Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women's representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group

Representation of women among cardiothoracic surgery editorial boards: Trends over the past 2 decades

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine representation of women on the editorial boards of cardiothoracic surgery-focused journals over the past 2 decades to identify changes over time compared with women cardiothoracic surgeon and trainee representation, and to highlight additional opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

The editorial boards of 2 high-impact cardiothoracic surgery journals were reviewed from 2000 to 2023. Data on editorial board positions, including editors-in-chief, associate/deputy editors, feature editors, and general members of the editorial board were abstracted. The proportion of women editors was assessed. Data were compared with publicly available information from the Association of American Medical Colleges on physician specialty by sex.

RESULTS

Of 3460 editorial positions, 332 (9.6%) were held by women. Women occupied 2.2% (1 out of 45) of editor-in-chief positions, 13.2% (78 out of 592) of senior editor positions, 11.5% (33 out of 287) of feature editor positions, and 8.3% (221 out of 2663) of general editorial board positions. The proportion of women holding any editorial board position significantly increased from 2.4% in 2000 to 18.2% in 2023 (P = .01). Overall, editorial board representation increased at a rate of 0.7% ± 1.3% per year, not significantly different from the growth of practicing women cardiothoracic surgeons at 0.3% ± 0.5% per year (P = .584).

DISCUSSION

Representation of women on the editorial boards of cardiothoracic surgery-focused journals has increased commensurate with the increasing proportion of practicing women cardiothoracic surgeons, although remains at 16%. Work remains to continue the recruitment of women to cardiothoracic surgery as well as to identify the key elements that can support them in positions of leadership.

Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals

Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.

Gender balance in infectious diseases and hospital epidemiology journals

Objective

Diversity is recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. Women represent a significant part of the infectious diseases (ID) and hospital epidemiology (HE) workforce. We aimed to assess gender representation among editors of top ID and HE journals and explore potential correlations with the gender of first and last authors in published articles.

Methods

Using Scimago Journal & Country Rank, we identified 40 ID and 4 HE high-ranking journals. Editorial members were categorized by decision-making influence (levels I-III). We retrieved names of first and corresponding authors from 12 ID-focused journals' 2019 research articles. Gender assignment for editors, first authors, and last authors utilized digital galleries and manual searches.

Results

Among 2,797 editors from 44 journals, 33% were women. Female representation varied across editorial levels: 26% at level I, 36% at level II, and 31% at level III. Gender balance disparities existed among journals. Female first authors accounted for 50%, and female last authors accounted for 36% of the 2,725 published articles. We found weak but significant correlations between the editors' gender and the gender of the first and last authors.

Conclusion

Gender representation among ID and HE journal editors displayed unevenness, but no overt vertical segregation was observed. A generational transition among authors may be underway. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors.

Gender representation in rheumatology journals: an assessment of editors, editorial boards, and authors

Diversity is widely recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. In recent years, women have become an increasingly significant part of the rheumatology workforce. We aimed to assess the gender representation of the leading rheumatology journals' editors and to explore whether editors' gender correlates with the gender of the first and last authors of published articles. We conducted a cross-sectional study and extracted editorial members of rheumatology journals in quartiles 1 to 3 (Clarivate Analytics) from each journal's website. We categorized editorial positions according to the level of influence in manuscript acceptance decision-making (levels I to III). The gender of editors and of the first and last authors in all 2019 original articles published in a sample of 15 rheumatology journals was assigned using a combination of digital gallery and manual searches. There were 2242 editors' names retrieved from 43 journals, 24 (26%) of the 94 editors at level I, 139 (36%) of 385 editors at level II, and 469 (27%) of 1763 at level III were female. The imbalance between journals was heterogeneous. Females were the first authors in 1342 (48%) and the last authors in 969 (35%) of the 2797 published articles. However, we found no significant correlation between editors' and authors' gender. Our data showed uneven gender representation on the editorial boards of most rheumatology journals, but we did not find any apparent vertical segregation or influence on publishing by gender. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors.

A roadmap for sex- and gender-disaggregated health research

Sex and gender are fundamental aspects of health and wellbeing. Yet many research studies fail to consider sex or gender differences, and even when they do this is often limited to merely cataloguing such differences in the makeup of study populations. The evidence on sex and gender differences is thus incomplete in most areas of medicine. This article presents a roadmap for the systematic conduct of sex- and gender-disaggregated health research. We distinguish three phases: the exploration of sex and gender differences in disease risk, presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes; explaining any found differences by revealing the underlying mechanisms; and translation of the implications of such differences to policy and practice. For each phase, we provide critical methodological considerations and practical examples are provided, taken primarily from the field of cardiovascular disease. We also discuss key overarching themes and terminology that are at the essence of any study evaluating the relevance of sex and gender in health. Here, we limit ourselves to binary sex and gender in order to produce a coherent, succinct narrative. Further disaggregation by sex and gender separately and which recognises intersex, non-binary, and gender-diverse identities, as well as other aspects of intersectionality, can build on this basic minimum level of disaggregation. We envision that uptake of this roadmap, together with wider policy and educational activities, will aid researchers to systematically explore and explain relevant sex and gender differences in health and will aid educators, clinicians, and policymakers to translate the outcomes of research in the most effective and meaningful way, for the benefit of all.

Gender disparity in prestigious speaking roles: A study of 10 years of international conference programming in the field of gambling studies

The objective of this study was to examine the distribution of prestigious speaking roles by gender at gambling studies conferences to better understand the state of gender representation within the field. Keyword searches were conducted in the fall of 2019. A total of 16 conferences that occurred between 2010-2019 and comprising 882 prestigious speaking opportunities were included. Quantitative analysis (i.e., t-tests, chi-squared posthoc tests) was undertaken to evaluate the representation of women speakers and if proportions were the same across genders for speakers. There were significantly less women than men within prestigious speaking roles at gambling studies conferences with only 30.2% of speakers being women (p < .001). This underrepresentation of women was consistent across conference location, speaker continent, speaker role, time, and across the majority of conferences. Women held prestigious speaking roles less frequently than men (M = 1.48 vs. 1.76; p < .001). A 9 to 1 (p < .001) ratio of men to women was found among top 10 most frequent prestigious speakers. While there was a higher proportion of women than men among student speakers and there was no significant gender disparity among early career researchers, there was a significantly lower proportion of women than men among speakers who hold more senior academic positions. There is an issue of gender disparity in prestigious speaking roles at conferences within the gambling studies field. This study highlights the need to counteract gender disparities and make room for diversity within the field.

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.