Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments

Demographics and Research Activity Among 2023 Academic Glaucoma Specialists

PURPOSE

To characterize demographics, academic characteristics, and research activity of academic glaucoma specialists.

METHODS

Faculty demographic and academic data were recorded for glaucoma specialist faculty from 99 United States ophthalmology residency programs using institutional websites, Doximity, and LinkedIn. H-index was calculated using Scopus. Mean and weighted relative citation ratio (RCR), measuring research impact and productivity, respectively, was determined with the National Institute of Health iCite tool.

RESULTS

Most academic glaucoma specialists were men (0.61), located in the Southern United States (0.316), and in practice for less than or equal to 10 years in 2023 (0.324). Twenty-six percent had additional professional degrees, and 11% completed fellowship training in addition to clinical glaucoma. Assistant professor was the most common academic appointment (0.479), and almost a quarter (0.23) had additional positions. Mean h-index (13.3), mean-RCR (1.76), and weighted-RCR (84.0) were consistent with high research productivity and impact. Gender comparison found that men had significantly higher h-index (p < .001), m-RCR (p = .007), w-RCR (p < .001) as compared to women. H-index (p < .001; p < .001; p < .001), m-RCR (p = .006; p < .001; p < .001), and w-RCR (p < .001; p < .001; p < .001) also increased with career duration, academic position, and additional academic appointments, respectively. Additional training was associated with higher h-index (p = .023) and w-RCR (p = .012), but not m-RCR (p = .699).

CONCLUSION

Higher research activity is significantly associated with higher departmental positions and additional academic appointments. This illustrates the importance of research contributions for academic promotion. Variations in research activity by gender distribution may therefore affect opportunities for career advancement.

Organizational Leadership Gender Differences in Medical Schools and Affiliated Universities

Objective: To compare gender compositions in the leadership of the top 25 medical schools in North America with the leadership of their affiliated university senior leadership and other faculties. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional observational study used publicly available gender data from 2018 to 2019 of universities drawn from the U.S. News Best Global Universities for Clinical Medicine Ranking report. Gender compositions in eight leadership tiers from senior leadership to medical school department directors were analyzed. Data analysis included gender compositions by leadership tier and faculty. Results: Male representation is greater at higher leadership tiers, with the largest imbalance being at the level of medical school department heads. The faculty of medicine has more men in leadership positions than the average of the other faculties (p = 0.02), though similar to schools of engineering, business, dentistry, and pharmacy. Across the eight leadership tiers, a significant trend exists between tier and proportions, indicating that male representation was greater at higher tiers (p < 0.001). No correlation was found between a university's leadership gender composition and its ranking. Conclusion: The under-representation of women is greater in medical school leadership than the leadership of their affiliated universities. The faculty of medicine has greater male over-representation than the average of the other faculties.

Gender Disparities in Academic Otolaryngology

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate representation of women in otolaryngology by examining authorship of research publications and presentations, awards, research grants, leadership, and membership in related organizations.

METHODS

Authorship was reviewed from articles published in three otolaryngology journals from 2000 through 2021 to assess the frequency and percentages of female and combination of male and female gender authorship. Gender was evaluated for poster and scientific abstract presentations from 2007 to 2021. Gender representation was reviewed for institutional and society leadership positions, award, and grant recipients in the American Laryngological Society (ALA). Changes in the frequency of female and combination of male and female gender authorship over time were examined with Cochran-Armitage test for trend.

RESULTS

A total of 16,921 articles, 1,017 presentations, 480 leadership positions, 129 president positions, and 1,137 awards and grants were studied. Women were first authors in 4,153 (24.9%) and last authors in 2,935 (17.8%) published articles for which gender could be determined. Women were first authors in 372 (37.4%) presentations and last authors in 199 (20.2%). Most presentations had a combination of male and female presentation authorship (630, 68%). Women held 69 (14.4%) leadership positions. Of the award and grant recipients, 327 (28.8%) were female. Significant trends were observed for increasing female representation (first authorship publications increased 69.9% from 2000 to 2020, first authorship presentations increased 73.9% from 2007 to 2013, p < 0.001; leadership and awards from 3% to 18% representation, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of women receiving awards and holding leadership positions is increasing. Efforts that promote gender diversity may further increase representation of women in otolaryngology literature and among the grant and award winners.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:2144-2152, 2024.

Gender, age and location-related factors in academic otolaryngology - the Greek paradigm

OBJECTIVE

To map Greek academic otolaryngologists, and assess gender, age and location-related differences in their rank and academic productivity.

METHODS

A pre-established database of local and diaspora scientists was used, after adjustment and updating for otolaryngology. The following data were recorded: age, gender, academic rank, country of work, total citations and h-index of December 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 276 Greek academic otolaryngologists were identified in the Scopus database. Of Greek otolaryngologists, 15.9 per cent are women. Of all academic otolaryngologists, 27.1 per cent have a university post, but only 4 per cent of them are women. There is an almost linear correlation between university post ranking and citations. Otolaryngologists based in Greece accounted for 3 out of the 10 most cited Greek otolaryngologists.

CONCLUSION

There are significant age, gender and location-related differences in academic output. The representation of women and the full use of their potential in medicine require proactive measures, to lift the burdens limiting their participation.

Investigation of gender-based needs in academic otolaryngology

Objective

Gaps in gender-based equity persist in academic otolaryngology. Here we present a needs-based assessment of otolaryngology faculty and trainees regarding facilitators and barriers to professional satisfaction and career development in academic medicine.

Methods

A qualitative study of otolaryngology faculty, trainees, and administrators who identify as women at an academic tertiary care center was performed from 2020 to 2021 using focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Five confidential, virtual focus group sessions moderated by a third-party executive coach were audio-taped, transcribed, and reviewed for thematic content.

Results

Of 48 women invited, 77% participated (18 faculty/administrative leaders, 10 residents/fellows, 4 audiologists). Participants noted direct patient care, support from colleagues who identify as women, and the transition to virtual meetings as facilitators of current professional satisfaction. Five themes emerged as barriers to workplace satisfaction and career development including (1) limited professional schedule flexibility, (2) competing commitments such as childcare exacerbated by pandemic, (3) lack of visible departmental leadership who identify as women, (4) perceived lack of organic sponsorship within subspecialty divisions, and (5) frequent identity-associated microaggressions from patients and staff outside the department. Strategies identified for improving gender-based equity included (1) promoting department-wide awareness of workplace gender-based differences, (2) implicit bias training within established programming such as grand rounds conferences, and (3) novel faculty programming such as leadership development training and formal junior faculty mentorship.

Conclusion

Confidential needs-based assessment of otolaryngology faculty and trainees identified both persistent gaps and strategies to enhance recruitment, support career development, and grow professional satisfaction of women within academic otolaryngology.

Level of Evidence

3.

Scientific Productivity of University Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Despite major achievements, such as the development of hip prostheses, scientific productivity in orthopaedics and trauma surgery has hardly been investigated. Our study's aim therefore was to analyse the correlation between the leading physicians' h-index and their academic rang, in order to determine whether this objective measure of scientific accomplishments correlates with clinical position.

METHODS

All physicians in leading positions at university hospitals' orthopaedics or trauma surgery departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland were included. Year of habilitation, number of publications and citations as well as h-index were collected from September to November 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 844 leading physicians at 46 university hospitals were included. Professors had the highest number of total publications (117.4 ± 124.8, p < 0.001) and highest h-index (20.1 ± 10.1, p < 0.001). We found significant differences in the total number of publications (p = 0.001), publications in the last three years (p < 0.001), and h-index (p < 0.001) between the three investigated nations, with all parameters being highest in Switzerland.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that increasing scientific productivity is correlated with academic success. The country-specific differences indicate significant differences in the value of scientific activity in daily clinical routine.

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology

OBJECTIVES

Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology.

METHODS

Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool.

RESULTS

H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women.

CONCLUSION

The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

The Relative Citation Ratio: An Impartial Assessment of Productivity in Academic Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVES

Quantification of academic productivity relies on bibliometric measurements, such as the Hirsch index (h-index). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently developed the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level, citation-driven metric that compares researchers with others within their respective fields. Our study is the first to compare the usage of RCR in academic otolaryngology.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Database Review.

METHODS

Academic otolaryngology residency programs were identified using the 2022 Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Demographic and training data were collected for surgeons using institutional websites. RCR was calculated using the NIH iCite tool, and h-index was calculated using Scopus. Mean RCR (m-RCR) is the average score of the author's articles. Weighted RCR (w-RCR) is the sum of all article scores. These derivatives are a measure of impact and output, respectively. The career duration of a physician was categorized into the following cohorts: 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, and 31+ years.

RESULTS

A total of 1949 academic otolaryngologists were identified. Men had higher h-indices and w-RCRs than women (both p less than 0.001). m-RCR was not different between genders (p = 0.083). There was a difference in h-index and w-RCR (both p less than 0.001) among the career duration cohorts, but there was no difference in m-RCR among the cohorts (p = 0.416). The faculty rank professor was the greatest for all metrics (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Critics of the h-index argue that it is reflective of the time a researcher has spent in the field, instead of impact. The RCR may reduce historic bias against women and younger otolaryngologists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:592-599, 2024.

Navigating Promotion in Thoracic Surgery

The academic promotion process in thoracic surgery can appear nebulous to many young surgeons. However, at most institutions, clear promotion criteria exist for specific academic tracks, and they are based on factors such as clinical excellence, research/investigation, funding, education/teaching, service, health policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), ethics, quality and safety, and health care delivery. A thorough understanding of the promotion process is the key to successful advancement in academia.

Sex Disparities in Academic Productivity and Rank Among Abdominal Transplant Faculty in the United States

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in academic rank and productivity among members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons in the United States.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, focusing on current board-certified abdominal transplant surgeons in the United States. Demographic factors such as sex, region, and faculty rank were collected from institutional websites. Academic metrics, including H-index, total publications, and relative citation ratio, were collected from Scopus and iCite.

RESULTS

We identified 536 surgeon members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons with an academic institution. The majority were men (83%). Men were in practice longer than women (17.9 ± 11 vs 11.7 ± 9 years, P < .0001) and had higher academic metrics, including H-index (25.6 ± 20 vs16.4 ± 14, P < .0001) and total publications (110 ± 145 vs 58.8 ± 69, P < .0001). There was a significant difference in faculty appointments by sex (P < .05), with men showing evidence of increased academic advancement. After adjusting for academic rank, PhD status, and location of medical school and residency, women remained associated with a lower H-index on multivariate analysis (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Sex disparities in academic rank and achievement are present among transplant surgical faculty in the United States, and future efforts are needed to promote sex equity in transplant surgery academia.

Characterizing gender trends in head and neck fellowship graduates from 2008 to 2018

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of potential gender gaps among Head and Neck (H&N) surgeons can highlight areas for increased support of female H&N surgeons and improve gender diversity within the subspecialty. To evaluate gender trends in representation and career trajectory among recent H&N surgery fellowship graduates.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis included graduates from Head and Neck Surgery fellowships accredited by the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) from 2008 to 2018. Additional demographic data was collected via publicly available websites including gender, years in practice, practice location, type of practice, h-index, and academic rank. The primary outcomes were the proportion of female Head and Neck fellowship graduates and gender trends in career trajectory and academic productivity (via h-index).

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2018, 449 surgeons graduated from Head and Neck surgery fellowship with females comprising 99 of 449 graduates (22%). Female representation increased from 1 of 30 (3%) graduates in 2008 to 17 of 52 (33%) in 2018. A proportionally similar number of women graduating fellowship also practiced in an academic setting (23%). There were fewer female assistant, associate and full professors compared with their male counterparts. Women had lower h-indices compared with men even when controlling for years in practice (mean 11.4 vs. 8.2, p < 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite the increase in women graduating from H&N surgery fellowships, gender disparities within academic rank and academic productivity as measured by h-index remain. While a proportional number of women completing fellowship are entering academic practice, additional investigation and support is needed to address the potential gender gaps identified within academic H&N surgery.

Demographic and Academic Productivity Trends Among American Head & Neck Society Fellows Over a 20-Year Period

Importance

Historical data reveal that, compared with women, men are more likely to pursue a head and neck surgical oncology fellowship, but little is known about possible gender differences in academic productivity.

Objective

To assess demographic trends and academic productivity among American Head & Neck Society (AHNS) fellowship graduates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used electronically published data from the AHNS on fellowship graduates in the US and Canada from July 1, 1997, to June 30, 2022. Scopus was used to extract h-indices for each graduate.

Exposure

Scholarly activity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were changes in demographic characteristics and academic productivity among AHNS graduates over time. Data analysis included effect size, η2, and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 691 AHNS fellowship graduates (525 men [76%] and 166 women [24%]) were included. Over the study period, there was an increase in the number of programs offering a fellowship (η2, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89) and an increase in the absolute number of women who completed training (η2, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-0.78). Among early-career graduates pursuing an academic career, there was a small difference in the median h-index scores between men and women (median difference, 1.0; 95% CI, -1.1 to 3.1); however, among midcareer and late-career graduates, there was a large difference in the median h-index scores (midcareer graduates: median difference, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.2-6.8; late-career graduates: median difference, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.0-10.9). A higher percentage of women pursued academic positions compared with men (106 of 162 [65.4%] vs 293 of 525 [55.8%]; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, -5.3% to 12.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that women in head and neck surgery begin their careers with high levels of academic productivity. However, over time, a divergence in academic productivity between men and women begins to develop. These data argue for research to identify possible reasons for this observed divergence in academic productivity and, where possible, develop enhanced early faculty development opportunities for women to promote their academic productivity, promotion, and advancement into leadership positions.

Understanding Gender Differences in Research Productivity of Canadian Otolaryngologists-A Comprehensive National Audit

Objective: To understand the factors contributing to gender disparities in the research productivity of Canadian academic otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons. Methods: Publicly available sources including departmental websites, SCOPUS, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada were accessed between February and April 2022 to analyze gender differences in the academic productivity of otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons across Canada. Gender differences in research productivity metrics, including h-index, i10-index, publication number, and number of first and senior authorships were assessed. Demographic data, including gender, institution, years in practice, and leadership roles were assessed for correlation with increased research productivity. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate gender differences in productivity metrics, and univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of research productivity. Results: Data were collected for 316 academic otolaryngologists (252 men, 64 women, P < .001). Men had significantly more years of publishing [mean (standard deviation, SD), 15.64 (9.45) vs 12.44 (8.28), P = .014], higher h-indices [12.22 (11.47) vs 7.33 (5.36), P < .001], i10-indices [22.61 (37.88) vs 8.17 (9.14), P > .001], publication numbers [46.63 (65.18) vs 19.59 (23.40), P < .001], and first [8.18 (9.95) vs 4.89 (6.18), P = .001] and senior authorships [12.98 (22.72) vs 3.83 (6.89), P < .001]. Gender differences were most pronounced in head and neck oncology, pediatrics, and the late career stage. Gender disparities in productivity were absent in the early career stage. Multivariate analysis identified only the number publications and number of senior author publications as being significantly influenced by gender. Conclusion: Canadian female otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons appear to have equivalent research productivity to their male counterparts in the early career stage. This mirrors the recent findings in the United States, and demonstrates progress compared to earlier studies that found women to have lower research productivity in the early career stage.

Gender Disparities Among Academic Vitreoretinal Specialists in the United States With Regard to Scholarly Impact and Academic Rank

Background and objective While men outnumber women in the specialty of ophthalmology in general, the subspecialty of vitreoretinal surgery in particular has the highest percentage of men across all ophthalmic subspecialties. This study aimed to analyze the gender disparities regarding the publication productivity and academic rank of academic vitreoretinal specialists in the United States (US). Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated 116 ophthalmology residency programs in the US participating in the 2022 San Francisco Match. The academic vitreoretinal faculty from each ophthalmology residency program was included. The information on gender, academic rank, and publication activity in terms of the h-index were collected from institutional websites, the Scopus database, and the National Library of Medicine PubMed website. Results A total of 467 academic vitreoretinal specialists were identified. Among them, 345 (73.9%) were men, and 122 (26.1%) were women (p<0.001). When the academic ranks were analyzed, a higher number of men (43.8%) were found to hold the rank of full professor as compared to women. Furthermore, a higher number of women (47.5%) were found to hold the rank of assistant professor as compared to their male colleagues. Regarding the number of publications, in all academic rank categories, women had a significantly lower number of publications compared to men (p<0.001). Men also had a higher publication productivity or scholarly impact [h-index=15.2 ± 0.82 standard error of the mean (SEM)] compared to women (h-index=12.8 ± 0.99 SEM) (p=0.0004). Higher h-index correlated with higher academic rank, from assistant professor through full professor (p<0.001). Conclusion The field of vitreoretinal surgery has significantly fewer women compared to men, with women producing fewer publications and having less scholarly impact. H-index and total number of publications are also associated with a higher academic rank. Furthermore, full professors are more likely to be men, while assistant professors are more likely to be women. Future efforts should be aimed at reducing the gender disparity in vitreoretinal surgery.

Gender representation in leadership & research: a 13-year review of the Annual Canadian Society of Otolaryngology Meetings

BACKGROUND

The gender disparity in surgical disciplines, specifically in speakers across North American medical and surgical specialty conferences, has been highlighted in recent literature. Improving gender diversity at society meetings and panels may provide many benefits. Our aim was to determine the state of gender diversity amongst presenters and speakers at the annual Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (CSO) meetings.

METHODS

Scientific programs for the CSO annual meetings from 2008 to 2020 were obtained from the national society website. Participant name, role, gender, location, and subspecialty topic were recorded for all roles other than poster presenter. Gender (male or female) was determined using an online search. The total number of opportunity spots and proportion of women was then calculated. Gender differences were analyzed using chi-square test and logistic regression with odds ratios. Four categories were analyzed: Society Leadership, Invited Speaker Opportunities, Workshop Composition (male-only panels or "manels", female-only panels, or with at least one female speaker), and Oral Paper Presenters (first authors).

RESULTS

There were 1874 leadership opportunity spots from 2008 to 2020, of which 18.6% were filled by women. Among elected leadership positions in the society, only 92 unique women filled 738 leadership opportunity spots. 13.2% of workshop chairs, 20.8% of panelists and 22.7% of paper session chairs were female. There was an overall increase in the proportion of leadership positions held by women, from 13.9% of leadership spots in 2008 to 30.1% in 2020. Of the 368 workshops, 61.1% were led by men only, 36.4% by at least 1 female surgeon, and 2.5% by women only. "Manels" have comprised at least 37.5% of workshops each year.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of women in speaking roles at the annual CSO meetings has generally increased over time, particularly among panelists, leading to fewer male-only speaking panels. However, there has been a slower rate of growth in the proportion of unique women in speaker roles. There remains an opportunity to increase gender/sex diversity at the major Canadian otolaryngology meeting.

Modeling a successful citation trajectory structure for scholar's impact evaluation in Israeli academia

One of the main concerns of researchers and institutions is how to assess the future performance of scholars and identify their potential to become successful scientists. In this study, we model scholarly success in terms of the probability of a scholar belonging to a group of highly impactful scholars as determined by their citation trajectory structures. To this end, we developed a new set of impact measures based on a scholar's citation trajectory structure (rather than on absolute citation or h-index rates), that show a stable trend and scale for highly impactful scholars, independent of their field of study, seniority and citation index. These measures were then incorporated as influence factors into the logistic regression models and used as features for probabilistic classifiers based on these models to identify the successful scholars in the heterogeneous corpus of 400 of most and least cited professors from two Israeli universities. From the practical point of view, the study may yield useful insights and serve as an aid in making promotion decisions by institutions, as well as a self-assessment tool for researchers who strive to increase their academic influence and become leaders in their field.

Gender and Race Demographics of Fellowships After General Surgery Training in the United States: A Five-Year Analysis in Applicant and Resident Trends

INTRODUCTION

The gender and minority gap in general surgery residency is narrowing; however, literature lacks comprehensive data regarding the demographics of fellowship programs following general surgery training.

METHODS

Data from 2017 to 2021 for gender, ethnicity, and surgical subspecialty are publicly available from the ERAS database and ACGME yearly data reports. Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to determine statistical significance in trends for female and minority applicants and trainees.

RESULTS

The overall trend of female applicants to surgical specialties remained stagnant. However, female applicants to vascular surgery increased significantly from 25% to 35% (P = .045). There was no significant increase in female trainees in any surgical specialties evaluated. Furthermore, the overall trend of minority applicants to surgical specialties also remained stagnant, except for pediatric surgery, which showed significantly fewer minority applicants. Despite pediatric surgery having fewer applicants, minority trainees in this specialty increased significantly from 8% to 19% (P = .008).

CONCLUSION

Several current initiatives, such as intentional mentorship, are being reported to promote diverse and equal representation among female and minority applicants and trainees. However, the current overall margin of increase in diversity among surgical specialty applicants and trainees is minimal, indicating that continued efforts are needed to diversify surgical specialty training programs.

The relative citation ratio (RCR) as a novel bibliometric among 2511 academic orthopedic surgeons

Objectively measuring research output is important for grant awards, promotion, and tenure, or self-evaluation of productivity. However, certain shortcomings limit common bibliometric indicators. The time- and field-independent relative citation ratio (RCR) was proposed to overcome these limitations. The objective of this study was to determine whether the RCR correlates with academic rank, gender, and PhD degree status among US academic orthopedic surgeons. Full-time faculty surgeons at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs were included in this study. Mean (mRCR) and weighted (wRCR) RCR scores were collected from the National Institutes of Health iCite database to quantify scholarly "impact" and "production," respectively, and were compared by academic rank, gender, and PhD status. All information was collected from publicly available faculty listings on departmental websites. A total of 2511 orthopedic surgeons from 132 residency programs were assessed. Overall, the median (interquartile range) mRCR score was 1.56 (1.05-2.12) and the median wRCR score was 27.6 (6.97-88.44). Both metrics increased with each successive academic rank, except for department chairs. There was no difference in mRCR between male and female surgeons. Among assistant professors, males had higher wRCR scores. Both metrics were higher among surgeons with a PhD degree. The RCR offers key advantages over other indices, which are reflected in differences in score distributions compared with the widely used h-index. Nevertheless, implementation of the RCR should be preceded with careful consideration of its own limitations.

A Descriptive Analysis of Pediatric Ophthalmology Fellowship Program Directors

There is limited literature on the characteristics of pediatric ophthalmology leadership. The authors examined the demographics, academic backgrounds, and scholarly output of pediatric ophthalmology fellowship program directors. Despite a positive trend in gender equity in this position, efforts remain to resolve the "leaky pipeline" of women into ophthalmology leadership. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2022;59(6):e69-e72.].

Descriptors in Letters of Recommendation for Otolaryngology Residency Across Gender, Race, and Time

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether differences exist in the descriptors used in letters of recommendations for Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) residency candidates, comparing race and gender as depicted in visual letters of recommendation (VLORs) from the 2014 and 2019 application cycles.

DESIGN

Four hundred thirty-three LORS (284 narrative LORs and 149 standardized LORs) and 63 medical student performance evaluations for 104 candidates who interviewed at the University of Cincinnati OHNS residency program in 2014 and 2019 were analyzed. Descriptors from LORs and medical student performance evaluations were collected by two reviewers and QSR NVivo 12 was used to generate a word cloud that grouped words by synonym and weighted them by frequency. Reviewers coded these synonyms into one of eight descriptor categories. Race and gender were self-reported from residency applications. The average of each category frequency for each race and gender were compared using student t-tests.

SETTING

University of Cincinnati OHNS Residency Program.

PARTICIPANTS

104 OHNS applicants that interviewed at the University of Cincinnati in 2014 and 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 104 candidates reviewed, 39 were female (37.5%). 66/104 (63%) of applicants identified as white, 31/104 (30%) as non-white, and 7/104 (7%) preferred not to say. No significant differences were found between male vs female descriptors. However, white applicants had more "leadership" descriptors (1.3% vs 0.5%, p = 0.01) and fewer "intelligence" words (6.6% vs 4.8%, p = 0.02) than non-white applicants. Applicants in 2019 were described with more team player (14.2% vs 9.6%, p < 0.0001), leadership (1.6% vs 0.7%, p = 0.047), and reserved (1.7% vs 0.7%, p = 0.02) words, but fewer grindstone (25.2% vs 32.1%, p < 0.0001) and ability/agentic (27.9% vs 32.6%, p < 0.0001) words than applicants in 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

In VLORs for OHNS residency, male and female applicants are described similarly, but white applicants are described as leaders more frequently and as intelligent less frequently than non-white counterparts. Regardless, it is encouraging to see applicants described with a more humanistic vocabulary in 2019.

Descriptive Analysis of Otolaryngology Program Directors with a Focus on Gender Disparity

OBJECTIVE

To describe and analyze the demographics and academic backgrounds of United States otolaryngology program directors (PD) and assess gender disparity in the field.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study in which an online search using publicly available sources was performed to gather information on PDs for 125 United States otolaryngology programs from May 14, 2021, to May 30, 2021. Data collected included PD appointment year, age, gender, resident gender breakdown, degree, as well as training location and graduation year.

RESULTS

There were 69.6% programs with a male PD and 30.4% with a female PD. Ninety percent of PDs have an MD degree and 9.6% have a DO degree. The current average age of PDs was 49.9 years old (range 35-79). Males were older than females PD (51.0 vs 47.1 years, P = 0.045) and have served a longer time as PD (7.1 vs 4.8 years, P = 0.019). There was no significant difference in other variables collected. There were 27.3% of program directors that held the position of professor, 44.5% associate professor, and 28.2% assistant professor. The most common subspecialty practiced by otolaryngology PDs was head and neck oncology.

CONCLUSION

Disparity in women's representation in otolaryngology still exists, but the program director leadership position demonstrates better parity. There is an equal percent representation when examining female PDs and female otolaryngologists in academic medicine. Continued efforts to encourage women to enter and become leaders in otolaryngology are necessary moving forward.

Measuring publication diversity among the most productive scholars: how research trajectories differ in communication, psychology, and political science

Examining research patterns across scientific fields constitutes a growing research enterprise to understand how global knowledge production unfolds. However, scattered empirical evidence has casted light on how the publication diversity of the most productive scholars differ across disciplines, considering their gender and geographical representation. This study focuses on the most prolific scholars across three fields (Communication, Political Science, and Psychology), and examine all journals where they have published. Results revealed the most common journals in which prolific scholars have appeared and showed that Communication scholars are more prone to publish in Political Science and Psychology journals than vice-versa, while psychologists’ largely neglect them both. Our findings also demonstrate that males and US scholars are over-represented across fields, and that neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the interaction between gender and geographic location has a significant influence over publication diversity. The study suggests that prolific scholars are not only productive, but also highly diverse in the selection of the journals they publish, which directly speaks to both the heterogeneity of their research contributions and target readers.

The Extent of Gender Gap in Citations in Ophthalmology Literature

Purpose

To investigate the severity and causes of gender imbalance in the counts of ophthalmology citations.

Methods

The PubMed database was searched to identify cited papers that were published in four journals (Prog Retin Eye Res, Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmol, and Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci) between August 2015 and July 2020, and those that referenced these cited papers by 2021 July (i.e., citing papers). The gender category of a given paper is defined by the gender of the first and last author (MM, FM, MF, and FF; M means male and F means female). A generalized additive model to predict the expected proportion was fitted. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of citations of a paper’s gender category was the primary outcome.

Results

The proportion of female-led (MF and FF) papers slightly increased from 27% in 2015 to 30% in 2020. MM, FM, MF, and FF papers were cited as −9.3, −1.5, 13.0, and 23.9% more than expected, respectively. MM papers cited 13.9% more male-led (MM and FM) papers than female-led papers, and FF papers cited 33.5% fewer male-led papers than female-led papers. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of MM citing papers within male-led and female-led cited papers grew at a rate of 0.13 and 0.67% per year.

Conclusion

The high frequency of citations of female-led papers might narrow the gender gap in the citation count within ophthalmology. These findings show that papers by female-led are less common, so the gender gap might still exist even with their high citation count.

Otolaryngology workforce trends by gender - When and where is the gap narrowing?

PURPOSE

To describe the changes in workforce gender distribution over time and characterize geographically where women are finding job opportunities within the field of otolaryngology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes a Physician Compare National Downloadable File, which lists all active providers registered within CMS, as well as specialty, medical school graduation, and current practice location. The file of March 2021 was filtered for all providers that listed "otolaryngology" as their primary specialty. Providers were sorted based on medical school graduation year. Physicians were organized into five-year and ten-year quantiles, based on career experience. For each quantile, the gender distribution was recorded. For each decade of experience, the geographic distribution of gender was recorded at a state-by-state level. Descriptive statistics were conducted to characterize the number of female otolaryngologists per state. The geographic distribution of male versus female physicians was superimposed onto state boundary files as published by the U.S. Census Bureau using R Studio (2020) [13].

RESULTS

The Physician Compare National Database listed 1719 women (19.0%) and 7292 men (81.0%) otolaryngologists actively registered to practice in the United States. By career periods, the following proportions of otolaryngologists were women: 1-5 years, 317/971 (32.6%); 6-10 years, 417/1291 (32.3%); 11-15 years, 299/1159 (25.8%); 16-20 years, 207/1108 (18.7%); 21-25 years, 190/1156 (16.4%); 26-30 years, 138/1141 (12.1%); 31-35 years, 86/968 (8.9%); 36+ years, 60/1212 (5.0%). The linear regression of the male-female distribution data suggests that the proportion of men and women in practice in otolaryngology will equalize nationally in the 2030s. By geographic distribution, the mean and median number of female otolaryngologists per state was 34.3 (19.0%) and 21 (17.2%), respectively. The number of female otolaryngologists by state ranged from 2 (Idaho) to 258 (California). States with the lowest percentage of female otolaryngologists included Idaho (2/51, 3.9%), Oklahoma (5/86, 5.8%), and Utah (6/99, 6.1%). There has been a national increase in the percentage of women practicing in otolaryngology over the last several decades.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significantly higher proportion of female otolaryngologists within earlier practice years, which suggests that progress has been made toward closing the gender gap within this field. The geographic distribution of female otolaryngologists is highly variable and should be studied further to assess what factors contribute to more females choosing to practice in these regions to continue to build regional support networks for women within the field.

Academic medicine's glass ceiling: Author's gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success

INTRODUCTION

In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities.

RESULTS

Compared to 37.23% of 2002 - 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women's first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and co-authors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Since 2002, this authorship "gender disparity chasm" has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet's 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation.

An Otolaryngologist's Guide to Understanding the H-index and How It Could Affect Your Future Career

Objectives

The h-index is a measure of research output and contribution that shows strong correlation with academic promotion in medicine. The purpose of this article is to clearly explain how h-index scores are calculated and how otolaryngologists can effectively and advantageously use these scores for their career development.

Data Sources

PubMed.

Review Methods

We performed an up-to-date PubMed literature review describing the design of the h-index and how to use it effectively along with its role in academic medicine, including otolaryngology.

Conclusions

H-index scores are used as a metric for scientific output that considers the number of publications and the number of times each is cited. Search engines can automatically calculate h-index scores for one's work. Studies also revealed significant positive correlations that the h-index has from fellowship involvement, which could be beneficial for career advancement in academic medicine.

Implications for Practice

Aspiring academic otolaryngologists should create a research profile to link and calculate the h-index for publications, submit to well-read high-impact journals for increased viewership and citations, and expand on foundational and personal research topics. Future studies should evaluate faculty and resident awareness of h-indices in the otolaryngology department to see how we can further address any underlying barriers. Otolaryngologists with the knowledge and tools necessary to maximize h-index scores and produce high-quality research in modern-day medicine not only provide potential advantages in career development but also bring significant contribution to the field of otolaryngology and patient care.

Representation of Women in Ophthalmology Receiving Private Industry Funding 2015-2018

PURPOSE

To report the representation of female ophthalmologists receiving private industry funding from 2015 through 2018, and to compare to previously observed trends.

DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative trend study METHODS: The study population consisted of US ophthalmologists listed in CMS Open Payments Database. Data were reviewed for payments for research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, faculty and speakers, royalties, and services other than consulting. The primary outcome measure was percentage of female representation compared to male in each sub-category of payment.

RESULTS

The percentage of female, board-certified ophthalmologists who practiced in the United States ranged from 21.3% to 24.1%. The total number of reported ophthalmologists with industry ties ranged from 1629 to 1873, of whom between 17.2% and 19.4% were women. Women received significantly less industry compensation by than men in 2015 (median average $3273 vs $4825, P = .003), 2016 ($3600 vs $4750, P = .023), 2017 ($2493 vs $3500, P = .013), and 2018 ($2000 vs $3000, P = .011). Women remained underrepresented in receiving payments for research (ranging from 5.4% of total paid for research to 8.0%), consulting (11%-17.4%), honoraria (6%-14.9%), industry grants (4%-41.2%), royalties and licenses (0.1%-10.2%), faculty and speakers (11.6%-16.4%), and services other than consulting (8.4%-28.9%). Compared to 2013-2014, an increasing proportion of women received industry payments for consulting (P = .012), honoraria (P = .007), royalties and licenses (P = .019), faculty and speakers (P = .007), and services other than consulting (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Female ophthalmologists remain underrepresented in terms of the percentage of women who receive private industry funding and dollar value of the funding.

Gender Disparity in Academic Gastroenterology: Beginning of the End of the Underrepresentation of Women?

BACKGROUND

Though there are an increasing number of female medical graduates, women remain underrepresented in academic medicine. There have been several reasons to explain this gender disparity, including marital status, number of children, number of hours worked, job flexibility, perceptions of women as inferior leaders, gender bias, sexual harassment, and unsupportive academic climates.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between scholarly productivity and the representation of female gastroenterologists in academia. Specifically, scholarly productivity measured by the h-index and academic rank were explored to determine if there were gender disparities in academic productivity and rank in gastroenterology.

METHODS

Gastroenterology departmental listings were obtained from the Fellowship and Residency Interactive Database of the American Medical Association. The Scopus database was used to record each physician's h-index. Statistical analyses were conducted with Wilcoxon rank-sum test, which compared matched samples by academic rank, and ANOVA tests, which compared multiple academic ranks.

RESULTS

Out of 1703 academic gastroenterologists, women account for 25% of academic physicians. Women have statistically lower h-indices at the level of Assistant Professor (p = 0.0012), and at the level of Chair (p = 0.01). There was no difference in h-indices between male and female at the rank of Associate Professor and Professor.

CONCLUSIONS

While these results mirror patterns appreciated in other fields of medicine, the results at the rank of Chair may suggest that despite the lower h-index compared to their male counterparts, females are perceived as having strong inherent leadership skills outside of academic productivity that are also conducive to leading a department and may be contributing to their rise to Chair.

Sex Disparities in Productivity among Oculoplastic Surgeons

Purpose The aim of the study is to investigate sex differences in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding among oculoplastic surgeons and whether there is an association between American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) membership and scholarly output.

Methods Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites of 113 U.S. ophthalmology programs. H-indices and m-quotients were obtained from the Scopus database. NIH funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool.

Results Of the 272 surgeons, 74 (30.2%) were females. When adjusted for career duration, differences in female to male proportions were only significant at the rank of assistant professor (assistant: 74.3 vs. 48.5%, p = 0.047; associate: 18.9 vs. 24.6%, p = 0.243; full professor: 13.0 vs. 37.2%, p = 0.114). Women had a shorter career duration than men [10.0 (interquartile range or IQR 12.0) vs. 21.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p < 0.001] and a lower h-index [4.0 (IQR 5.0) vs. 7.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001], but similar m-quotients [0.4 (IQR 0.4) vs. 0.4 (IQR 0.4); p = 0.9890]. Among ASOPRS members, females had a lower h-index than males [5.0 (IQR 6.0) vs. 9.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001] due to career length differences. No difference in productivity between sexes was found among non-ASOPRS members. ASOPRS members from both sexes had higher scholarly output than their non-ASOPRS counterparts. Just 2.7% (2/74) of females compared with 5.3% (9/171) of males received NIH funding (p = 0.681).

Conclusion Sex differences in academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to the smaller proportion of females with long career durations. ASOPRS membership may confer opportunities for increased scholarly output.

Making a Major Change: Changing Your Practice Setting, Retirement, and Locums

The goal of this article is to discuss factors associated with career change and give data and recommendations of how to prepare for a career change in regards to early, mid, and late career.

Stemming the ‘Leaky Pipeline’: an investigation of the relationship between work–family conflict and women’s career progression in academic medicine

Background

Even though women outnumber men enrolled in medical school, making up 59% of entrants in the UK, they are significantly under-represented in academic medicine and senior positions. In the UK, 28.6% of academics overall are women. In the USA, while 51% of instructors are women, only 20% make it through the ‘leaky pipeline’ to become professors. One attributable factor is work–family conflict. The purpose of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between work–family conflict and women’s career progression in academic medicine, and to provide a model to inform and change perceptions and practice in order to improve the ‘leaky pipeline’.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify qualitative studies which investigated this relationship. Studies were critically appraised, and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Themes identified in the data were used to develop a model to build on the understanding of this issue.

Findings

The findings of this research highlighted two main themes, one related to perceptions of gender (intrinsic or extrinsic), the way it impacts on work–family conflict and its relationship to women’s career progression. The second theme relates to structures which hinder or support women’s ability to have work–life balance. A model was developed that represents the inter-relationship between these factors.

Interpretation

Changes in both organisational culture and individuals’ perception in regard to gender roles, especially of those in leadership, are necessary to create an environment where the best talent in academic medicine is selected regardless of gender.

Female Representation and Academic Leadership in Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Despite increasing the numbers of women entering the field, underrepresentation of women in otolaryngology has been reported. In the subspecialty of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (FPRS), female representation and academic leadership have not been formally characterized. Our study aims to identify female representation and academic leadership roles in FPRS.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

METHODS

Analysis was performed using the 2020 American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) membership directory. Board-eligible and board-certified FPRS surgeons were included. Data regarding academic rank, leadership position, academic productivity, and years in practice were collected from publicly available departmental websites. Academic productivity was measured using h-index.

RESULTS

Of 1,421 members queried in the 2020 AAFPRS membership directory, 13.0% were female and 86.9% were male. Most practitioners (87.0%) work in a private practice setting, but of the 13.0% of academic FPRS surgeons, 25.9% were female. Most female facial plastic surgeons in academic practice were Assistant Professors (72.9%), whereas ranks were evenly distributed among male FPRS surgeons. Three (4.3%) of 69 AAFPRS fellowship directors were women, and 1 (1.8%) of 56 present or past AAFPRS presidents was female. Female FPRS surgeons had fewer years in practice and lower h-indices compared with male surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Female FPRS surgeons hold fewer academic leadership positions and have lower academic productivity in comparison to male FPRS surgeons. Future studies are needed to elucidate the etiology of these gender differences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Cross-sectional analysis Laryngoscope, 2021.

Predictors of academic career placement and scholarly impact in fellowship-trained rhinologists

BACKGROUND

As rhinology fellowship positions outpace the availability of academic rhinology jobs, it is increasingly important to identify characteristics that are associated with academic placement after fellowship completion. In this study, we evaluated the association of academic characteristics during training with current job placement and posttraining scholarly impact.

METHODS

Previous rhinology fellows were identified using publicly available data. Bibliometric indices, training institutions, graduate degrees, and job placement data were used in bivariate and multivariable regression analyses to assess for association with predictors and academic trajectory.

RESULTS

Data from 265 rhinologists, all graduating between 1991 and 2020, were included. Most surgeons (n = 185, 70%) held an academic position and 80 (30%) surgeons worked in a nonacademic setting; 93.2% had a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree and 80.3% were male. Multivariable logistic regression indicated that a designation of MD, compared with Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO; odds ratio [OR], 5.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.97-21.9), number of publications during fellowship (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41), and h-index during training (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49]) were independently predictive of academic job placement. Meanwhile, number of primary authorships during fellowship (β = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-1.88]), h-index during training (β = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.71), and PhD (β = 4.16; 95% CI, 1.57-6.76) were associated with posttraining h-index. Medical school ranking; graduate degrees, including Master of Science (MS), Master of Business Administration (MBA), and Master of Public Health (MPH); and research metrics before residency were not associated with either academic placement or posttraining h-index.

CONCLUSION

The predictors of academic job placement in rhinology are unclear, but h-index during training, and research productivity during fellowship may serve as indicators of an academic career.

Landscape of Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts Grant Recipients Over the Past Decade

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the demographics of CORE grant recipients (Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts) over the last decade and evaluate disparity among recipients as compared with otolaryngology overall. To assess whether procurement of a grant predicts pursuit of an academic career.

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of grant recipients' bibliometrics.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

METHODS

The list of recipients of grants from 2010 to 2019 was obtained from the website of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Demographics of recipients were collected through an internet search, including gender, race, residency program, and h-index. Recipients from 2010 were searched to determine current academic faculty rank. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare these factors with otolaryngology overall.

RESULTS

The distribution of gender among recipients over the last decade remained nearly constant, with no significant difference versus residents in otolaryngology (P > .05). However, there were significantly more female recipients when adjusted for gender differences in the field overall (P < .01). Asians were relatively overrepresented, while Black and Hispanic residents were underrepresented (P < .01). Many recipients (52.6%) trained at institutions recognized as the best training programs with reputations for quality research output. The h-index of recipients decreased over the last decade (P < .01). The h-index of duplicate winners was significantly higher than those of nonduplicate winners (P < .01). After adjusting for gender and rank, recipients were significantly more likely to hold academic positions (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

CORE grants are favorably distributed as related to gender and racial disparities, and recipients frequently go on to achieve high levels of academic success.

Gender Representation in Fellowship Program Director Positions in ACGME-Accredited Chronic Pain and Acute Pain Fellowship Programs

OBJECTIVE

We quantified the representation of female program directors (PDs) and assessed their respective demographics, academic metrics, and program-related characteristics in chronic pain and acute pain medicine fellowship programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).

METHODS

We identified chronic and acute pain PDs on the ACGME website on November 15, 2020. We abstracted data from public databases and performed comparisons of demographics, academic metrics, and program-related characteristics between female and male PDs.

RESULTS

We identified 111 chronic pain programs and 35 acute pain programs. Overall, there were 35 (31.5%) chronic pain programs with a female PD and 76 (68.5%) chronic pain programs with a male PD. Female chronic pain PDs published fewer peer-reviewed articles (4.0 publications, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.0-12.0) compared with male chronic pain PDs (9.0 publications, IQR = 4.0-27.0; P = 0.050), although there was no difference in the H-index score (3.0 vs 4.0 publications, respectively; P = 0.062) or senior academic rank status (57.1% vs 50.0%, respectively; P = 0.543). There were 10 (28.6%) acute pain programs with a female PD and 25 (71.4%) acute pain programs with a male PD. Similar to the chronic pain cohort, there was no difference in senior academic rank status based on gender in acute pain PDs (50.0% vs 24.0%, respectively; P = 0.227).

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights gender differences in the PD role in ACGME-accredited chronic and acute pain fellowships. Female PDs remain underrepresented and have fewer peer-reviewed publications. Senior academic rank status was similar across genders, contradicting the current evidence in academic medicine.

Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.

DATA SOURCES

Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.

STUDY SELECTION

A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcome was the h-index.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

Diversifying Researchers and Funding in Otolaryngology

Research productivity is a key metric used in evaluation for advancement and promotion in academic medicine. There are known gender, race, and ethnicity disparities in otolaryngology research and funding. Female academic otolaryngologists have been shown to lag in scholarly productivity, representation at national meetings, leadership positions on journal editorial boards, and National Institutes of Health and industry funding. Underrepresented minorities have been shown to be less successful at obtaining Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts grant funding. Directed approaches, such as research funding for women and minorities or targeted recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty, may move the field toward parity.

A 5-Year Analysis of Physician-Industry Interactions, Physician Gender, and Anti-VEGF Use in US Ophthalmologists

Purpose: To explore physician gender, industry payments, and prescribing habits of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents.Methods: Retrospective review of U.S. ophthalmologists prescribing and receiving industry payments for aflibercept and/or ranibizumab (brand anti-VEGF injections) between August 2013 to December 2017.Results: Men receiving industry payments were older and had longer post-residency experience than women (both P < .001). Men were more likely to receive industry payments (P = .01), receive >5 payments (P = .003), and receive payments totaling >$1000 (P = .008). Men administered more injections on average than women when receiving >3 industry payments (P < .001) or when receiving >$100 (P < .01). On multivariate analysis, years in practice, male gender, number of payments, and total value of payments were independent factors associated with the number of brand injections administered (all P < .001).Conclusions: A positive association between industry payments and brand anti-VEGF use was identified, however, causality was not determined. Gender bias may be present in physician-industry relationships.

What Does It Take to Become an Academic Plastic Surgeon in Canada: Hiring Trends Over the Last 50 Years

Objective: Academic plastic surgery positions have become highly competitive secondary to delayed retirement, stagnant hospital funding, and an increasing number of plastic surgery graduates. Little information is available to help residents navigate this challenging landscape. Our objectives were to evaluate the training backgrounds of all Canadian academic plastic surgeons and to develop recommendations for residents interested in an academic career. Methods: All Canadian academic plastic surgeons were included. Training histories were obtained from institutions’ websites. Surgeons were subsequently emailed to confirm this information and complete missing details. Multivariate regressions were designed to analyze the effect of gender and FRCSC year on graduate and fellowship training and time to first academic position. Results: Training information was available for 196 surgeons (22% female), with a 56% email response rate; 91% of surgeons completed residency in Canada; 94% completed fellowship training, while 43% held graduate degrees; 74% were employed where they previously trained. Female gender significantly lengthened the time from graduation to first academic job, despite equal qualification. Younger surgeons were more likely to hold graduate degrees (P < .01). Conclusions: We identified objective data that correlate with being hired at an academic centre, including training at the same institution, obtaining a graduate degree during residency, and pursuing fellowship training. In addition, we demonstrated that women take significantly longer to acquire academic positions (P < .01), despite equal qualification. Trainees should consider these patterns when planning their careers. Future research should explore gender-based discrepancies in hiring practices.

Strengthening Our Societies with Diversity and Inclusion

In 2018, the Joint Councils of the American Otological Society and the American Neurotology Society adopted a statement on diversity and inclusion for programs henceforth. That statement stands as a landmark touch point in our societies that heralds the engagement of all our members as we all work to advance knowledge and skills in otology and neurotology. I was asked to write this piece for Otology & Neurotology, and re-publication in this Clinics series establishes a baseline understanding of the historical limitations in organized otolaryngology and the willingness of societies to adapt and lead in shaping our profession's future.

Gender and authorship trends in rhinology, allergy, and skull-base literature from 2008 to 2018

BACKGROUND

A recent analysis suggested potential narrowing of the gender gap in research productivity in the field of rhinology. This analysis did not, however, provide insight into how the genders are represented in the rhinologic literature. This study aimed to evaluate 11 years of literature to evaluate for gender differences in authorship position, collaborations, category and content of research, citations, and funding to gain perspective on how gender and authorship has changed over time.

METHODS

Authorship data for all articles on rhinologic subject matter published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2018 in four otolaryngology journals was collected. The gender of authors was determined by protocol. Category and content of research and funding status/source were additionally obtained.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 2666 articles. Gender of 14,510 authors was determined. Female authors accounted for 23% of the overall authors and male authors accounted for 77%. Female first authorship increased significantly over time, but there was no change in female senior authorship. The percentage of female authors steadily increased over time, whereas male authorship decreased slightly. Mixed gender teams were shown to be increasing in frequency. Women published more than expected in basic science and allergy and less than expected in skull base. On funded studies, women were significantly underrepresented as senior authors.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first assessment of gender differences in the rhinology literature. Areas where female representation can improve include senior authorship, increased involvement in skull base publications, and increased funding.

Do Departments in a College of Medicine Differ in Academic Productivity As Assessed by the H-Indices of Tenured Faculty Members?

Background

It is uncertain how different academic medical departments differ in academic productivity as assessed by commonly used bibliometric measures, eg, the h-index (the maximum value of h such that an author has published h papers that have each been cited at least h times).

Aim

This project examined whether departments in the University of Iowa's Carver College of Medicine differed in h-indices of tenured faculty members.

Methods

Based on 2020 data obtained from the College (and other University sources), the author compiled three data sets of Scopus h-indices of tenured faculty members identified by department, varying in size due to slightly different inclusion criteria (N's=334, 341, and 354). Analyses compared h-indices between ranks and among departments.

Results

In the basic data set (N=334), h-indices of the 230 (69%) full and 104 (31%) associate professors differed based on a t-test, means (standard deviations)=37 (17) and 20 (7), respectively, p<0.0001. For both full and associate professors separately, departments differed in h-indices based on analyses of variance, p=0.04 and p=0.02, respectively. In the expanded data sets, departmental differences were significant for full and associate professors (with N=341) and full professors (with N=354).

Conclusion

Departments differed in academic productivity of tenured faculty members as assessed by h-indices. This was not a powerful, monolithic effect, ie, relative departmental standings for full and associate professors were not consistent, and departmental differences for associate professors were nonsignificant in the largest (N=354) data set. Multiple factors probably contributed to departmental differences and should be further investigated.

Gender Representation in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Recognition Awards

Objective

The proportion of women in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OHNS) has steadily increased in recent years. This study examines gender representation in recognition awards given by OHNS societies between 2009 and 2019.

Study Design

Retrospective analysis of recognition awards given by 10 OHNS societies between 2009 and 2019.

Setting

Retrospective review of web-based, public records.

Methods

Data from 19 awards were analyzed for recipient gender ratio, society, subspecialty, award type (research, achievement, or humanitarian), and change over time.

Results

Of 184 awards given by societies in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, 59 (28%) were given to women. Women received 49 (28%) research awards, 9 (31%) humanitarian awards, and 1 (2.8%) achievement award. Women represented 31% of award winners in rhinology/skull base, 30% of award winners in head and neck surgery, 8% in neurotology, and 6% in facial plastic surgery. The American Head and Neck Society Prevention and Early Detection award had the highest representation of women at 43%. Some awards had no female awardees over the past decade. No temporal trends were observed.

Conclusion

From 2009 to 2019, women received recognition awards at a higher percentage than overall gender representation in OHNS. Comparison of research, humanitarian, and achievement awards revealed the disparity of women receiving fewer achievement awards relative to men. Gender representation of award recipients varied by subspecialty, which may be partially determined by gender distribution within the fields.

Gender Differences in Hepatology Medical Literature

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that gender differences in academic medicine exist. Men frequently have better measures of performance such as number of publications, number of citations, remuneration, and funding.

AIMS

To evaluate whether a gender disparity in authorship exists.

METHODS

We recorded the gender of first and senior authors of original papers, editorials/reviews from liver-related manuscripts in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Transplantation, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Liver Transplantation from January 2014 to 2016.

RESULTS

Of 2424 articles reviewed, we excluded 232 (10%) due to inability to determine gender. Among papers analyzed, 72.0% were original and 28.1% reviews/editorials with 65.1% of first authors being male and 34.9% female. Only 20.3% of papers with multiple authors had a female senior author. The proportion of male first and senior authorship between original papers and reviews/editorials was comparable. 72% of original papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 28% females. 71% of review/editorial papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 29% females. When the senior author of an original paper was female, 47.1% of first authors were male and 52.9% female. When the senior author was male, 67.1% of first authors were male and 32.9% female (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant gender difference exists in Hepatology publications. Female authorship mirrors the percentage of female AASLD membership; however, female senior authorship remains disproportionate. In general, funding for male authors is greater. Fewer women are first authors when the senior author is male, highlighting the importance of female mentorship in Hepatology.

The Glass Ceiling in Plastic Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Gender Gap in Career Advancement

BACKGROUND

Gender parity remains elusive in academic plastic surgery. It is unknown whether this disparity is attributable to differences in qualifications or to the glass ceiling of gender bias. To parse this, the authors compared academic titles and departmental leadership of female academic plastic surgeons to a matched group of their male counterparts.

METHODS

The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of academic plastic surgeons. The authors identified faculty, sex, academic rank, and leadership positions from plastic surgery residency program websites. The authors then collected details on training institution, advanced degrees, years in practice, and h-index for use as independent variables. The authors performed a propensity score analysis to 1:1 match male and female academic plastic surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 818 academic plastic surgeons were included. The cohort was predominately male [n = 658 (81 percent)], with a median 12 years in practice and a median h-index of 9. Before matching, men had more years in practice (13 years versus 9 years; p < 0.0001), a greater h-index (11 versus 5; p < 0.0001), were more likely to be professors (34 percent versus 13 percent; p < 0.0001), and held more leadership positions than women (41 percent versus 30 percent; p = 0.0221). Following matching, gender parity was demonstrated in academic rank and departmental leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in training, qualifications, career length, and academic productivity may account for the leadership gap in academic plastic surgery. Gendered difficulties in reaching qualification benchmarks must be addressed before gender parity in promotion can be achieved.

Gender-Based Pay Discrimination in Otolaryngology

Male and female otolaryngologists all attend the same accredited medical schools, complete the same accredited residency programs, and take the same board certification exams; however, female otolaryngologist are paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male colleagues. Even after accounting for age, experience, faculty rank, research productivity, and clinical revenue, significant gender pay gaps exist across all professor levels. The goal of this review is to improve our understanding of how and why the gender pay gap and discrimination exists, the harm caused by tolerance of policies that perpetuate gender pay inequity, and what is and can be done to correct gender-based pay gaps and discrimination. The review presents the current status of gender pay inequity in the United States and reports on how otolaryngology compares to other professions both within and outside of healthcare. The gender pay gap is shown to have a negative impact on economic growth, institutional reputation and financial success, retention and recruitment of faculty, and patient care. Many historically incorrect reasons used to explain the causes of the gender pay gap, including that women work less, have less research productivity, or produce lower-quality care, have been be disproved by evaluation of current research. Potential causes of gender pay inequities, such as gender bias, organization culture, fear of retaliation, promotions inequalities, lack of transparency, and senior leadership not being held accountable for equity and diversity concerns, will be explored. Finally, examples of best practices to achieve pay equity will be presented. Laryngoscope, 131:989-995, 2021.