia. Within plastic surgery, authors have historically been male surgeons affiliated with academic institutions, lacking representation of women, private practice, medical students, and international collaboration. This study analyzes differences in authors' gender, practice affiliation, degree of education, and international collaboration in articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, which was chosen as the representative journal given its high impact factor (3.946) and consistent ranking as the number one journal in plastic surgery worldwide.

METHODS

A list of Breast, Cosmetic, and Hand/Peripheral Nerve articles published between 2006 and 2019 was compiled from the online archive of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Demographic author characteristics were recorded, and statistical analyses were performed to identify trends over time.

RESULTS

A total of 2688 articles were analyzed. The proportion of articles written by female authors in the Breast category, authors in private practice with academic affiliation in the Cosmetic section, and U.S. collaboration with other countries increased over time (p = 0.038, p = 0.029, p < 0.001, respectively). First authors with bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees have also been contributing increasingly.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis revealed increasing demographic heterogeneity of authors in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery over time, with increasing contributions from women, surgeons in private practice with academic affiliation, medical students, and international collaborations. The Journal is capturing contributions from an increasingly diverse authorship, consistent with the changing demographics of plastic surgeons.

Authorship Gender Composition in Urology Literature From 2015 Through 2020

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current landscape of first and last female authorship in urology journals relative to the journals' impact factor. We hypothesized that women would have a smaller proportion of publications in journals with higher impact factors.

METHODS

Eighteen urology journals were divided into groups based on impact factor accordingly: from 33.2 to 6.2 were classified as high (European Urology, Nature Reviews Urology, The Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and The Journal of Sexual Medicine), from 5.8 to 5.0 as medium (Asian Journal of Andrology, European Urology Focus, Sexual Medicine Reviews, Bladder Cancer, Prostate and World Journal of Urology), and from 4.8 to 2.2 as low (Urologic Oncology, Journal of Endourology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology and Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery). A computer script was designed using Python to search PubMed and record first and last author of publications between 2015 and 2020. Gender was determined by Gender-Api (https://gender-api.com). Names with an accuracy of <90% were excluded. Type of peer-review and scope of each journal were also analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Matlab.

RESULTS

A total of 37,413 first and 28,414 last authors were identified during the study period. Overall, women represented 21% (8,029/37,413) of first and 15% (4,232/28,414) of last authors. Women were significantly less published in high impact journals compared to both medium and low impact journals (P <.001 in all). Among all journals, articles with female first authors were more likely to have a female last author (OR: 2.72, CI: 2.5-2.9, P <.001). Subspecialty journals had more female last authors than general journals (P <.05), and female representation increased if reviews were double-blinded (P <.001). Over the last 6 years, there has been a significant increase in female senior authorship among all journals (P = .045).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of female authorship was significantly lower in higher impact urology journals. While the underlying cause is likely multifactorial, this finding highlights a gender discrepancy that may impact women's ability to achieve career goals in academic medicine when compared to their male counterparts.

Representation of Women in Academic Orthopaedic Leadership: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND

Women have long been underrepresented in orthopaedic surgery; however, there is a lack of quantitative data on the representation of women in orthopaedic academic program leadership.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the proportion of women in leadership roles in orthopaedic surgery departments and residency programs in the United States (specifically, chairs, vice chairs, program directors, assistant program directors, and subspecialty division chiefs)? (2) How do women and men leaders compare in terms of years in position in those roles, years in practice, academic rank, research productivity as represented by publications, and subspecialty breakdown? (3) Is there a difference between men and women in the chair or program director role in terms of whether they are working in that role at institutions where they attended medical school or completed their residency or fellowship?

METHODS

We identified 161 academic orthopaedic residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website. Data (gender, length of time in position, length of time in practice, professorship appointment, research productivity as indirectly measured via PubMed publications, and subspecialty) were collected for chairs, vice chairs, program directors, assistant program directors, and subspecialty division chiefs in July 2020 to control for changes in leadership. Information not provided by the ACGME and PubMed was found using orthopaedic program websites and the specific leader's curriculum vitae. Complete data were obtained for chairs and program directors, but there were missing data points for vice chairs, assistant program directors, and division chiefs. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS using independent t-tests for continuous variables and the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables, with p < 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Three percent (4 of 153) of chairs, 8% (5 of 61) of vice chairs, 11% (18 of 161) of program directors, 27% (20 of 75) of assistant program directors, and 9% (45 of 514) of division chiefs were women. There were varying degrees of missing data points for vice chairs, assistant program directors, and division chiefs as not all programs reported or have those positions. Women chairs had fewer years in their position than men (2 ± 1 versus 9 ± 7 [95% confidence interval -9.3 to -5.9]; p < 0.001). Women vice chairs more commonly specialized in hand or tumor compared with men (40% [2 of 5] and 40% [2 of 5] versus 11% [6 of 56] and 4% [2 of 56], respectively; X2(9) = 16; p = 0.04). Women program directors more commonly specialized in tumor or hand compared with men (33% [6 of 18] and 17% [3 of 18] versus 6% [9 of 143] and 11% [16 of 143], respectively; X2(9) = 20; p = 0.02). Women assistant program directors had fewer years in practice (9 ± 4 years versus 14 ± 11 years [95% CI -10.5 to 1.6]; p = 0.045) and fewer publications (11 ± 7 versus 30 ± 48 [95% CI -32.9 to -5.8]; p = 0.01) than men. Women division chiefs had fewer years in practice and publications than men and were most prevalent in tumor and pediatrics (21% [10 of 48] and 16% [9 of 55], respectively) and least prevalent in spine and adult reconstruction (2% [1 of 60] and 1% [1 of 70], respectively) (X2(9) = 26; p = 0.001). Women program directors were more likely than men to stay at the same institution they studied at for medical school (39% [7 of 18] versus 14% [20 of 143]; odds ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.4 to 11.3]; p = 0.02) and trained at for residency (61% [11 of 18] versus 42% [60 of 143]; OR 2.2 [95% CI 0.8 to 5.9]; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The higher percentage of women in junior leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery, with the data available, is a promising finding. Hand, tumor, and pediatrics appear to be orthopaedic subspecialties with a higher percentage of women. However, more improvement is needed to achieve gender parity in orthopaedics overall, and more information is needed in terms of publicly available information on gender representation in orthopaedic leadership.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Proportional representation of women in orthopaedics is essential for quality musculoskeletal care, and proportional representation in leadership may help encourage women to apply to the specialty. Our findings suggest movement in an improving direction in this regard, though more progress is needed.

Women are underrepresented in prestigious recognition awards in the American Urological Association

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of women who received awards from the American Urological Association (AUA) and evaluate whether this has changed over time as the proportion of practicing female urologists has increased.

METHODS

A retrospective review of award recipients from the AUA website was performed. Gender of award recipient, type of award and year received were collected and the trend over time was compared with the AUA census.

RESULTS

Of the 622 award recipients, 43 (6.9%) were women. There was a larger proportion of women who received early career awards (15/65; 23.1%) compared to women who received more prestigious mid (1/44; 2.3%) or senior (27/513; 5.3%) career awards. Additionally, 17/43 (39.5%) of female award recipients were not clinical urologists, compared to only 33/579 (5.7%) of male award recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased representation by women in the field of urology, women remain underrepresented in awards given by the AUA. Although the proportion of women receiving awards over time has increased, it remains less than expected given the increased proportion of practicing female urologists. Strategic initiatives should be employed to help advance women in academic urology.

Does Gender Matter in Academic Surgery? Author and Mentor Gender Impact Publication Citations in Surgical Research

OBJECTIVE

To examine female author representation within publications in the field of urology from the United States from 2000-2019.

METHODS

All 25,787 articles with a U.S. correspondence address published in the two largest U.S. headquartered general urology journals, Urology and Journal of Urology, were analyzed from 2000-2019. Gender was assigned to each first and last author based on the author's first name. First names were matched to a database of U.S. Social Security Administration data to determine gender.

RESULTS

Overall female authorship, female senior authorship, and female first authorship exhibited a significant upward trend from 2000 to 2019 (P <0.001, P <0.001, P = 0.002). As the number of female last authors increased, female last authors were significantly more likely to publish with female first authors, and significantly less likely publish with male first authors (P <0.001, P <0.001). Furthermore, we found a significant difference for female authors being less likely to get cited than male authors (p = 0.02), despite the greater proportion of females that authored research articles with higher citation counts compared to males (P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

Despite the significant progress in female representation within urological publications, female-authored publications continue to constitute a smaller proportion of the urological literature and are less likely to be cited. Our study provides the first evidence on the current status of female underrepresentation within academic urology and literature productivity at this watershed moment. As the number of female urologists evolves, these findings will be of significant impact in the advancement of female investigators in urology.

Gender Representation in American Urological Association Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To study patterns and factors associated with female representation in the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines.

METHODS

We gathered publicly available information about the panelists, including the AUA section, practice setting, academic rank, fellowship training, years in practice, and H-index. The factors associated with the proportion of female panelists and trends were investigated. We also examined the proportion of female panelists in the European Association of Urology (EAU) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) urology guidelines.

RESULTS

There were 483 non-unique panelists in AUA guidelines, and 17% are female. Non-urologist female panelists in AUA guidelines represented a higher proportion than female urologists (30% vs 13%, P<0.0001). Compared with male panelists, females had lower H-indices (median 23 vs 35, P<0.001), and fewer were fellowship-trained (77.2% vs 86.8%; P=0.042). On multivariate analysis, non-urologists and panelists with lower H-indices were more likely to be female but there was no association between guideline specialties, academic ranking, geographic section, years in practice, and fellowship training with increased female authorship. Overtime, the proportion of female participation in guidelines remained stable. In the EAU and NCCN guideline panels, 12.2% and 10.7% were female, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Female representation among major urologic guidelines members is low and unchanged overtime. Female urologist participation was proportional to their representation in the urology workforce. Being a non-urologist and lower H-indices were associated with female membership in guideline panels.

Gender Differences in Authorship in Urology: a Five-year Review of Publications in Five High-impact Journals

OBJECTIVE

To describe the proportions of peer-reviewed manuscripts authored by women in 5 high-impact, widely available urology journals, and to compare these to the proportion of women in urology. About 9% of attending urologists and 25% of urology residents are women. We hypothesized that women comprised fewer than 25% of first authors and fewer than 10% of last/senior authors.

METHODS

We searched peer-reviewed original manuscripts in the Journal of Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urology, and Urologic Oncology from January 2014 to June 2019. First and last author gender identity was recorded. Observed and expected proportions and temporal trends were compared, with findings considered statistically significant at P < .05.

RESULTS

Of 8653 multiple-author papers, 2275 (26.3%) had women as first authors, paralleling the current proportion of women in training (P = .98). Women were senior/last authors in 1255 (14.5%) papers; this was higher than the current proportion of female urologists in practice (P < .0001) for all journals but NAU (P = .59). Only 527 (6.1%) of multiple-author papers had both female first and last authors whereas 5640 (65.3%) of papers had both male first and last authors. The first author was more likely female when the senior author was female (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 2.06-2.65); most female-first and -last authored manuscripts were published in subspecialty journals and those utilizing double-blind peer review.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of female first- and senior-authored manuscripts is significantly higher than the proportion of women in urology, and may reflect differential subspecialty choices and mentorship opportunities for women.

Trends in Female Authorship Within Urologic Literature: A Comparison of 2012 and 2017

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends in female authorship in the recent urologic literature.

METHODS

We examined articles published in 2012 and 2017 from 5 urologic journals: Journal of Urology, Journal of Endourology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urologic Oncology, and Urology. Gender was recorded for first, supplemental, and last authors. Articles were further categorized by subspecialty focus of the published article. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression modeling were used to assess for differences in female authorship by year, journal, and article subspecialty.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred and thirty-three and 1374 articles were published in 2012 and 2017, respectively. There was a significant increase in all female authorship categories between years: first (19%-25%), last (12-16%), and any (67%-74%) (P<.01, all). By journal, the highest proportion of articles with any female authors for both years was in Neurourology and Urodynamics (80%, 2012; 85%, 2017) while lowest was in Journal of Endourology (49%, 2012; 54%, 2017). Likewise, female authorship was generally higher in female/voiding dysfunction /incontinence and lower in endourology subspecialty articles. Controlling for journal and subspecialty, multiple logistic regression analysis showed no change in last authorship between years.

CONCLUSION

Overall female authorship in the urologic literature has increased in recent years. However, after controlling for journal and subspecialty we found no increase in female last authorship between years, suggesting that disparities in senior authorships exist based on journal and subspecialty topic. Our findings further suggest an authorship plateau, highlighting the importance of efforts to optimize advancement and promotion of women in academic urology.

Gender and Invited Authorship in the Journal of Pediatric Urology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evolving role of gender in invited authorship and editorial positions in the Journal of Pediatric Urology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recorded editorial board members and first and senior authors for all editorials and invited commentaries for all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Urology from 2005 to August 2018. We also recorded first and senior authors for original research articles from selected years for comparison. Gender was confirmed for each individual by visiting institutional websites and performing internet searches. The same was done for the Societies for Pediatric Urology membership.

RESULTS

A total of 143 editorials and 162 invited commentaries were identified within the study period, with numbers increasing each year. Overall, these publications had 448 first and senior authorships, of which 10% were female. Of the 898 editorial board positions over the study period, 7% were held by females. The proportion of female authorships increased over time (P = .04), while the proportion of female board members did not (P = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

Female invited authorship has increased over the past 13 years in the Journal of Pediatric Urology. However, editorial board membership has lagged, indicating an opportunity for improvement.

Rising Tides: Challenges and Opportunities for Women in the Urologic Workforce

The number of practicing female urologists has increased from < 2% in 1980 to 9.2% in 2018. Despite this increase, urology trails far behind medical fields overall and surgical subspecialties, in achieving gender parity. Barriers, such as pervasive biases and institutional policies, exist at the medical student, resident, and practicing urologist levels. Once recognized as detrimental, action can be taken to combat these forces to allow for advancement of women in the field of urology. This will result in a richer workforce better able to serve its patient population and advance the field.

Gender disparity within academic Canadian urology

INTRODUCTION

Increasing female matriculation into medical school has shown an increase in women training in academic urology, but gender disparity still exists within this male-dominated field. This study aims to evaluate publication productivity and rank differences of Canadian female and male academic urologists.

METHODS

The Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) was used to compile a list of 12 Canadian accredited urology programs. Using each institution's website, faculty members' names, genders, academic positions, and leadership ranks were noted. SCOPUS^© was consulted to tabulate the number of documents published, citations, and h-index of each faculty member. To account for temporal bias associated with the h-index, the m-quotient was also computed.

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher number of men (164, 88.17%) among academic faculty than women (22, 11.83%). As academic rank increased, the proportion of female urologists decreased. Overall, male urologists had higher academic ranks, h-index values, number of publications, and citations (p=0.038, p=0.0038, p=0.0011, and p=0.014, respectively). There was an insignificant difference between men and women with respect to their m-quotient medians (p=0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increasing number of women completing residency in urology, although there are disproportionally fewer female urologists at senior academic positions. Significant differences were found in the h-index, publication count, and citation number between male and female urologists. When using the m-quotient to adjust for temporal bias, no significant differences were found between the gender in terms of academic output.

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.

The first female authors of the Journal of Urology

INTRODUCTION

In 1917, Alma Hiller became the first woman to publish in the Journal of Urology (JU). Her contribution was followed by articles from Carol Beeler and Isabel Mary Wason. This study explores their careers and contributions.

METHODS

We reviewed JU articles from 1917 to 1925 and identified Hiller, Beeler, and Wason as the first three women authors. Using public records, we obtained information of their educations and careers.

RESULTS

Hiller demonstrated resilience in obtaining training and ultimately contributed to innovation in clinical chemistry. Beeler worked on research on metabolic physiology. Wason influenced both lab work and national policy.

CONCLUSIONS

For female scientists entering the workforce in the late 1800s/early 1900s, reception was contingent upon the acceptance of male colleagues. Despite these barriers, Hiller, Beeler, and Wason contributed to novel discoveries. Their most influential contributions remain their historic presence as early female researchers and the first female authors in JU.

Gender-gaps and glass ceilings: A survey of gender-specific publication trends in Psychiatry between 1994 and 2014

BACKGROUND

Within academic psychiatry, women are underrepresented in the higher academic ranks. However, basic determinants of women's lack of academic advancement such as publication activity are poorly understood. The present study examines women's publication activity in high-impact psychiatry journals over two decades and reports developments in the numbers of male and female authorship over time and across cultural areas.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective bibliometric review of all articles published in 2004 and 2014 in three high-ranking general psychiatry journals. Statistical comparisons were made between the two years and with results from a baseline assessment in 1994.

RESULTS

The overall percentage of female authors increased from 24.6% in 1994 to 33.2% in 2004 to 38.9% in 2014. Though increases in female authorship were statistically significant for both decades, there was less difference between 2004 and 2014, indicating a possible ceiling effect. Rates of female first authors increased between 1994 and 2014, though to a lesser degree between 2004 and 2014. Numbers of female corresponding authors plateaued between 2004 and 2014. Within Europe, Scandinavia displayed the most balanced gender-wise first author ratios. Western European and Central European countries increased their rates of female first authors substantially between 2004 and 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite gains in some areas, our study reveals considerable deficits in the diversity of the current academic psychiatric landscape. Ongoing efforts and interventions to enhance the participation of underrepresented groups on institutional, political and editorial levels are necessary to diversify psychiatric research.

Gender Differences in Publication Productivity Among Academic Urologists in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe the publication productivity of academic urologists in the United States by gender.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Gender inequality is prevalent in most surgical subspecialties, including urology. Despite small numbers of women in academic positions, differences in scholarly impact by gender are relatively unknown. We assembled a list of 1922 academic urologists (1686 men (87.7%), 236 women (12.3%)) at 124 academic institutions throughout the United States as of February 2016. Scopus and Google Scholar were queried for bibliometric data on each individual, including h-index and m-quotient. We analyzed these metrics for both genders by educational background, subspecialty, National Institutes of Health funding, and academic rank.

RESULTS

Men had higher median h-indices than women overall (P < .05), and had higher successive academic ranks (P < .05). Proportionally fewer women attained senior academic ranking (professor/chair), (P < .05). There was no difference in research productivity by successive rank after controlling for career duration (m-quotient). Women were more likely to choose a practice that specialized in pediatric urology or female urology/pelvic reconstructive surgery than their male counterparts (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Women represent a growing proportion of academic urology faculty, but despite the recent increase in number entering the field, relatively few women occupy senior leadership positions. Improving psychosocial barriers to advancement such as lack of mentorship or discriminatory policies may help pioneering female urologists as they progress in their careers.

Trends in female representation in published ophthalmology literature, 2000-2009

PURPOSE

To examine trends in female first and last authors in clinical ophthalmology literature published from January 2000 to December 2009.

METHODS

A total of 3760 articles in American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), 2347 articles in Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), and 3838 articles in Ophthalmology spanning 10 years of published ophthalmology peer-reviewed literature were examined. All original research articles and brief reports indexed online were included. Author gender was determined by an exhaustive Internet search. Articles were excluded if the sex of the author could not be determined or was not applicable (for example, articles by a study group rather than an individual author).

RESULTS

Gender information was identified in 86.8% of articles for first authors and 86% for last authors. The number of female first authors (P < 0.0001) and last authors (P = 0.005) increased significantly in the study period in all journals examined, with a significant association between the sex of the first and last authors (OR = 2.19; 95% CI, 1.96-2.46; P < 0.0001), when examining all articles. Female representation increased for last authors significantly only in Ophthalmology. There was a significant correlation between gender of the first author and total number of authors that was not observed with last-author sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Female first authorship has increased from 2000 to 2009 and is correlated with the gender of the last author; however, there were fewer female last authors compared to female first authors in the same period.

Gender differences in academic productivity and academic career choice among urology residents

PURPOSE

Gender disparities have long existed in medicine but they have not been well examined in urology. We analyzed a large cohort of graduating urology residents to investigate gender disparities in academic productivity, as measured by peer reviewed publications and academic career choice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assembled a list of urology residents who graduated from 2002 through 2008 who were affiliated with the top 50 urology hospitals, as ranked by 2009 U.S. News & World Report. PubMed® was queried to determine the publication output of each resident during the last 3 years of residency. We used an Internet search to determine the fellowship training, career choice and academic rank of each subject. Gender effects on each factor were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 459 male (84.5%) and 84 female (15.5%) residents were included in analysis. During residency women produced fewer total publications (average 3.0 vs 4.8, p = 0.01) and fewer as first author (average 1.8 vs 2.5, p = 0.03) than men. A higher proportion of women than men underwent fellowship training (54.8% vs 48.5%, p = 0.29) and ultimately chose an academic career (40.5% vs 33.3%, p = 0.20), although these differences were not statistically significant. Of residents who chose an academic career a higher proportion of men than women (24.7% vs 2.9%, p = 0.01) obtained associate vs assistant professor rank.

CONCLUSIONS

Women produced fewer peer reviewed publications than men during residency but they were equally likely to undergo fellowship training and choose an academic career. During the study period a higher proportion of men achieved associate professor rank.