Gendermetrics of cancer research: results from a global analysis on lung cancer

Gender disparity between first and senior authors on liver cancer research in the top journals of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

BACKGROUND

Gender disparity is pervasive in academic medicine. This study aimed to assess the disparity between men and women with regard to first and senior author positions in primary studies on liver cancer over the last two decades.

METHODS

We conducted a review of articles published in high-impact factor journals of the field of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. First and senior authors of all ages were considered as the study population. The authors' genders were determined using the online artificial intelligence tool genderize.io (https://genderize.io/). The disparity between men and women authors was assessed using the linear-by-linear association test.

RESULTS

665 original articles from 10 journals were reviewed. The point prevalence of first women authors was 25.0% compared with 75.0% for men. The point prevalence of senior women authors was 16.3% compared with 83.7% for men. From 2000 to 2020, the proportion of first women authors increased 14.4% to 26.8% compared with 85.6%-73.2% for men (P = 0.009), and the proportion of senior women authors increased from 7.4% to 19.5%, compared with 92.6%-80.5% for men (P = 0.035). The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among first authors was the region of author. The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among senior authors was the impact factor of journals.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated a remarkable increase in the proportion of women, both first and senior authors, over the past two decades in the field of liver cancers. However, the representation of women authors in this area is far less than that of men.

Gender disparities in pediatric research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women in medicine, especially in pediatrics, is noticeably increasing. Yet, leadership positions are predominantly occupied by men.

METHODS

Academic authorships of 156,642 pediatric original research articles were analyzed with regard to gender disparities. The evaluation included the proportion of female authorships (FAP), distributions over first-, co- and last-authorships, gender-related citation rates, a productivity analysis and investigations on journals, countries and pediatric sub-disciplines.

RESULTS

In all, 46.6% of all authorships in pediatric research were held by female authors. Women held relatively more first-authorships (FAP = 52%) and had higher odds for first- (OR = 1.3) and co- (OR = 1.11) authorships, compared to men. The Prestige Index of -0.13 indicated an underrepresentation of female authors at prestigious first- and last-authorships. Citation rates were not affected by the gender of the key authors. At the country-level pronounced gender-related differences were detected. The time trend showed increasing female prospects forecasting a female-dominated Prestige Index of 0.05 in 2023.

CONCLUSION

The integration of women in pediatric research has advanced. Opportunities for female authors differ at the country-level, but overall women are lacking in leadership positions. Improving career opportunities for women in pediatric research can be expected in the coming years.

IMPACT

There is a measurable progress in the integration of female scientists. Gender-neutrality is partially achieved in pediatric research with yet a female underrepresentation in leading positions. Our descriptive study presents gender-related dynamics in pediatric research that forecast improving career opportunities for female scientists.

Performance of gender detection tools: a comparative study of name-to-gender inference services

Objective:

To evaluate the performance of gender detection tools that allow the uploading of files (e.g., Excel or CSV files) containing first names, are usable by researchers without advanced computer skills, and are at least partially free of charge.

Methods:

The study was conducted using four physician datasets (total number of physicians: 6,131; 50.3% female) from Switzerland, a multilingual country. Four gender detection tools met the inclusion criteria: three partially free (Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io) and one completely free (Wiki-Gendersort). For each tool, we recorded the number of correct classifications (i.e., correct gender assigned to a name), misclassifications (i.e., wrong gender assigned to a name), and nonclassifications (i.e., no gender assigned). We computed three metrics: the proportion of misclassifications excluding nonclassifications (errorCodedWithoutNA), the proportion of nonclassifications (naCoded), and the proportion of misclassifications and nonclassifications (errorCoded).

Results:

The proportion of misclassifications was low for all four gender detection tools (errorCodedWithoutNA between 1.5 and 2.2%). By contrast, the proportion of unrecognized names (naCoded) varied: 0% for NamSor, 0.3% for Gender API, 4.5% for Wiki-Gendersort, and 16.4% for genderize.io. Using errorCoded, which penalizes both types of error equally, we obtained the following results: Gender API 1.8%, NamSor 2.0%, Wiki-Gendersort 6.6%, and genderize.io 17.7%.

Conclusions:

Gender API and NamSor were the most accurate tools. Genderize.io led to a high number of nonclassifications. Wiki-Gendersort may be a good compromise for researchers wishing to use a completely free tool. Other studies would be useful to evaluate the performance of these tools in other populations (e.g., Asian).

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.

DESIGN

Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.

SETTING

NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).

DATA

Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.

RESULTS

Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

Gender gap in medical research: a bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals

Several studies explored gender inequalities in research, but only limited data are available concerning general internal medicine and family medicine. We aimed to assess the level of gender inequalities in Swiss academic medical research. In this bibliometric study conducted in March 2020, we selected all senior hospital physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. The list of these physicians was extracted from the hospitals’ websites. We recorded their socio-demographic characteristics. Then, using Web of Science, we retrieved the number of publications (overall, as first author, per year, per year as first author), the proportion of publications as first author, the number of citations (overall, per year, per publication) and the h-index, and we compared the data by gender. 367 senior physicians were included in the study [female physicians: 172 (47%), internal medicine: 187 (51%)]. Female physicians were four times less likely to be a professor (5% vs. 20%, p value < 0.001) and half as often heads of division or staff physicians (19% vs. 40%, p value < 0.001). The proportion of physicians having published at least one article was lower among women than men (79% vs. 90%, p value 0.003). Finally, all bibliometric indices were associated with male gender (incident rate ratios ranging from 1.9 [(95% CI 1.3–2.8), p value 0.001] for number of citations per publication to 9.3 [(95% CI 5.3–16.2), p value < 0.001] for number of citations), except the proportion of publications as first author that was associated with female gender [odds ratio 1.7 (95% CI 1.2–2.3), p value 0.003). Our data suggest a “leaky pipeline” phenomenon (a lower proportion of women moving up the academic ladder). In addition, with the exception of the proportion of publications as first author, all bibliometric indices were lower for female than male physicians.

Gender Disparities in Authorships of Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia Research Articles

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease and dementia are an increasing burden affecting more than 50 million patients worldwide. Hence, research has increased significantly in recent decades. It is recognized that female authors are systematically underrepresented in research in general.

OBJECTIVE

In this article, we examine gender disparities in academic research on dementia and Alzheimer's disease in the last decade.

METHODS

104,858 male and female authorships from 37,961 original research articles were analyzed. The global and country-specific distribution of women across first, co, and last authorships was determined with the inclusion of a citation and productivity analysis.

RESULTS

42.1% of all authorships and 50.2% of the first, 42.2% of the co, and 32.8% of the last authorships were held by women. Women were less commonly cited, published fewer articles and were also less likely to secure prestigious authorships in articles with multiple authors compared with men. Distinct differences were observed among the countries.

CONCLUSION

Substantial growth in the number of prestigious female authorships has been observed to date and is predicted to continue in the future, with an emphasis on the progressive representation of women and a diminishing gender gap.

Gender gap in research: a bibliometric study of published articles in primary health care and general internal medicine

BACKGROUND

Many studies examined gender inequalities in research, but only a few data are available for general biomedical journals. We assessed the prevalence of female first authorship in general biomedical journals and examined its variations across a number of author, article and journal characteristics.

METHODS

This study was nested within a larger project designed to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles. We retrieved 767 randomly selected articles published in 2016 in high impact factor journals of primary healthcare (n = 9) and general internal medicine (n = 9). We extracted the following data: author (gender, number of publications and affiliation of the first author), paper (number of authors, number of participants and study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline and 2015 impact factor). We compared the proportion of articles authored by women and men using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for intra-cluster correlations.

RESULTS

The female authorship proportion was 48% (63% for primary healthcare and 33% for general internal medicine, P-value < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, women published fewer articles (<5 versus >15 publications: OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.4]), were more often affiliated with institutions in the Western world (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), were more likely to publish qualitative studies (versus systematic reviews or experiments: OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-4.8]) and to publish in primary healthcare journals (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1-2.7]).

CONCLUSIONS

The underrepresentation of women in articles published by general internal medicine journals, in articles from the non-Western world and in systematic reviews and trials should be addressed.

Gender Authorship in the Field of Clinical Chemistry

BACKGROUND

Gender underrepresentation has long existed in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. While there are upward trends in many areas of the life and health sciences, some disciplines are underrepresented in female author numbers, including first and corresponding authors. This study evaluated the participation by women as authors in the field of clinical chemistry.

METHODS

Clinical Chemistry and The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine were selected for data collection. Data were classified into four categories: total number of authors for each article, number of female authors for each article, whether the first author was female, and whether the corresponding author was female. From these data, the percentages of female authors, articles with female first authors, articles with female corresponding authors, and articles where a female was either first or corresponding author were calculated.

RESULTS

Both journals had ≥40% total female authorship, ≥45% female first author, and 64% female first or corresponding author. The 40% female author number matched the percentage of female doctoral degree, board certified clinical chemists, and the 39% female PhDs and MDs in academic clinical pathology departments. Compared with a selected group of science or medicine journals and gender reports, Clinical Chemistry and The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine exceeded most journals and gender reports in female total authorship, first author, and corresponding author.

CONCLUSIONS

Women are well represented as authors in these two clinical chemistry journals. Both journals compare favorably against other scientific/medical journals. Female authorship in these two journals also parallels gender composition of the field of clinical chemistry.

Mind the gap: Gendered publication trends in oncology

BACKGROUND

Investigating scientific publication trends in the field of oncology may highlight opportunities for improved representation, mentorship, collaboration, and advancement for women.

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of Annals of Surgical Oncology; Cancer; International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP); JAMA Oncology; and Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2017. Full name and degree credentials per author role (ie, first or senior author), article type, publication year, and citation metrics were collected. First names were used to identify author gender.

RESULTS

Across 9189 articles, female representation rose between 1990 and 2017 (first authors: 17.7% in 1990, 36.6% in 2017; senior authors: 11.7% in 1990, 28.5% in 2017). For the 50 most cited articles per year, women comprised a smaller percent of first (26.5%) and senior (19.9%) authors. The average citation count was higher for male first (44.8 per article) and senior (47.1) authors compared to female first (39.7) and senior (44.1) authors. With male senior authors, the first author was more likely male (71.4% male; 25.0% female); with female senior authors, first authors were 50.2% male and 47.6% female. IJROBP had the lowest total female representation among first (25.1%) and senior (16.7%) authors. Women had more MDs with Masters degrees, whereas men held more MDs only and more MDs with PhDs.

CONCLUSION

Despite positive trends, substantial gendered differences in oncology publications persist. Fostering more women in oncology research will benefit female representation at many levels of academia and improve productivity, collaboration, and recruitment, especially in technical fields such as radiation and surgical oncology.

The recent landscape of cancer research worldwide: a bibliometric and network analysis

The aim of this paper is to map the scientific landscape related to cancer research worldwide between 2012 and 2017. We use scientific publication data from Web of Science Core Collection and combine bibliometrics and social network analysis techniques to identify the most relevant journals, research areas, countries and research organizations in cancer scientific landscape. The results show: Oncotarget as the journal with most publications; a significant increase in China’s publications, reaching United States’ publications in 2017; MD Cancer Center, University of California and Harvard University as organizations with most publications; cell biology as the most frequent research area; breast, lung and colorectal cancer as the most frequent keywords; high density of co-authorship between organizations in the West, especially in the US, and low density between organizations in Asian and lower and medium income countries. Our findings can be used to guide a global knowledge platform guiding policy, planning and funding decisions as well as to establish new institutional collaborations.

Gendermetrics of cancer research: results from a global analysis on prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The present study aims to elucidate the success concerning gender equality in cancer research in the last decade (from 2008 to 2017) with prostate cancer as the target parameter.

RESULTS

31.7% of all authorships and 36.3% of the first, 32.5% of the co- and 22.6% of the last authorships were held by women. The corresponding female-to-male odds ratio is 1.26 (CI: 1.22-1.30) for first, 1.15 (CI: 1.12-1.18) for co- and 0.59 (CI: 0.57-0.62) for last authorships. The annual growth rates are 0.6% overall and 0.9% for first, 0.2% for co-authorships, and 2.8% for last authorships. Women are slightly underrepresented at prestigious authorships compared to men. The female underrepresentation accentuates in articles with many authors that attract the highest citation rates. Multi-author articles with male key authors are more frequently cited. Men publish more articles compared to women (61.8% male authors are responsible for 68.3% of the authorships) and are overrepresented at productivity levels of more than 1 article per author. Major regional differences were found with best female odds in Sweden, Brazil, and Austria. The prognosis for the next decade forecasts a harmonization of authorship odds.

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancer research is characterized by a career dichotomy with few women in academic leadership positions and many female early career researchers. This career dichotomy has been narrowed in the last decade and will likely be further reduced in the future.

METHODS

On the basis of the Gendermetrics Platform, a total of 26,234 articles related to prostate cancer research were analyzed.

Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-quality dermatological research by analysing the representation of female authorships from January 2008 to May 2017.

DESIGN

Retrospective, descriptive study.

SETTING

113 189 male and female authorships from 23 373 research articles published in 23 dermatological Q1 journals were analysed with the aid of the Gendermetrics Platform.

RESULTS

43.0% of all authorships and 50.2% of the firstauthorships, 43.7% of the coauthorships and 33.1% of the last authorships are held by women. The corresponding female-to-male ORs are 1.41 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.45) for first authorships, 1.07 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.10) for coauthorships and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62) for last authorships. The annual growth rates are 1.74% overall and 1.45% for first authorships, 1.53% for coauthorships and 2.97% for last authorships. Women are slightly under-represented at prestigious authorships compared with men (Prestige Index=-0.11). The under-representation remains stable in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. Multiauthor articles with male key authors are only slightly more frequently cited than those with female key authors. Women publish slightly fewer papers compared with men (47.2% women hold 43.0% of the authorships). At the level of individual journals, there is a high degree of uniformity in gender-specific authorship odds. By contrast, distinct differences at country level were revealed. The prognosis for the next decades forecasts a consecutive harmonisation of authorship odds between the two genders.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-quality dermatological research, the integration of female scholars is advanced as compared with other medical disciplines. A gender gap consists mainly in the form of a career dichotomy, with many female early career researchers and few women in academic leadership positions. However, this gender gap has been narrowed in the last decade and will likely be further reduced in the future.