Gender and ethnic differences in publication of BMJ letters to the editor: an observational study using machine learning

Ethnicity and gender trends of UK authors in The British Medical Journal and the Lancet over the past two decades: a comprehensive longitudinal analysis

Background

While gender equity among academic authors has been extensively investigated, there is a significant gap in our understanding of racial/ethnic authorship trends, despite the recognition of barriers to authorship along both ethnic and gender lines. Leveraging the meta-data for all articles published in The British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Lancet and between 2002 and 2022 (inclusive), we explore demographic trends among UK academic medicine authors in two of the world's leading British medical journals.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed's MEDLINE for all articles published in The BMJ and Lancet between January 1st 2002 and December 31st 2022. Filtering for articles with a UK affiliation, we predicted gender using a publicly-validated name-to-gender dictionary, while data was analysed to explore and investigate ethnicity using the Consumer Data Research Centre's (CDRC) Ethnicity Estimator. Data was analysed to explore and investigate: (a) the proportion of female/male author publications, (b) the proportion of the various UK author ethnicity groups, and (c) the overlap/intersection between gender and ethnic identities among first and last authors. This comprehensive longitudinal analysis was conducted on 82,143 articles (51,209 from The BMJ and 30,934 from the Lancet) which represents >97% of all published articles between 2002 and 2022. As we sought to understand how academic authorship reflects the diversity of the UK population, we limited our analysis to first and last authors who had a UK affiliation and excluded "news" and "comments" pieces (16,736 articles for The BMJ and 4678 articles from the Lancet). The main outcome measures were the trends in first and last authorship demographics of academic medicine, focusing on the proportion of female/male authors, ethnicity and their intersectionality.

Findings

Our findings show that, while women have made substantial headway towards equity among first and last authorship in The BMJ (peaking at 42% and 43%), they remain under-represented in the Lancet (35% and 27%). In both The BMJ and Lancet, Black authors have remained severely under-represented as both first and last authors (below 1% for most of the two decades), while Asian authors have increased proportionally to match their fraction in the general population (ranging from 2 to 10%).

Interpretation

Analysis over the past two decades has shown that the gender author gap is decreasing quickly in The BMJ and Lancet. However, despite the two journals' growing focus on structural inequalities in medical academia, little progress has been made in rectifying the large gap between White British authors and other ethnic groups, especially Black authors. Without more awareness, diversity initiatives which have resulted in positive gains for White women do not seem to translate well for authors of colour.

Funding

None.

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.

Does writing style affect gender differences in the research performance of articles?: An empirical study of BERT-based textual sentiment analysis

“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” is essential to reduce gender disparity and improve the status of women. But it remains a challenge to narrow gender differences and improve gender equality in academic research. In this paper, we propose that the impact of articles is lower and writing style of articles is less positive when the article’s first author is female relative to male first authors, and writing style mediates this relationship. Focusing on the positive writing style, we attempt to contribute and explain the research on gender differences in research performance. We use BERT-based textual sentiment analysis to analyse 87 years of 9820 articles published in the top four marketing journals and prove our hypotheses. We also consider a set of control variables and conduct a set of robustness checks to ensure the robustness of our findings. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of our findings for researchers.