Authorship Trends in Spine Publications From 2000 to 2015

Gender Differences in North American and International Otolaryngology Clinical Practice Guideline Authorship: A 17-Year Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze gender differences in authorship of North American (Canadian and American) and international published otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) over a 17-year period.

METHODS

Clinical practice guidelines published between 2005 and 2022 were identified through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) search strategy in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Studies were included if they were original studies, published in the English language, and encompassed Canadian, American, or international OHNS clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 145 guidelines were identified, encompassing 661 female authors (27.4%) and 1756 male authors (72.7%). Among OHNS authors, women and men accounted for 21.2% and 78.8% of authors, respectively. Women who were involved in guideline authorship were 31.0% less likely to be an otolaryngologist compared to men. There were no gender differences across first or senior author and by subspeciality. Female otolaryngologist representation was the greatest in rhinology (28.3%) and pediatrics (26.7%). American guidelines had the greatest proportion of female authors per guideline (34.1%) and the greatest number of unique female authors (33.2%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the increasing representation of women in OHNS, gender gaps exist with regards to authorship within clinical practice guidelines. Greater gender diversity and transparency is required within guideline authorship to help achieve equitable gender representation and the development of balanced guidelines with a variety of viewpoints.

Gender differences in publication rates at Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery annual meetings: an 11-year analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluating gender differences in publication rates after conference presentations is an avenue to assess women's contributions to academic medicine. The objective of this study was to assess gender differences in publication rates, time to publication, and subspeciality of publication of abstracts presented at Canadian otolaryngology conferences over an 11-year period.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data was obtained from online conference schedules of annual Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery national meetings between 2009 and 2020. A total of 2111 abstract titles were searched in MedLine via PubMed. Gender of the first and senior author, publication status of presented work, and subspeciality of publication were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 2111 scientific abstracts presented between 2009 and 2020, female first and senior authors accounted for 29.0% and 12.8% of published abstracts, respectively. There was a significant difference in the publication rate of senior authors by gender (p < 0.01). Male senior authors had a 9.70% higher rate of publication compared to female senior authors. Posters with a female first author were 33.0% (OR: 0.67; 95% CI 0.49-0.91) less likely to be published compared to posters with a male first author. Similarly, posters with a female senior author were 34.0% (OR: 0.66; 95% CI 0.45-0.96) less likely to be published. There was a significant difference in discipline of publication by gender of the senior author (p < 0.001). Male senior authors were more likely to supervise projects in otology while female senior authors were more likely to supervise projects in education and pediatrics. The time to publication and impact factor of the journal of publication did not differ by gender.

CONCLUSION

Gender disparities exist in the publication rates of first and senior authors at Canadian otolaryngology meetings. Female senior authors have significantly lower publication rates compared to their male colleagues and differences exist in publication rates after poster presentations. Investigation of gender gaps in academic medicine, research productivity, and publications is essential for development of a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce in otolaryngology.

Asia Now Surpasses Europe in Spine Research Productivity: An Analysis From 1976-2020

STUDY DESIGN

Bibliometric review.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand the worldwide research productivity trends in spine-related research over the past five decades.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Research productivity in the field of spine surgery has increased tremendously over the past decades. However, knowledge regarding the detailed regional disparity is limited.

METHODS

We evaluated original research articles published in four prestigious journals on spine research (European Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Spine, and The Spine Journal) from 1976 to 2020. For 1 year of each decade, the origin of the first and the senior author was assigned to their region of origin. For the year 2020, a detailed analysis of countries and states of origin was performed, and the number of articles was normalized by registered MDs per country (per 10,000 population).

RESULTS

We included a total of 4436 articles and 8776 authors for analysis. From 1976 to 2020, the percentage of publications originating from North America decreased (77%-38%). In contrast, Asian contributions drastically increased (3%-36%), whereas articles originating from Europe only slightly raised (20%-22%). In 2020, the United States was the most productive country worldwide (34% with most articles from New York (19%), followed by China (16%) and Japan (10%). After normalization to registered MDs (per 10,000 population), the United States proved to have the highest number of articles. Besides this, India now ranked fourth and Egypt eighth in terms of the most productive countries per MDs.

CONCLUSION

North America contributed the largest share of all articles published in the last five decades. Asia, which ranks second in 2020, has overtaken Europe. Normalization to registered MDs can be a helpful tool to reflect a country's research productivity more accurately.Level of Evidence: 3.

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.

Increasing author counts in neurosurgical journals from 1980 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

Scientific productivity, as assessed by publication volume, is a common metric by which the academic neurosurgical field assesses its members. The number of authors per peer-reviewed article has been observed to increase over time across a broad range of medical specialties. This study provides an update to this trend in the neurosurgical literature.

METHODS

All publications from January 1, 1980, to April 30, 2020, were queried from four neurosurgical journals: Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS), JNS: Pediatrics, and JNS: Spine. Publication information was acquired from the National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez database and reconciled with the Scopus database. Publication type was limited to articles and excluded editorials, letters, and reviews. The number of authors and affiliation counts were determined based on structured abstract fields provided in the two databases.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 1980, and April 30, 2020, the overall increase in author count for the four neurosurgical journals was 0.12 to 0.18 authors per year (p < 0.001). For Neurosurgery, the mean (SD) author count increased from 2.81 (1.4) in 1980-1985 to 7.97 (4.92) in 2016-2020 (p < 0.001). For the JNS, the mean (SD) author count increased from 2.82 (1.04) in 1980-1985 to 7.6 (3.65) in 2016-2020 (p < 0.001). The percentage of articles with more than 10 authors increased from 0.2% to 22.3% in Neurosurgery and from 1.9% to 17.5% in JNS. Only 28% of the author count variation was explained by an increasing number of institutional or departmental affiliations.

CONCLUSIONS

Author counts for peer-reviewed articles in neurosurgical academic journals have increased significantly during the past 4 decades, with large increases in the numbers of articles with more than 10 authors in the past 5 years. A total of 28% of the variation in this increase can be explained by an increase in multiinstitutional or multidepartmental studies.

Improving the reproducibility of findings by updating research methodology

The literature discusses causes of low reproducibility of scientific publications. Our article adds another main cause-uncritical adherence to accepted research procedures. This is evident in: (1) anachronistically requiring researchers to base themselves on theoretical background even if the studies cited were not tested for reproducibility; (2) conducting studies suffering from a novelty effect bias; (3) forcing researchers who use data mining methods and field-based theory, with no preliminary theoretical rationale, to present a theoretical background that allegedly guided their work-as a precondition for publication of their findings. It is possible to increase research validity in relation to the above problems by the following means: (1) Conducting a longitudinal study on the same participants and only on them; (2) Trying to shorten the time period between laboratory experiments and those on humans, based on cost-benefit considerations, anchored in ethical norms; (3) Reporting the theoretical background in a causal modular format; (4) Giving incentives to those who meet the above criteria while moderating the pressure for fast output.

Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years

Publication and authorship are important in academia for career advancement, obtaining grants, and improved patient care. There has been a recent interest in bibliometric changes over time, especially regarding the gender gap. The purpose of this study was to explore bibliometric changes in the musculoskeletal literature. Bibliometric variables (number of authors, institutions, countries, pages, references, corresponding author position, author gender, geographic region of origin, and editorial board makeup) were analyzed for 5 basic science and 12 clinically oriented musculoskeletal journals from 1985 through 2016. Statistical analyses comprised bivariate analyses, multifactorial ANOVAs, and logistic regression analyses. A p < 0.005 was considered significant. Nearly, all variables increased over time. Asia had the highest number of authors and corresponding author positions, Australia/New Zealand the highest number of institutions and references, North America the highest number of pages, and Europe the highest number of countries. Those with a female first author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Likewise, those with a female corresponding author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Single-authored manuscripts decreased over time. The percentage of female first authors rose from 10.8% in 1985-1987 to 23.7% in 2015-2016. There were more female 1^st authors in the basic science journals compared to the clinical journals (33.2% vs. 12.7%). Single-authored manuscripts were more likely to be written by males (5.1 vs. 2.4%) and decreased over time. The many differences by geographic region of origin likely reflect different socio/cultural attitudes regarding academia and research, as well as the gender composition of the disciplines by geographic region. Overall, there has been an increase in the number of female 1^st and corresponding authors, editorial board members, and chief editors, indicating a slow but progressive narrowing of the gender gap.

Gender and Authorship in Pediatric Critical Care Randomized Control Trials

OBJECTIVES

To examine the gender distribution of authorship of pediatric critical care randomized control trials.

DATA SOURCES

The 415 randomized control trials in pediatric critical care published before 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all randomized control trials enrolling children in a PICU. We used PICUtrials.net, which uses comprehensive search strategies of multiple databases, to identify published randomized control trials.

DATA EXTRACTION

We manually extracted the name and profession of each listed author from each publication and classified each author as male or female based on their name.

RESULTS

We included 2,146 authors and were able to classify 1,888 (88%) as men or women. Overall, 38% of authors were women, this varied with the authorship position: 37% of first, 38% of middle, and 25% of last authors were women (p < 0.001). The three most common professions were physician (63%), nonclinician (11%), and nurse (6%)-of which 30%, 45%, and 97%, respectively, were women. The percentage of female authorship overall has increased from 28% in 1985-1989 to 39% in 2015-2018 (p for trend = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the characteristics of randomized control trials published with a female first or last author versus those with both male first and last authors with respect to the median number of children randomized (60 vs. 50; p = 0.41), multicentred trials (17% vs. 24%; p = 0.12), trials at low risk of bias (50% vs. 66%; p = 0.26), reporting any funding (55% vs. 51%; p = 0.66), or median number of citations per year (1.5 vs. 2.4; p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Although increasing over time, the percentage of researchers publishing pediatric critical care randomized control trials who are women still lags behind the percentage clinicians who are women. Trials that female researchers publish are similar in characteristics and impact as male researchers. Further work should identify barriers to gender diversity and potential solutions in pediatric critical care research.

The Impact of Hospital/University Affiliation on Research Productivity Among US-Based Authors in the Fields of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Acute Care, and Emergency General Surgery

BACKGROUND

Research productivity is critical to academic surgery and essential for advancing surgical knowledge and evidence-based practice. We aim to determine if surgeon affiliation with top US universities/hospitals (TOPS) is associated with increased research productivity measured by numbers of peer-reviewed publications in PubMed (PMIDs).

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis was performed for PMIDs. Affiliated authors who published in trauma surgery (TS), surgical critical care (SCC), acute care surgery (ACS), and emergency general surgery (EGS) were evaluated for publications between 2015 and 2019, and lifetime productivity. Our analysis included 3443 authors from 443 different institutions. Our main outcome was PMIDs of first author (FA) and senior author (SA) in each field (2015-2019) and total lifetime publications.

RESULTS

Significant differences exist between PMIDs from TOPS vs non-TOPS in FA-TS (1.34 vs 1.23, P = .001), SA-TS (1.71 vs 1.46, P < .001), total SA-PMIDs (44.10 vs 26.61, P < .001), and SA-lifetime PMIDs (90.55 vs 59.03, P < .001). There were no significant differences in PMIDs for FA or SA-SCC, FA or SA-ACS, FA or SA-EGS, FA-total PMIDs 2015-2019, or FA-lifetime PMIDs (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

There were significantly higher TS PMIDs among FAs and SAs affiliated with top US institutions in 2015-2019, along with higher total PMIDs (2015-2019) and lifetime PMIDs. These findings are of significance to future graduate medical applicants and academic surgeons who need to make decisions about training and future career opportunities.

Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence

CONTEXT

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, now 10 years into production, has been ranked a top-25 journal in sport sciences and has tripled its impact throughout its existence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate authorship trends and levels of evidence (LOE) of articles published in Sports Health from 2009 to 2018. The secondary aim was to analyze funding sources and internationalization throughout the journal's tenure.

DATA SOURCES

All clinical studies published in Sports Health between the years 2009 and 2018 were examined.

STUDY SELECTION

All publications from the provided years were electronically reviewed by 2 reviewers and evaluated for inclusion criteria. Editorials, society news, memorials, letters to the editor, and corrigenda were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were examined for number of authors, presence of female authorship, funding, country of origin, international collaboration, academic degree or certification of first and senior authors, and LOE. Clinical articles were assigned LOE based on guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

A total of 654 articles were examined. The percentage of high-LOE studies increased throughout the study period. The percentage of publications with female authors also increased throughout the study period. The mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.6 over the 10-year period (P < 0.05). The percentage of publications with international collaboration stayed consistent, while the number of countries per year increased during the study period. Overall, institutions from 23 countries have published in Sports Health since its inception to the time of this study.

CONCLUSION

Female authorship in Sports Health surpasses industry standards, and the percentage of high-LOE studies remains remarkably high. Sports Health has stayed true to its multidisciplinary scope, as evidenced by the authors' varying degrees and numerous countries that publish in the journal.

Authorship and study characteristic trends in spine publications from years 2004 to 2017

Background

The goal of this study was to analyze the trends in authorship and study characteristics in Spine using two overlapping ten-year time periods: 2004-2014 and 2007-2017. To our knowledge, no other literature reports study characteristics and authorship in the same time period for spine that would allow for the assessment of confounding factors of trends.

Methods

Authorship and study characteristic data was collected from all scientific manuscripts published in Spine during the years of 2004, 2007, 2014, and 2017. Basic statistics and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to analyze the data.

Results

We found a significant increase in total number of authors (P<0.0001) without discrepancy of unequivocal increases in author degree type: MD/Equivalent (P≤0.0001), PhD/Doctorate (P=0.0017), Masters (P=0.0015), and Bachelors (P≤0.0001). We observed an increase in industry authorship (P≤0.0001), but without a significant increase in industry funding during the same time span. Increases in administration database studies (P≤0.0001) and economic/value studies (P≤0.0001) were also noted. A significant change in percentage of articles with trauma pathology (decrease, P<0.0001) and deformity (increase, P=0.0002) occurred. The number of multi-institutional studies increased (P≤0.0001), while no change in the number of multi-disciplinary studies.

Conclusions

Increases in author number for spine articles over time are a result of a general increase in authors in all degree types, not just non-doctorate degrees. This may be potentially influenced by the increase in multi-institutional studies. From 2004-2017, higher percentages of articles focus on economics. An increase in industry authorship without a corresponding increase in funding suggests industry's more 'hands-on' approach to publication results from their funded studies.

Reporting of academic degrees in high-impact medical journals

Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers' attitude towards research quality.