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

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.

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.

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.