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

Workforce Diversity and Equity Among Critical Care Physicians

Health disparities persist among minoritized populations. A diverse clinician workforce may help address these disparities and improve patient outcomes; however, diversity in the critical are workforce (particularly among women and those historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM)) is lacking. This review describes factors contributing to low respresentation of women and URiM in critical care medicine, and proposes strategies to overcome those barriers.

Scientific output after the 2017, 2019 and 2021 meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología

INTRODUCTION

The sharing of research findings through communications at congresses and publications is essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The aim was to determine the percentage of communications presented the biennial meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo, Spanish Society of Neonatology) eventually published as full-text articles in indexed peer-reviewed journals and their bibliometric characteristics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study by reviewing the abstracts from the oral communications (OCs) in the 2017, 2019 and 2021 SENeo congresses. Then we searched for the authors in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. We collected data on the authors, type of OC and bibliometric characteristics.

RESULTS

The sample included 525 OCs, and we found a publication rate of 40.38% corresponding to 212 publications, 78.8% of them in international journals. The most frequent journal of publication was Anales de Pediatría. The median and interquartile range values for the impact factor, quartile and number of citations were 2.86 (1.96-3.98), 2 (1-3) and 3 (0-7), respectively, with a remarkable increase in the impact factor for the most recent congresses. The median time elapsed to publication was 10 months (IQR, 1-23). The proportion published was higher for multicentre studies and those with a respiratory topic.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of publication for OCs submitted to SENeo congresses was similar to the frequency of publication for other paediatric congresses, with an impact factor that was above the mean of the congresses under study. The proportion of publication was higher for studies with a multicentre design or a respiratory topic.

A review of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries between 2000 and 2020

INTRODUCTION

Equitable inclusion of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and women in research authorship is a priority. A review of progress in addressing WHO-identified priorities provided an opportunity to examine the geographical and gender distribution of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research.

METHODS

Publications addressing five areas prioritised in a WHO workshop and published between 2000 and 2020 were identified. Data on author country, gender, authorship position and research funding source were collected by manuscript review and internet searches and analysed using IBM SPSS V.26.

RESULTS

Of, 297 eligible papers identified, (n=294) had multiple authors. Of these, 241 (82%) included at least one LMIC author and 143 (49%) and 122 (41%) had LMIC first and last authors, respectively. LMICs funded studies were more than twice as likely to include an LMIC first or last author as high-income country-funded studies (relative risk 2.36, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.89). Respectively, 129 (46%) and 106 (36%) studies had female first and last authors. LMIC first and last authorship varied widely by HSV-2 research area and increased over time to 65% and 59% by 2015-2020.

CONCLUSION

Despite location of the research itself in LMIC settings, over the 20-year period, LMIC researchers held only a minority of first and last authorship positions. While LMIC representation in these positions improved over time, important inequities remain in key research areas and for women. Addressing current and historical power disparities in global health research, research infrastructure and how it is funded may be key addressing to addressing these issues.

Scientific production in sexual and reproductive health and rights research according to gender and affiliation: An analysis of publications from 1972 to 2021

INTRODUCTION

Peer-reviewed literature is commonly used to assess academic progress and research excellency. However, representation in authorship of global health publications is biased and unfair. In order to shed light on current gaps towards attaining gender equality in scientific production and shift power asymmetries in global health research, we conducted an assessment of authorship trends from 1972 to 2021 with a focus on gender and geographic representation in scientific articles authored or co-authored by researchers affiliated with UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and HRP public reports for publications where at least one author was affiliated with HRP. Our main outcome measures were author gender and location of author affiliation, classified by region and country income group. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the publications under analysis as well as the total number of authors from the included papers. We applied a logistic regression model to explore associations between author gender and other characteristics of published articles and a time series analysis to assess how time can influence the inclusion of women as authors in a publication. Python and R were used for all analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1,484 publications with 14,424 listed authors representing 5,950 unique authors were included in our analysis: 42.5% were female, 35.1% male, and 22.4% unknown (p<0.0001). First authorship was more likely female (56.9%) and from a high-income country (74.6%, p<0.0001) while last authorship was mostly male (53.7%) also from a high-income country (82.5%, p<0.0001). Females more frequently published papers using qualitative data (61.4%) and reviews/estimates (59.4%) while men published more case control (70.7%) and randomised controlled studies (53.0%), p<0.0001. The adjusted odds of there being a female author increased 4% for every additional year that passed.

CONCLUSION

While there are more females authoring articles as compared to the past, they are still lagging behind with regards to seniority and prestige. Likewise, female representation is closely tied to what institution they are affiliated with and where that institution is located. Global health research institutions need to actively promote change by ensuring women are included in research and research outputs, giving them opportunities to lead.

Diversity Drives Representation: An Internal Audit of Gender Representation in Citation Practices of a Single Surgical Laboratory

Background

Large-scale retrospective studies have identified implicit gender bias in citation behaviors across multiple medical fields. There are minimal resources to directly assess one's own citation behavior before publication at a laboratory level. In this study, we performed an internal audit of our own citation practices and behavior, looking at the representation of authors by gender in our own bibliographies.

Methods

Bibliographies were collated from our laboratory's publications between 2015 and 2022 with a single senior author, who was excluded from participating in this study. Bibliographies were run through a simulation originally constructed and used by authors from the University of Pennsylvania that categorized authors of each article by gender: man or woman, according to external database records.

Results

Of the 1697 citations, the first and last authorship sequences displayed to be 60.8% male/male, 10.1% male/female, 16.3% female/male and 12.8% female/female. Men-led articles within our laboratory cited 67.4% male/male articles in their bibliographies compared with women-led articles citing 53.9%. All laboratory bibliographies consisted of 77.1% male senior authors compared with 22.9% female senior authors.

Conclusions

Our data confirm that a gender bias in citation practices exists at the laboratory level. Promisingly, these data also indicate that diversity within an individual laboratory group leads to diversity in representation; therefore, diversifying a team of researchers is prone to improve the overall work and success of the laboratory. We encourage laboratory groups to challenge their own biases by replicating their own results and discovering how these biases might be impacting their publications.

Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research over the past 15 years

Background

In the last 15 years, an increase in U.S. female dermatologists from 41 to 52.2% and a surge in female authorship (FAP) have been noted. Authorship is a pivotal objective measurement of academic productivity and, contribution as first or senior author, plays a major role in the promotion process of active physicians and faculty members.

Objective

To validate, analyze, and clarify trends in FAP in high-quality dermatology research in the last 15 years.

Methods

The Thomson Reuters Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2021 was used to retrieve the 100 most-cited original articles from the top 5 dermatology journals (determined by 2021 impact factors) in 5 consecutive 3-year intervals between 2009 and 2023. Gender application programming interface, a gender algorithm, was used to identify FAP according to country of origin and first name. Monotonic trend test significance level was set at 5%.

Results

In total, 14,187 articles were retrieved and subdivided into the 100 most-cited in 3-year intervals. A total of 418 first and 447 senior authors' gender were identified. FAP was found in 43%, 31%, and 37% of the first, last, and total authors. Trend analysis revealed a decrease in the last 15 years (S = -4610, P = .068) in senior FAP. Similarly, the trend persists in the United States (S = -1606, P = .052).

Limitations

Due to the usage of a binary gender identification algorithm, Nonbinary gender could not be identified in this analysis.

Conclusion

The last 15 years show an inverse relationship, with an increase in female dermatologists and a decrease in senior FAP in high-quality journals in the general dermatology community.

Female authorship positions in health economic evaluations: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the gender of the authors who publish articles of health economic evaluations in medicine and healthcare journals.

METHOD

We evaluated a random sample of economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. Gender of the first, last and corresponding author was determined by review of the author's first name. Data were summarized as frequency and percentage for categorical items and median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous items. We also calculated the index of authors per paper.

RESULTS

We included 200 studies with 1365 authors (median of 6 authors per paper; IQR: 4-9). Gender identification was possible for all authors in the study sample: 802 (59%) were men and 563 (41%) were women. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 78 (39%), 68 (34%), and 80 (40%) for health economic evaluations.

DISCUSSION

Female scientists were underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in health economic evaluations. This study serves as a call to action for the scientific community to actively work towards equity and inclusion.

Trend of female first authorship in Journal of Orthopaedic Science, the official journal of the Japanese orthopaedic association from 2001 to 2021: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Women are underrepresented in orthopaedic surgery, especially in Japan. Authorship is associated with representation and career advancement, but the academic representation of women in Japanese orthopaedic surgery has not been elucidated. This study aimed to elucidate the proportion of female first authorship and its associating factors, as well as trends in the Journal of Orthopaedic Science (JOS), the official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

METHODS

The study reviewed original articles published in JOS from 2002 to 2021 using data from PubMed on March 16, 2022. The gender of the first and last authors was determined using genderize. io, an online gender detection tool and manual search. The study used multivariable logistic regression to identify the factors associated with female first authorship and visualized the trend of predicted probability using restricted cubic spline curve.

RESULTS

Among 2272 original articles, 148 (6.5%) and 79 (3.5%) had female first and last authors, respectively. Compared with 2002-2006, female first authorship significantly increased in 2012-2016 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-4.05; p = 0.03) and 2017-2021 (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.46-5.276; p = 0.002). Affiliation with an institution in Japan (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35-0.74; p < 0.001) and affiliation in orthopaedics (aOR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.11-0.23; p < 0.001) were negatively associated with female first authorship. Around 2020, the trend showed a gradual then rapid increase in women with non-orthopaedic affiliations. Only a very small increase was observed in women with an orthopaedic affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

Female first authorship in JOS has been increasing. However, the proportion of female authors remains low. Authors outside of Japan and not affiliated with orthopaedics largely affect female authorship statistics. The results indicate the persistent gender gap in the academic representation of women in Japanese orthopaedic publications.

Gender Disparity in Leading Authorship of Critical Care Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In critical care medicine, research trials serve as crucial avenues for disseminating knowledge, influencing clinical practices, and fostering innovation. Notably, a significant gender imbalance exists within this field, potentially mirrored in the authorship of critical care research. This study aimed to investigate an exploration to ascertain the presence and extent of female representation in first and senior authorship roles within critical care literature. To this end, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for original articles published up to February 2024, coupled with a methodological quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and statistical analyses through Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). The study's findings, distilled from seven studies included in the final analysis, reveal a pronounced gender disparity. Specifically, in critical care literature examining mixed populations, female first authors were significantly less common than their male counterparts, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.18-5.68; p < 0.00001). Conversely, pediatric critical care studies did not show a significant difference in gender distribution among first authors (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.31-6.10; p = 0.68). The investigation also highlighted a stark underrepresentation of female senior authors in critical care research across both mixed (OR: 11.67; 95% CI: 7.76-17.56; p < 0.00001) and pediatric populations (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 1.88-15.56; p = 0.002). These findings underscore the persistent underrepresentation of women in critical care literature authorship and their slow progression into leadership roles, as evidenced by the disproportionately low number of female senior authors.

Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Background

Health research that significantly impacts global clinical practice and policy is often published in high-impact factor (IF) medical journals. These outlets play a pivotal role in the worldwide dissemination of novel medical knowledge. However, researchers identifying as women and those affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been largely underrepresented in high-IF journals across multiple fields of medicine. To evaluate disparities in gender and geographical representation among authors who have published in any of five top general medical journals, we conducted scientometric analyses using a large-scale dataset extracted from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and Nature Medicine.

Methods

Author metadata from all articles published in the selected journals between 2007 and 2022 were collected using the DimensionsAI platform. The Genderize.io API was then utilized to infer each author's likely gender based on their extracted first name. The World Bank country classification was used to map countries associated with researcher affiliations to the LMIC or the high-income country (HIC) category. We characterized the overall gender and country income category representation across the medical journals. In addition, we computed article-level diversity metrics and contrasted their distributions across the journals.

Findings

We studied 151,536 authors across 49,764 articles published in five top medical journals, over a long period spanning 15 years. On average, approximately one-third (33.1%) of the authors of a given paper were inferred to be women; this result was consistent across the journals we studied. Further, 86.6% of the teams were exclusively composed of HIC authors; in contrast, only 3.9% were exclusively composed of LMIC authors. The probability of serving as the first or last author was significantly higher if the author was inferred to be a man (18.1% vs 16.8%, P < .01) or was affiliated with an institution in a HIC (16.9% vs 15.5%, P < .01). Our primary finding reveals that having a diverse team promotes further diversity, within the same dimension (i.e., gender or geography) and across dimensions. Notably, papers with at least one woman among the authors were more likely to also involve at least two LMIC authors (11.7% versus 10.4% in baseline, P < .001; based on inferred gender); conversely, papers with at least one LMIC author were more likely to also involve at least two women (49.4% versus 37.6%, P < .001; based on inferred gender).

Conclusion

We provide a scientometric framework to assess authorship diversity. Our research suggests that the inclusiveness of high-impact medical journals is limited in terms of both gender and geography. We advocate for medical journals to adopt policies and practices that promote greater diversity and collaborative research. In addition, our findings offer a first step towards understanding the composition of teams conducting medical research globally and an opportunity for individual authors to reflect on their own collaborative research practices and possibilities to cultivate more diverse partnerships in their work.

Gender distribution in surgical pathology journal publications and editorial boards

AIMS

To investigate trends in representation of women among authors and editorial boards of surgical pathology journals over the last two decades.Secondary aims: to identify barriers and potential solutions.

METHODS

The names and gender of first, middle, last authors and editorial board members were obtained from original articles from seven pathology journals from various geopolitical regions in 2002, 2011 and 2021. The proportion of women first, middle, last authors and editorial board members were compared over time.

RESULTS

1097 publications and 8012 individual authors were extracted. In 2002, 2011 and 2021, respectively, the percentage of women first authors were 28.3% (257 of 907), 31.9% (566 of 1773) and 41.1% (1421 of 3457); women middle authorship rates were 30.0% (159 of 530), 32.8% (375 of 1145) and 40.9% (1067 of 2609) and women last authors were 18.0% (34 of 188), 26.0% (82 of 315) and 36.0% (152 of 422). Women representation on editorial boards has increased (11.3%, 15.8%, 26.5%), but of the chief editors, there was only one woman in 2021, while all were men in 2002 and 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study is the first to document under-representation of women among authors and editorial boards of surgical pathology journals. While women representation has increased over time, predominance of men remains relative to workforce proportions. Our findings are comparable to those from other medical fields and prompt the need to investigate the underlying causes for this imbalance and implement strategies to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in academic surgical pathology.

Unveiling the gender gap in research: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles on food-borne pathogen outbreaks from 1990 to 2020

Introduction

Despite a recent increase in the representation of female authors in scientific literature, a significant gap persists concerning the inclusion of women in research. This necessitates the analysis of published literature from a gender perspective. This study aimed to provide gender distribution in authorship in the 100 most-cited articles on food-borne pathogen outbreaks from 1990 to 2020.

Methods

Bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Scopus database. Two reviewers were selected to search the database. We included the 100 most-cited articles on foodborne outbreak investigations. The analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 and Microsoft Excel version 2016. The citation data, including total citations, citations per year, and representation of women as first and senior authors, was analyzed in terms of frequencies, mean, median, and interquartile range. The correlation between journal impact factor and the representation of women in high-impact factor journals was determined. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Most of the top-cited articles were published between 2001 and 2010 (n=47). The top 3 most-cited articles were from the USA. Of the total 100 articles, women were the first and last authors in 46% and 28% of the articles, respectively, reflecting a significant gender gap. However, the proportion of females as principal investigators gradually increased from 25% (n=10/30) to 52% (n=24/47) during the period 2001-2010 and to 92% (n=12/13) during 2011-2020. The USA had the highest number of included articles (n=48), and women were principal authors in 56% (n=27) of them. The lowest representation of women was observed in Austria, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

Conclusion

Women are under-represented in published literature on food-borne pathogen outbreaks. Although the representation of women as principal authors has recently increased, disparities still exist at the senior-author level, calling for women's advancement in academic science.

Feminization of the health workforce in China: exploring gendered composition from 2002 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Feminization of health workforce has been globally documented, but it has not been investigated in China. This study aims to analyze changes in the gendered composition of health workforce and explore the trend in different types of health workforce, health organizations and majors within China's health system.

METHODS

The data were collected from China Health Statistical Yearbook from 2002 to 2020. We focused on health professionals including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists in health organizations. Trend analysis was employed to examine the change in the ratio of female health workforce over 18 years. The estimated average annual percent change (AAPC) was estimated, and the reciprocals of variances for the female ratios were used as weights.

RESULTS

In China, health professionals increased from 4.7 million in 2002 to 10.68 million in 2020. Health professionals per 1000 population increased from 3.41 in 2002 to 7.57 in 2020. The ratio of female health professionals significantly increased from 63.85% in 2002 to 72.4% in 2020 (AAPC = 1.04%, 95% CI 0.96-1.11%, P < 0.001). Female doctors and pharmacists increased 4.7 and 7.9 percentage points from 2002 to 2020. Female health workers at township health centers, village clinics, centers for disease control and prevention had higher annual increase rate (AAPC = 1.67%, 2.25% and 1.33%, respectively) than those at hospital (0.70%) and community health center (0.5%). Female doctors in traditional Chinese medicine, dentistry and public health had higher annual increase rate (AAPC = 1.82%, 1.53% and 1.91%, respectively) than female clinical doctor (0.64%).

CONCLUSIONS

More women are participating in the healthcare sector in China. However, socially lower-ranked positions have been feminizing faster, which could be due to the inherent and structural gender norms restricting women's career. More collective and comprehensive system-level actions will be needed to foster a gender-equitable environment for health workforce at all levels.

A Summer Research Experience to Increase Diversity in Healthcare: a 4-Year Follow-up Study

This report describes the educational follow-up of the college coaches who participated in our Summer Research Programs from 2012 through 2019. Our program was successful as all the 45 college coaches submitted a total of 54 abstracts to a regional conference, and 100% of them were accepted for publication. On follow-up in 2023, most of the college coaches, including women and those from minority backgrounds, were enrolled or graduated from a health professional school or worked in a healthcare setting. Despite our small study population, our research program can serve as a model to increase diversity in healthcare and science fields.

A scientometric analysis of fairness in health AI literature

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are central components of today's medical environment. The fairness of AI, i.e. the ability of AI to be free from bias, has repeatedly come into question. This study investigates the diversity of members of academia whose scholarship poses questions about the fairness of AI. The articles that combine the topics of fairness, artificial intelligence, and medicine were selected from Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Embase using keywords. Eligibility and data extraction from the articles were done manually and cross-checked by another author for accuracy. Articles were selected for further analysis, cleaned, and organized in Microsoft Excel; spatial diagrams were generated using Public Tableau. Additional graphs were generated using Matplotlib and Seaborn. Linear and logistic regressions were conducted using Python to measure the relationship between funding status, number of citations, and the gender demographics of the authorship team. We identified 375 eligible publications, including research and review articles concerning AI and fairness in healthcare. Analysis of the bibliographic data revealed that there is an overrepresentation of authors that are white, male, and are from high-income countries, especially in the roles of first and last author. Additionally, analysis showed that papers whose authors are based in higher-income countries were more likely to be cited more often and published in higher impact journals. These findings highlight the lack of diversity among the authors in the AI fairness community whose work gains the largest readership, potentially compromising the very impartiality that the AI fairness community is working towards.

Perception of gender disparity in academic reproductive endocrinology and infertility

The aim of this study was to identify gender differences in leadership/academic rank and attitudes regarding gender representation among academic Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility subspecialists. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (SREI) were surveyed regarding gender, academic rank, and attitudes concerning gender disparity in academic medicine in March 2021. Univariate comparisons were performed using Chi-squared and Fischer-exact tests with significance at p ≤ 0.05. A total of 237 SREI members completed the survey with a response rate of 28.8%. Of those, 176 practiced in academic medicine. The majority (76.7%) have been in practice for greater than 10 years. The female-to-male ratio changed over time with ratios of 1.1:1 for those in practice over 10 years and 5.8:1 for those less than 10 years. Of providers in practice greater than 10 years, there were significantly more male vs. female full professors (72.3% vs. 48.5%, p < 0.01), less frequent male assistant professors (3% vs.17%, p < 0.01) and a similar percentage of male and female associate professors (24.6% vs. 34.3%, p = 0.2). Among those in practice for less than 10 years, there were no differences in academic rank between males and females. When stratified by years in practice, there was no difference in gender among division directors, fellowship directors, or assistant/associate fellowship directors. 68.2% of respondents believe there is a gender disparity in academic rank, with females more likely to have this opinion (79% vs. 52.1%, p < 0.001). The female-to-male ratio in academic REI has dramatically changed with time. Even with this shift, the majority of providers believe in a gender disparity regarding academic rank that is due to systemic factors limiting the academic advancement of females. When stratified by years in practice, women in practice greater than 10 years were less likely to hold the rank of full professor than men despite equal leadership positions.

Trends in gender disparity in the field of Helicobacter pylori research from 2000 to 2020: A cross-sectional study

Many studies have investigated gender disparity in scientific publications, but this has been poorly studied in the field of digestive diseases. This study aimed to determine the gender difference of first and senior authors in publications related to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) during the past 20 years. Data were derived from original articles published in the main journals of digestive diseases (Journal of Hepatology, Gut, Gastroenterology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Digestive Endoscopy, Journal of Gastroenterology, Helicobacter, and Gastric Cancer) in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. These original articles were classified according to the gender and nationality of the first and senior (last listed) authors. Linear-by-linear association test was used to analyze the proportion of women authors over time. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to explain the factors impacting authorship difference of first and senior authors. A total of 561 original articles on H. pylori were collected for this study, accounting for 10.70% in 2000 to 7.60% in 2020 among all articles. In these original articles, the percentage of women first authors increased from 14.60% in 2000 to 45.0% in 2020 (P < .001). The percentage of women senior authors increased from 5.60% in 2000 to 18.80% in 2020 (P < .001). Women first authors were more likely to perform research with women senior authors (18.42%) than with men senior authors (10.23%, P < .001). The proportion of women first authors from Oceania were higher than that from North and South America (P = .004), whereas there was no statistical difference regarding women senior authors. In the past 2 decades, although the percentage of women authors among both first and senior authors in the field of H. pylori research has increased significantly, women are still a minority in original research.

Gender trends in cardiothoracic surgery authorship

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, the historically low proportion of women cardiothoracic surgeons and trainees has been a subject of intense focus. Publications remain a key metric of academic success and career advancement. We sought to identify trends in the gender of first and last author publications in cardiothoracic surgery.

METHODS

We searched for publications between 2011 and 2020 in 2 US cardiothoracic surgery journals, identifying those with Medical Subject Heading publication types of clinical trials, observational studies, meta-analyses, commentary, reviews, and case reports. A commercially available, validated software (Gender-API) was used to associate gender with author names. Association of American Medical Colleges Physician Specialty Data Reports were used to identify concurrent changes in the proportion of active women in cardiothoracic surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 6934 (57.1%) pieces of commentary; 3694 (30.4%) case reports; 1030 (8.5%) reviews, systematic analyses, meta-analyses, or observational studies; and 484 (4%) clinical trials. In total, 15,189 total names were included in analysis. Over the 10-year study period, first authorship by women rose from 8.5% to 16% (0.42% per year, on average), whereas the percentage of active US women cardiothoracic physicians rose from 4.6% to 8% (0.42% per year). Last authorship was generally flat over the decade, going from 8.9% in 2011% to 7.8% in 2020 and on average, increased at just 0.06% per year (P = .79).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, authorship by women has steadily increased, more so at the first author position. Author-volunteered gender identification at the time of manuscript acceptance may be useful to more accurately follow trends in publication.

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.

Looking beyond workforce parity: addressing gender inequity in pathology

While women pathologists have made up over one-third of pathologists in the Australian workforce for over 15 years and at least 50% since 2019, they are under-represented in senior leadership roles, scientific publications, grant recipients, editorial boards, key presentations, and professional awards. This is not unique to pathology and is seen in the broader medical and academic community. Barriers to gender equity and equality in pathology, medicine and academia include gender stereotypes, gender-based discrimination, structural and organisational barriers as well as broader social and cultural barriers. A diverse leadership reflective of the whole professional body and the broader community is important for optimal health outcomes. It is the responsibility and moral duty of individuals and organisations to address any gender disparities, inequities, and inequalities by monitoring, identifying, and acting on gender biases and systemic barriers that hinder appropriate levels of representation by women.

Gender inequity in the medical profession: the women doctors in Spain (WOMEDS) study

BACKGROUND

The long-standing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in medicine is well-known, but poorly documented globally. There is some evidence of the gender gap in academia, medical society leadership, or specific problems in some specialties. However, there are no investigations analyzing all medical specialties together and reporting the glass ceiling from a 360º perspective that includes positions in academia, research, professional organizations, and clinical activity. Additionally, the majority of studies have a US perspective, and we wonder if the perspective of a European country might be different. The WOmen in MEDicine in Spain (WOMEDS) project ( https://womeds.es ) aims to describe and characterize, in a systematic and detailed way, the gender bias in the medical profession in Spain in order to monitor its evolution over time and contribute to prioritizing gender policies.

METHODS

We retrieved data for the calendar years 2019-2021 from several sources and selected surveys. We built four groups of indicators to describe leadership positions in the medical profession: (i) leadership in healthcare according to specialty and region; (ii) leadership in scientific and professional bodies; (iii) academic career; and (iv) leadership in clinical research activity. As a summary measure, we reported the women ratios, calculated as the percentage of women in specific top positions divided by the percentage of women in the relevant population.

RESULTS

We found gender inequity in leadership positions in all four settings. During the observed period, only 27.6% of the heads of departments in hospitals were women compared to 61.1% of women in medical staff. Ten of the 46 medical societies grouped in the Spanish Federation of Medical Societies (FACME) (21.7%) had a women president at some point during the study period, and only 4 annual congresses had ratios of women speakers higher than 1. Women were over-represented in the lower positions and underrepresented in the top academic ones. Only 26% and 27%, respectively, of the heads of departments and deans were women. The applications for public funding for research projects are led by women only in 45% of the cases, and the budget granted to women in public calls was 24.3% lower than that of men.

CONCLUSION

In all the areas analyzed, the leadership positions are still mostly occupied by men despite the feminization of medicine in Spain. The severe gender inequity found calls for urgent interventions within a defined time horizon. Such measures must concern all levels, from national or regional regulation to changes in organizational culture or incentives in specific organizations.

Gender Equality Trends of First Authors in Publications of Artificial Intelligence and Thyroid

Thyroid diseases are diverse, ranging from benign conditions to potentially life-threatening disorders. Recently, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in evaluating thyroid disease has significantly enhanced medical research, diagnosis prediction, and algorithm development. Coupled with this advancement is the rising focus on the importance of gender equality in scientific publications. This study delves into the gender trends of first authors in papers related to "Artificial Intelligence and Thyroid" sourced from PubMed from 2003 to 2022, scrutinizing these trends based on both country and year. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on PubMed to retrieve relevant articles over this 19-year time span. Following this, the names and affiliated countries of the first authors were determined. The Namsor app, a tool for classifying personal names by gender, origin, or ethnicity, was then used to segregate the data based on gender. Statistical analyses were performed using the R software- ARIMA model and Fisher's exact test was applied to examine the correlations between gender and country of origin. From the 254 analyzed articles, 43.5% of the first authors were female, while 56.69% were male. The year 2022 saw the most significant number of female first-author publications. Intriguingly, the European Journal of Radiology was prominent due to its favorable gender ratio. Moreover, the association between gender and country was significant, with China being a standout. Limitations included focusing only on PubMed journals and using a third party for gender identification. Nevertheless, the study reveals a move toward gender parity in AI and thyroid research over the past 18 years, emphasizing the importance of sustained efforts for academic inclusivity.

Breaking Barriers: Investigating Gender Representation in the First Authors of Cardiovascular Disease and Artificial Intelligence Publications

Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) and cardiovascular diseases have resulted in significant advancements in healthcare and medical research. This study focused on examining the gender equality ratio of first authors in "artificial intelligence and cardiovascular disease" articles from 2005 to 2022. It is critical to investigate gender representation in this dynamic subject given the growing usage of AI in cardiovascular medicine. Aims The aim of this study is to visualize the changing face of gender equality within the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and cardiovascular diseases by examining the gender distribution of the first authors' published articles from 2005 to 2022, providing important insights into disparities in gender and the potential for fostering inclusivity and diversity in the scientific community. Methodology All academic articles published from 2005 to 2022 were reviewed. The gender of the first author of each study was recorded. Since there were so few articles available for five months in 2023, they were excluded. The research was subsequently categorized based on the gender, ethnicity, and country of origin of the first authors. Results With a value of 0.54, the overall gender ratio favored male authors (275) over female authors (149). In 2022, female first authors had the most publications (59), while male first authors contributed 113 articles. Predictions for 2027 showed a significant increase in the number of publications on this topic by male authors (950) and female authors (580). A gradual increase in the number of female first authors was observed over this period, although their representation remained lower compared to male first authors. Conclusions In the first authorship, our analysis found a gender gap, with male authors predominating. Females' engagement must be encouraged if academic gender equality is to be achieved. Female researchers are empowered by creating an inclusive atmosphere through mentorship and regulatory changes. For knowledge to advance fairly, collaboration is essential.

Economic geography of innovation: The effect of gender-related aspects of co-inventor networks on country and regional innovation

This paper focuses on the analysis of the effects of inventor networks on country and regional innovation. We use data from an OECD inventor database that spans more than forty years to build collaboration networks in which the network nodes are countries and regions, and linkages are patents produced by inventors from different regions and countries. We first investigate the network that includes all inventors and then analyze the network focusing on women inventors. We argue that both country and regional-level network centrality positively affect country and regional innovation (with stronger effects at the country level), and centrality in collaborations that involve women has an additional positive impact. We also find that women inventors' share in the pool of inventors is positively associated with innovation quality both at the county and regional levels. Furthermore, our findings indicate that in the network of women inventors, countries and regions that are in cohesive clusters (formed by repeated interactions between interconnected actors) show stronger innovation performance. Our study also highlights important nuances between country-level and region-level effects.

Analysis of peer reviewers' response to invitations by gender and geographical region: cohort study of manuscripts reviewed at 21 biomedical journals before and during covid-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To describe gender and geographical inequalities in invitations to review and the response to these invitations and to assess whether inequalities increased during the covid-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

19 specialist medical journals and two large general medical journals from BMJ Publishing Group.

POPULATION

Reviewers invited to review manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. The cohort was followed up to 28 February 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reviewer's agreement to review.

RESULTS

A total of 257 025 reviewers were invited (38.6% (88 454/228 869) women), and 90 467 (35.2%) agreed to review. Invited reviewers were mainly (217 682; 84.7%) affiliated with high income countries: Europe (122 414; 47.6%), North America (66 931; 26.0%), Africa (25 735; 10.0%), Asia (22 693; 8.8%), Oceania (16 175; 6.3%), and South America (3076; 1.2%). Independent factors associated with agreement to review were gender (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92, for women compared with men), geographical affiliation (2.89, 2.73 to 3.06, for Asia; 3.32, 2.94 to 3.75 for South America; 1.35, 1.27 to 1.43, for Oceania; and 0.35, 0.33 to 0.37, for Africa compared with Europe), and country income (0.47, 0.45 to 0.49, for upper middle income; 5.12, 4.67 to 5.61, for lower middle income; and 4.66, 3.79 to 5.73, for low income compared with high income country). Agreement was also independently associated with editor's gender (0.96, 0.93 to 0.99, for women compared with men), last author's geographical affiliation (0.80, 0.78 to 0.83, for Asia; 0.89, 0.85 to 0.94, for Oceania compared with Europe), impact factor (1.78, 1.27 to 2.50, for >10 compared with <5), and type of peer review process (0.52, 0.35 to 0.77, for open compared with anonymised). During the first and second phases of the pandemic, agreement was lower than in the pre-pandemic period (P<0.001). The interaction between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's gender was non-significant. However, significant interaction was found between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's geographical affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce bias and improve diversity, editors need to identify and implement effective strategies and continually evaluate progress against these to ensure that more women and researchers from upper middle income and low income countries are involved in review.

Evaluation of gender trends in first authorship in nephrology publications in four major US journals in the last decade

BACKGROUND

To date, no data exist on gender-related publication biases in nephrology. This study was conducted to determine whether gender differences exist in the current literature published in high-ranking US nephrology journals, and how they may have changed over time.

METHODS

The PubMed search was performed using the easyPubMed package in R, which extracted all articles indexed in PubMed from 2011 to 2021 from the US nephrology journals with the highest impact factors, i.e., Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (JASN), American Journal of Nephrology (AJN), American Journal of Kidney diseases (AJKD), and the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (CJASN). Gender with predictions > 90% were accepted and the remaining were manually identified. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out on the data.

RESULTS

We identified 11,608 articles. On average, the ratio of male to female first authors decreased from 1.9 to 1.5 (p < 0.05). Additionally, in 2011, women accounted for 32% of first authors, a number that rose to 40% in 2021. All but the American Journal of Nephrology showed a variation in the ratio of men to women first authors. For the JASN, the ratio changed from 1.81 to 1.58, p = 0.001, for CJASN, the ratio declined from 1.91 to 1.15, p = 0.005 and for AJKD, the ratio declined from 2.19 to 1.19, p = 0.002.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that gender biases in publications continue to exist in first-author publications in high-ranking Nephrology journals published in the US; the gap is however closing. We hope this study lays the groundwork to continue following and evaluating gender trends in publication.

Gender analysis of the top classic papers in otolaryngology head and neck surgery

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the gender breakdown of first authorship contributing to the most-cited papers in the field of otolaryngology, with a goal of identifying trends in gender representation in publishing.

Methods

The top 150 most-cited papers were identified using the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information. Among the first authors, gender, h-index, percentage of first, last, and corresponding authorship positions, total publications, and citations were analyzed.

Results

The majority of papers were in the English language, from the United States, of clinical nature, and on otologic topics. Eighty-one percent of papers (n = 122) had men who were first authors, although there was no difference in h-index score, authorship position, number of publications, citations, and average citations/year between men and women first authors. Upon subgroup analysis by decade (1950s-2010s), there was no difference in the number of articles by women first authors (P = 0.11); however, there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of women authors (P = 0.001) in papers published later compared to those published earlier.

Conclusions

While a promising number of women otolaryngologists are publishing high-powered articles, future initiatives to promote academic inclusivity of women should be considered.

The Under-representation and Stagnation of Female, Black, and Hispanic Authorship in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine

Publication in leading medical journals is critical to knowledge dissemination and academic advancement alike. Leveraging a novel dataset comprised of nearly all articles published in JAMA and NEJM from 1990 to 2020, along with established reference works for name identification, we explore changing authorship demographics in two of the world's leading medical journals. Our main outcomes are the annual proportion of male and female authors and the proportion of racial/ethnic identities in junior and senior authorship positions for articles published in JAMA and NEJM since 1990. We found that women remain under-represented in research authorship in both JAMA (at its peak, 38.1% of articles had a female first author in 2011) and NEJM (peaking at 28.2% in 2002). The rate of increase is so slow that it will take more than a century for both journals to reach gender parity. Black and Hispanic researchers have likewise remained under-represented as first and last authors in both journals, even using the best-case scenario. Their appearance as authors has remained stagnant for three decades, despite attention to structural inequalities in medical academia. Thus, analysis of authorship demographics in JAMA and NEJM over the past three decades reveals the existence of inequalities in high-impact medical journal authorship. Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in authorship may both reflect and further contribute to disparities in academic advancement.

Gender Equity in Medicine and Dermatology in the United States: The Long Road Traveled and the Journey ahead

Over the past 50 years there has been an increase in the representation of women in medicine with similar rates of men and women graduating from medical training today. Nevertheless, gender gaps in leadership, research publications, and compensation persist. Herein, we review trends in gender differences among leadership positions in academic medicine with a particular focus on dermatology, evaluate the roles of mentorship, motherhood, and gender bias on gender equity, and discuss constructive solutions for addressing gender inequities that persist in academic medicine today.

Gender-gap in randomized clinical trials reporting mortality in the perioperative setting and critical care: 20 years behind the scenes

Background

Women researchers might experience obstacles in academic environments and might be underrepresented in the authorship of articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

Material and Methods

This is a cross-sectional analysis of female-led RCTs describing all interventions reducing mortality in critically ill and perioperative patients from 1981 to December 31, 2020. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE with the keywords RCTs and mortality. The gender of the first author was extracted and descriptive analysis was performed including the year of publication, impact factor, country of the first author, and methodological aspects.

Results

We analyzed 340 RCTs, of which 42 (12%) were led by female researchers. The presence of women increased from 8% (14/172) until 2010 up to 17% (28/168) in 2010 and beyond. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Brazil were the main countries of origin of female researchers. Women authors conducted mainly single-center and single-nation studies as compared to male authors. The median impact factor of the target journal was 6 (3-27) in women vs. 7 (3-28) in men, with a p-value of 0.67; Critical Care Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine were the most frequent target journals for both women and men.

Conclusion

In the last 40 years, only one out of eight RCTs had a woman as the first author but the presence of women increased up to 17% by 2010 and beyond. The impact factor of publication target journals was high and not different between genders.

Female and low- and middle-income authorship trends in high-impact ENT journals (2011-2020)

Introduction

Despite a recent drive to increase diversity, the global academic workforce is skewed in favor of authors from high-income countries, and women are under-represented in the published medical literature.

Objectives

To explore the trends in authorship of three high-impact otolaryngology journals over a ten-year period (2011-2020).

Methods

Journals selected: JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope and Rhinology. Articles were reviewed from four issues per journal per year, and data was collected on: time of publication; subspeciality; number of authors; sex of first and last authors; country of practice of first author and country where each study was conducted. Trends were examined though univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

Results

2998 articles were included. 93.9% of first authors and 94.2% of studies were from high-income countries.Women were first authors in 31.5% (n = 912) and senior authors in 18.4% (n = 524) of articles. Female first authorship significantly increased between 2011 and 2020 however female senior authorship remained the same. There have been no significant changes in the proportion of published articles from low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) over time (p = .65). Amongst the LMIC articles, 72% came from Brazil, Turkey or China and there were no published papers from countries with a low-income economy (gross national income per capita of $1085 or less).

Conclusions

Although female first authorship has increased in the last decade, there has been minimal other demographic change in authorship over this time. High-impact otolaryngology journals poorly represent academia in low-and-middle income countries. There is a need for increased advocacy promoting gender and geographical research equity in academic medicine.

Level of Evidence

III.

Gender Parity in High Impact Cardiology Journals

Despite increased female representation in medical training, women physicians continue to be under-represented in academic cardiology, particularly in senior roles of authorship and leadership. We analyzed the top 20 most-cited cardiology journals (31,540 total articles) between January 1, 2018 and October 31, 2021 for gender distribution of editorial staff and authorship. Our data demonstrated that only 27% of articles had women as first authors and 20% as senior authors. Women constituted 23% of editorial staff. There is a statistically significant negative correlation (R = 0.67, P = 0.0011) between the percentage of women as first authors and the percentage of men on editorial boards. Overall, female authorship increased from 26% first and 19% senior authors in 2018, to 29% first and 22% senior authors in 2021. Women authors are significantly under-represented in academic cardiology publications, and additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to publishing and academic advancement for women in cardiology.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages.

OBJECTIVE

Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals.

RESULTS

During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women.

CONCLUSIONS

Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Gender Inequalities in Citations of Articles Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Besides the number of publications, the number of citations is another key metric often used to compare researchers with each other. While women researchers tend to have fewer publications than their men colleagues, the data is scarce for the number of citations. We aimed to determine whether there is a gender gap in citations.

METHODS

We used Web of Science to retrieve the number of citations per year for all research articles and reviews published between January 2015 and December 2019 in fourteen high-impact general medical journals (impact factor > 5). We used Gender API to identify the gender of the first/last authors. We compared the results by gender using multivariable negative binomial regressions (adjusting for intra-cluster correlations within journals).

RESULTS

The gender of the first/last author was determined for 13,218/13,350 (99%) and 11,894/12,026 (99%) articles, respectively. The proportion of women among first/last authors was 40% and 29%, respectively. The median number of citations per year was 5 (IQR = 11.3) for women and 6.8 (IQR = 17.8) for men for first authors (IRR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.3-1.8], p value < 0.001), and 6 (IQR = 12.4) and 7.5 (IQR = 17.4) for last authors (IRR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.2-1.5], p value < 0.001). Articles whose first and last authors were women were the least cited and those whose first and last authors were men were the most cited.

CONCLUSION

In this cross-sectional study, we found that articles authored by women were cited less often than those authored by men. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons for these gender differences in article citations.

The Issue of Gender Bias Represented in Authorship in the Fields of Exercise and Rehabilitation: A 5-Year Research in Indexed Journals

Despite progress made in recent decades, gender bias is still present in scientific publication authorship. The underrepresentation of women and overrepresentation of men has already been reported in the medical fields but little is known in the fields of exercise sciences and rehabilitation. This study examines trends in authorship by gender in this field in the last 5 years. All randomized controlled trials published in indexed journals from April 2017 to March 2022 through the widely inclusive Medline dataset using the MeSH term "exercise therapy" were collected, and the gender of the first and last authors was identified through names, pronouns and photographs. Year of publication, country of affiliation of the first author, and ranking of the journal were also collected. A chi-squared test for trends and logistic regression models were performed to analyze the odds of a woman being a first or last author. The analysis was performed on a total of 5259 articles. Overall, 47% had a woman as the first author and 33% had a woman as the last author, with a similar trend over five years. The trend in women's authorship varied by geographical area, with the higher representation of women authors in Oceania (first: 53.1%; last: 38.8%), North-Central America (first: 45.3%; last: 37.2%), and Europe (first: 47.2%; last: 33.3%). The logistic regression models (p < 0.001) indicated that women have lower odds of being authors in prominent authorship positions in higher-ranked journals. In conclusion, over the last five years, in the field of exercise and rehabilitation research, women and men are almost equally represented as first authors, in contrast with other medical areas. However, gender bias, unfavoring women, still exists, especially in the last authorship position, regardless of geographical area and journal ranking.

Female Dynamics in Authorship of Scientific Publications in the Public Library of Science: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research

Women are generally underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As scientific production reflects scholarly impact and participation in the scientific process, the number of journal publications forms a pertinent measure of academic productivity. This study examined the prevalence and evolution of female representation in prominent author positions across multidisciplinary biomedical research. Publications from seven exemplar cross-specialty journals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, PLoS One, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases) between January 2010 and December 2020 were extracted from Web of Science. Using Genderize.io, the gender of authors from their first names was estimated using a 75% threshold. The association between female prevalence in first and last authorship and journal was evaluated using a binary logistic regression, and odds ratios were estimated against a 50:50 reference on gender. In 266,739 publications, 43.3% of first authors and 26.7% of last authors were females. Across the ten-year period, female first authorship increased by 19.6% and last authorship by 3.2%. Among all journals, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion of female first authors (45.7%) and PLoS Medicine of female last authors (32%), while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories (23.7% and 17.2%). First authors were less likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.05) except for PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases (odds ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.00), where the odds of female authorship were not significantly different (p = 0.054). Last authors were not more likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.001). Overall, women still appear underrepresented as first authors in biomedical publications and their representation as last authors has severely lagged. Efforts towards gender equality in scholarly authorship will contribute to the representation of women in biomedical research and ensure that their potential is not lost.

Women Authorship Trends in the Highest-Impact Anesthesiology Journals from 2005 to 2021

Background: Although women and men have matriculated into medical schools in similar proportions since the 1980s, recent data indicate that anesthesiology is lagging in gender equity, especially in academic leadership roles.^1,2 As promotion in academic medicine is strongly influenced by publications, understanding whether a lack of women authorship is contributing to this gender gap is crucial.^3,4 This article aims to assess how woman authorship trends have changed in the last 16 years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The five highest impact journals in anesthesia were identified as Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, PAIN, and Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. Number of total authors, including women, men, and unknown gender authors as well as incidence of woman first and/or last author, was documented from articles published in 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2021. Results: This analysis shows that women are gaining representation in anesthesia publications. Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in the total number of women authors and women first and last authorship. However, as of 2021, women still only represented ∼40% of total and first authors and ∼24% of last authors. In addition, increase in first/last woman authorship was not present in all journals when stratified. Conclusion: These journal differences may suggest the editorial evaluation process as a potential source of gender bias. There was a statistically significant relationship between women senior authors and articles with 50% or more women authors, indicating that woman mentorship is contributing to closing equity gap. These data present a starting point for further investigations into gender disparities within anesthesia to continue the forward progression for women in academic medicine.

Trends of women's authorship in an Iranian medical journal from 1999 to 2019

Author's gender is a potential factor in scientific publications. We evaluated the trends of authorship gender by focusing on women in an Iranian medical journal and followed two aims: A) Mapping gender trends in authorship positions; B) Drawing the patterns among authors. Our results showed that between 1999 and 2019, the role of women as first author was 26.7% and 54.9% (p < 0.05); as last authors 33.3% and 37.3% and as corresponding author 23.3% and 36.7%, respectively. Despite progresses made by women, they were not significantly successful as corresponding and last authors. Further researchers around the world can have similar focus and be useful in making decisions for equality issues.

Women's representation as authors of retracted papers in the biomedical sciences

Women are under-represented among authors of scientific papers. Although the number of retractions has been rising over the past few decades, gender differences among authors of retracted papers remain poorly understood. Therefore, this study investigated gender differences in authorship of retracted papers in biomedical sciences available on RetractionWatch. Among 35,635 biomedical articles retracted between 1970 and 2022, including 20,849 first authors and 20,413 last authors, women accounted for 27.4% [26.8 to 28.0] of first authors and 23.5% [22.9 to 24.1] of last authors. The lowest representation of women was found for fraud (18.9% [17.1 to 20.9] for first authors and 13.5% [11.9 to 15.1] for last authors) and misconduct (19.5% [17.3 to 21.9] for first authors and 17.8% [15.7 to 20.3] for last authors). Women's representation was the highest for issues related to editors and publishers (35.1% [32.2 to 38.0] for first authors and 24.8% [22.9 to 26.8] for last authors) and errors (29.5% [28.0 to 31.0] for first authors and 22.1% [20.7 to 23.4] for last authors). Most retractions (60.9%) had men as first and last authors. Gender equality could improve research integrity in biomedical sciences.

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.

Gender discrimination of veterinary students and its impact on career aspiration: A mixed methods approach

Introduction

As the veterinary profession has become feminised, gender discrimination and its effects have been documented in practicing veterinary surgeons. However, research on gender discrimination experienced by veterinary students and its effects on recruitment and retention remains limited. This study aimed to increase understanding of veterinary students' experiences of gender discrimination and its impact on their career aspirations.

Methods

A questionnaire including statements with Likert-style response options and free-text questions was distributed to students studying veterinary medicine and science at a UK veterinary school in September 2020 (28% response rate). Two focus groups were carried out following the questionnaire to gain a deeper insight into student experiences.

Results

Gender discrimination in a veterinary setting had been experienced by 34% of respondents, the majority (77%) on animal husbandry placements. Female students were more likely to report that their experiences of gender discrimination affected their career aspirations. Seven themes were identified from both the questionnaire and focus group data: stereotyping of certain fields, gender inequality on placements, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex, plus (LGBTQI+) community, encouraging reporting behaviours, barriers to reporting, education and the placement allocation.

Conclusions

This study highlighted that gender discrimination was prevalent during animal husbandry placements, although reporting was infrequent and perceived negatively by students. Recommendations on how veterinary schools and the wider veterinary profession can support veterinary students are made as an outcome of this work.

Analysis of Gender-Based Authorship Trends in Leading Pain-Medicine Journals Over 10 Years

Authorship of peer-reviewed publications is important for academic rank, promotion, and national reputation. In pain medicine, limited information is available for authorship trends for women as compared with men. The objective of this study was to describe trends of female authorship data in the 5 pain journals with the highest impact factors over a 10-year period. We analyzed data for January, April, and October in 2009, 2014, and 2019. For each article, the following information was recorded: journal name, journal month, journal year, article title or article PMCID, total authors, total female authors, total male authors, total authors of unknown gender, presence or absence of a female first author, and presence or absence of a female last/senior author. Authorship for 924 articles was reviewed. When a man was senior author, women were first author on only 27.9% of articles (P<.001). A woman was 2 times as likely (57.2%) to be first author when a woman was the senior author (P<.001), pointing to the potential impact of female senior authors. An article with 50% or more female authors was 76.4% more likely to have a female senior author (P<.001). The results demonstrate the influence of a senior female author on the likelihood of an article’s having a female first author. When men were the senior authors, women were half as likely to be first authors. The total number of female authors changed very little between 2009 and 2019.

What is the gender representation in authorship in later phase systemic clinical trials in biliary tract cancer (BTC)? - a retrospective review of the published literature

OBJECTIVES

Female physicians in medicine are increasing, but disparities in female authorship exist. The aim of this study was to characterise factors associated with female first (FF) and female senior (SF) authorship in later phase systemic oncological clinical trials in biliary tract cancer (BTC) and identify any changes over time.

SETTING

Embase/Medline identified trial publications in BTC (2000-2020) were included. χ2 tests and log regression were used (assessed factors associated with FF and SF authorship, including changes over time (STATA V.16)).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

FF and SF authorship in later phase systemic oncological clinical trials in BTC.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Any changes over time?

RESULTS

Of 501 publications, 163 met inclusion criteria. The median percentage of female author representation in publications was 25%; there were no female authors in 13% of publications. Geographic location of the home institution of the first and senior authors was Asia (42%/42%), Europe (29%/29%), USA (24%/22%) and other (4%/6%), respectively. Overall, FF and SF author representation was 20% and 10%, respectively. The median position of the first female author was second in all the publication author lists. The phase of trial, journal-impact factor, industry funding or whether the study met its primary endpoint did not impact FF/SF author representation. More SF authors had home institutions in 'other' geographic locations (40% in 10 trials) (p=0.02) versus Asia (6%), Europe (8%) and USA (14%). There were no significant changes in FF/SF representation over time (p=0.61 and p=0.33 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

FF and SF author representation in later phase systemic clinical trial publications in BTC is low and has not changed significantly over time. The underlying reasons for this imbalance need to be better understood and addressed.

Diversity-related Factors in Research Mentorship and Publishing in the ACBS Community and the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Gender, racial, and ethnic disparities persist in the scientific community despite increasing attention to research-related equity. Men publish in biomedical, scientific journals more frequently than women researchers and have more leadership roles (e.g., first authorship) in these submissions. Similar differences in scientific publishing appear among under-represented minority (URM) authors compared to White counterparts. These findings of authorship disparities are not consistent across all journals and may relate to mentorship variables. This study aimed to investigate gender and racial patterns of publishing and research mentorship within the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS) community, including in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (JCBS). Two hundred and eighty-two ACT for Professionals listserv members responded to the anonymous 31-item survey. Men reported significantly more publications and more first author manuscripts than women, both in scientific journals generally and in JCBS specifically. White versus URM respondents more frequently reported publishing in JCBS, but not in other scientific journals. There were no differences in the total number of barriers noted between men and women or between White respondents and URM respondents. The top barriers to publishing among all respondents were lack of time, institutional support, and funding. Women more frequently reported lack of adequate research mentorship or collaboration as a barrier to publishing in scientific journals, as well as in JCBS specifically; men more frequently reported experiencing publishing barriers related to embargos and not having research that was appropriate for JCBS. Identifying as the same gender as one's primary research mentor did not relate to any areas of training. However, participants whose race differed from their mentor were significantly more likely to report training in running a study and receiving positive encouragement. Being matched in terms of gender or race with one's mentor did not relate to publishing variables. Findings highlight the continued gender and racial disparities in publishing within the ACBS community and in JCBS. Recommendations for decreasing these differences through research mentorship and structured training efforts are provided.