Gender Differences in First and Corresponding Authorship in Public Health Research Submissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Productivity in Oncology: A Journal-, Conference- and Author-Level Analysis

This study assessed the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on academic productivity in oncology, measured by conference abstracts, journal publications and individual authorship trends, using a reference time frame of 2018 to 2022. To assess overall academic productivity, data was obtained on the number of abstracts and articles submitted and published from a selection of oncology conferences and journals. To assess individual authorship patterns, 200 articles were randomly selected from 2018, and for the first or last authors, publications were tracked over subsequent years. Factors assessed included gender, continent, specialty, MD vs. non-MD and career status (early vs. late). The number of submitted and published conference abstracts trended downward over time between 2018 and 2022 (p=0.11 and p=0.16 respectively). Journal submissions increased to a peak in 2020 and then declined thereafter, but this did not translate into changes in the number of papers published. For the author-level analysis, factors significantly predictive of increasing publication rates in multivariable analysis were late career status (vs. early), clinician status (vs. non-clinician), surgery or public health/epidemiology specialty, and author located in Asia. Further research is needed to help ameliorate the impact of these disparities.

Gender Disparity in Leading Authorship of Critical Care Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In critical care medicine, research trials serve as crucial avenues for disseminating knowledge, influencing clinical practices, and fostering innovation. Notably, a significant gender imbalance exists within this field, potentially mirrored in the authorship of critical care research. This study aimed to investigate an exploration to ascertain the presence and extent of female representation in first and senior authorship roles within critical care literature. To this end, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for original articles published up to February 2024, coupled with a methodological quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and statistical analyses through Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). The study's findings, distilled from seven studies included in the final analysis, reveal a pronounced gender disparity. Specifically, in critical care literature examining mixed populations, female first authors were significantly less common than their male counterparts, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.18-5.68; p < 0.00001). Conversely, pediatric critical care studies did not show a significant difference in gender distribution among first authors (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.31-6.10; p = 0.68). The investigation also highlighted a stark underrepresentation of female senior authors in critical care research across both mixed (OR: 11.67; 95% CI: 7.76-17.56; p < 0.00001) and pediatric populations (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 1.88-15.56; p = 0.002). These findings underscore the persistent underrepresentation of women in critical care literature authorship and their slow progression into leadership roles, as evidenced by the disproportionately low number of female senior authors.

Overemphasis on publications may disadvantage historically excluded groups in STEM before and during COVID-19: A North American survey-based study

Publishing is a strong determinant of academic success and there is compelling evidence that identity may influence the academic writing experience and writing output. However, studies rarely quantitatively assess the effects of major life upheavals on trainee writing. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented life disruptions that may have disproportionately impacted different demographics of trainees. We analyzed anonymous survey responses from 342 North American environmental biology graduate students and postdoctoral scholars (hereafter trainees) about scientific writing experiences to assess: (1) how identity interacts with scholarly publication totals and (2) how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced trainee perceptions of scholarly writing productivity and whether there were differences among identities. Interestingly, identity had a strong influence on publication totals, but it differed by career stage with graduate students and postdoctoral scholars often having opposite results. We found that trainees identifying as female and those with chronic health conditions or disabilities lag in publication output at some point during training. Additionally, although trainees felt they had more time during the pandemic to write, they reported less productivity and motivation. Trainees who identified as female; Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color [BIPOC]; and as first-generation college graduates were much more likely to indicate that the pandemic affected their writing. Disparities in the pandemic's impact on writing were most pronounced for BIPOC respondents; a striking 85% of BIPOC trainees reported that the pandemic affected their writing habits, and overwhelmingly felt unproductive and unmotivated to write. Our results suggest that the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on writing output may only heighten the negative effects commonly reported amongst historically excluded trainees. Based on our findings, we encourage the academy to consider how an overemphasis on publication output during hiring may affect historically excluded groups in STEM-especially in a post-COVID-19 era.

Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor

First and last authorship are important metrics of productivity and scholarly success for trainees and professors. For 11 drug delivery-related journals in 2021, the percentage of female first (39.5%) and last (25.7%) authorship was reported. A strong negative correlation, with female first (rp = -0.73) and female last authorship (rp = -0.66), was observed with respect to journal impact factor. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation with male first and last authorship (rp = 0.71). Papers were ∼1.5 times more likely to have a male first author, and ∼3 times more likely to have a male last author, than females. A female was 22% more likely to have first authorship if the last author was female, although there is an ∼1% increase per year in female authorship with male last authorship, which equates to equality in first authorship by 2044. Considering that drug delivery is composed of engineering, chemistry, and pharmaceutical science disciplines, the observed 25.7% female last authorship does not represent the approximately 35.5% to 50% of professors that are female in these disciplines, internationally. Overall, female authorship in drug delivery-related journals should improve to better represent the work of female senior authors.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gender gap in research productivity within academia

Using measures of research productivity to assess academic performance puts women at a disadvantage because gender roles and unconscious biases, operating both at home and in academia, can affect research productivity. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research productivity has been the subject of a number of studies, including studies based on surveys and studies based on numbers of articles submitted to and/or published in journals. Here, we combine the results of 55 studies that compared the impact of the pandemic on the research productivity of men and women; 17 of the studies were based on surveys, 38 were based on article counts, and the total number of effect sizes was 130. We find that the gender gap in research productivity increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the largest changes occurring in the social sciences and medicine, and the changes in the biological sciences and TEMCP (technology, engineering, mathematics, chemistry and physics) being much smaller.

Gender Differences in Research Productivity of Academic Physicians Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: The gendered impact of the COVID-19 on scientific productivity has been primarily studied in nonclinical academic fields. We investigated the gendered effect of the pandemic on diverse measures of research participation among physician faculty, who experienced an increase in clinical duties concomitant with pandemic-era challenges to research. Materials and Methods: Physician faculty employed in both 2019 (prepandemic) and 2021 (pandemic era) were identified at one U.S. medical school. Annual outcomes included scientific publications, Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocols, and extramural funding submissions (funding data were unavailable for 2019). Mixed-effects Poisson regression models compared the pandemic impact by gender. Results: The study included 105 women and 116 men, contributing to 122 publications, 214 IRB protocols, and 99 extramural funding applications. Controlling for potential confounders such as faculty rank and track (tenure vs. nontenure), women's publication count increased by 140% during the pandemic (95% confidence interval [CI]: +40% to +310%, p = 0.001) but was unchanged among men (95% CI: -30% to +50%; p > 0.999). The number of IRB protocols decreased from 2019 to 2021, but to a greater extent among men than women. In 2021, there was no gender difference in the number of extramural funding submissions. Conclusions: Among physician faculty at our medical school, women achieved parity with men on multiple measures of scholarly activity, and women's research productivity outpaced that of men in the same faculty track and rank. Targeted initiatives to support research among women faculty, junior investigators, and clinical investigators may have helped avert exacerbation of prepandemic gender disparities in research participation.

Gender and racial differences in first and senior authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trial studies from 2000 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Females and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the first and senior authorships positions of academic publications. This stems from various structural and systemic inequalities and discrimination in the journal peer-review process, as well as educational, institutional, and organizational cultures.

METHODS

A retrospective bibliometric study design was used to investigate the representation of gender and racial/ethnic groups in the authorship of critical care randomized controlled trials in 12 high-impact journals from 2000 to 2022.

RESULTS

In the 1398 randomized controlled trials included in this study, only 24.61% of the first authors and 16.6% of the senior authors were female. Although female authorship increased during the study period, authorship was significantly higher for males throughout (Chi-square for trend, p < 0.0001). The educational attainment [χ²(4) = 99.2, p < 0.0001] and the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ²(42) = 70.3, p = 0.0029] were significantly associated with gender. Male authorship was significantly more prevalent in 10 out of 12 journals analyzed in this study [χ²(11) = 110.1, p < 0.0001]. The most common race/ethnic group in our study population was White (85.1% women, 85.4% males), followed by Asians (14.3% females, 14.3% males). Although there was a significant increase in the number of non-White authors between 2000 and 2022 [χ²(22) = 77.3, p < 0.0001], the trend was driven by an increase in non-White male and not non-White female authors. Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ²(41) = 1107, p < 0.0001] but not with gender or educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent gender and racial disparities in high-impact medical and critical care journals underscore the need to revise policies and strategies to encourage greater diversity in critical care research.

Analysis of peer reviewers' response to invitations by gender and geographical region: cohort study of manuscripts reviewed at 21 biomedical journals before and during covid-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To describe gender and geographical inequalities in invitations to review and the response to these invitations and to assess whether inequalities increased during the covid-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

19 specialist medical journals and two large general medical journals from BMJ Publishing Group.

POPULATION

Reviewers invited to review manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. The cohort was followed up to 28 February 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reviewer's agreement to review.

RESULTS

A total of 257 025 reviewers were invited (38.6% (88 454/228 869) women), and 90 467 (35.2%) agreed to review. Invited reviewers were mainly (217 682; 84.7%) affiliated with high income countries: Europe (122 414; 47.6%), North America (66 931; 26.0%), Africa (25 735; 10.0%), Asia (22 693; 8.8%), Oceania (16 175; 6.3%), and South America (3076; 1.2%). Independent factors associated with agreement to review were gender (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92, for women compared with men), geographical affiliation (2.89, 2.73 to 3.06, for Asia; 3.32, 2.94 to 3.75 for South America; 1.35, 1.27 to 1.43, for Oceania; and 0.35, 0.33 to 0.37, for Africa compared with Europe), and country income (0.47, 0.45 to 0.49, for upper middle income; 5.12, 4.67 to 5.61, for lower middle income; and 4.66, 3.79 to 5.73, for low income compared with high income country). Agreement was also independently associated with editor's gender (0.96, 0.93 to 0.99, for women compared with men), last author's geographical affiliation (0.80, 0.78 to 0.83, for Asia; 0.89, 0.85 to 0.94, for Oceania compared with Europe), impact factor (1.78, 1.27 to 2.50, for >10 compared with <5), and type of peer review process (0.52, 0.35 to 0.77, for open compared with anonymised). During the first and second phases of the pandemic, agreement was lower than in the pre-pandemic period (P<0.001). The interaction between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's gender was non-significant. However, significant interaction was found between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's geographical affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce bias and improve diversity, editors need to identify and implement effective strategies and continually evaluate progress against these to ensure that more women and researchers from upper middle income and low income countries are involved in review.

The Under-representation and Stagnation of Female, Black, and Hispanic Authorship in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine

Publication in leading medical journals is critical to knowledge dissemination and academic advancement alike. Leveraging a novel dataset comprised of nearly all articles published in JAMA and NEJM from 1990 to 2020, along with established reference works for name identification, we explore changing authorship demographics in two of the world's leading medical journals. Our main outcomes are the annual proportion of male and female authors and the proportion of racial/ethnic identities in junior and senior authorship positions for articles published in JAMA and NEJM since 1990. We found that women remain under-represented in research authorship in both JAMA (at its peak, 38.1% of articles had a female first author in 2011) and NEJM (peaking at 28.2% in 2002). The rate of increase is so slow that it will take more than a century for both journals to reach gender parity. Black and Hispanic researchers have likewise remained under-represented as first and last authors in both journals, even using the best-case scenario. Their appearance as authors has remained stagnant for three decades, despite attention to structural inequalities in medical academia. Thus, analysis of authorship demographics in JAMA and NEJM over the past three decades reveals the existence of inequalities in high-impact medical journal authorship. Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in authorship may both reflect and further contribute to disparities in academic advancement.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages.

OBJECTIVE

Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals.

RESULTS

During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women.

CONCLUSIONS

Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gendered research productivity and its correlates

Female researchers may have experienced more difficulties than their male counterparts since the COVID-19 outbreak because of gendered housework and childcare. To test it, we constructed a unique dataset that connects 15,280,382 scholarly publications and their 11,828,866 authors retrieved from Microsoft Academic Graph data between 2016 and 2020 to various national characteristics from LinkedIn, Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, and Covid-19 Community Mobility Reports from Google. Using the dataset, this study estimated how much the proportion of female authors in academic journals on a global scale changed in 2020 (net of recent yearly trends). We observed a decrease in research productivity for female researchers in 2020, mostly as first authors, followed by last author position. We also identified various factors that amplified the gender gap by dividing the authors' backgrounds into individual, organizational and national characteristics. Female researchers were more vulnerable when they were in their mid-career, affiliated to the least influential organizations, and more importantly from less gender-equal countries with higher mortality and restricted mobility as a result of COVID-19. Our findings suggest that female researchers were not necessarily excluded from but were marginalized in research since the COVID-19 outbreak and we discuss its policy implications.

Mapping intellectual structure and research hotspots in the field of fibroblast-associated DFUs: a bibliometric analysis

Background

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are one of the most popular and severe complications of diabetes. The persistent non-healing of DFUs may eventually contribute to severe complications such as amputation, which presents patients with significant physical and psychological challenges. Fibroblasts are critical cells in wound healing and perform essential roles in all phases of wound healing. In diabetic foot patients, the disruption of fibroblast function exacerbates the non-healing of the wound. This study aimed to summarize the hotspots and evaluate the global research trends on fibroblast-related DFUs through bibliometric analysis.

Methods

Scientific publications on the study of fibroblast-related DFUs from January 1, 2000 to April 27, 2022 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Biblioshiny software was primarily performed for the visual analysis of the literature, CiteSpace software and VOSviewer software were used to validate the results.

Results

A total of 479 articles on fibroblast-related DFUs were retrieved. The most published countries, institutions, journals, and authors in this field were the USA, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Wound Repair and Regeneration, and Seung-Kyu Han. In addition, keyword co-occurrence networks, historical direct citation networks, thematic map, and the trend topics map summarize the research hotspots and trends in this field.

Conclusion

Current studies indicated that research on fibroblast-related DFUs is attracting increasing concern and have clinical implications. The cellular and molecular mechanisms of the DFU pathophysiological process, the molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets associated with DFUs angiogenesis, and the measures to promote DFUs wound healing are three worthy research hotspots in this field.

Disparities in COVID-19 Impacts on Work Hours and Career Satisfaction by Gender and Race among Scientists in the US: An Online Survey Study

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on work–life balance may be unequal between female and male scientists. Further information is needed regarding whether the working conditions and career satisfaction for women and racialized scientists are disproportionately affected by the pandemic. This online survey collected data from 1171 scientists in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and medicine (STEMM), public health, or other areas of science/engineering working in the US to examine potential disparities in changes in work hours and career satisfaction by gender and race/ethnicity. A significantly higher percentage of women reported increased work hours compared to men. Women, especially racialized women, experienced disproportionately higher increases in teaching and service than the other groups, which contributed to the increased total work hours for women. Satisfaction with the current career progress was lowest for racialized women compared to their counterparts. Our results indicate that the pandemic has inequitably affected allocation of workloads and career satisfaction by gender and race in scientific fields. Institutions of higher education and other research organizations should acknowledge the gender/race differences in science before and during the pandemic to better support the career development and achievement of all scientists, especially women and even more so racialized women.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists' productivity in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and medicine fields

While studies suggested adverse impacts of COVID-19 on scientific outputs and work routines for scientists, more evidence is required to understand detailed obstacles challenging scientists' work and productivity during the pandemic, including how different people are affected (e.g., by gender). This online survey-based thematic analysis investigated how the pandemic affected scientists' perception of scientific and academic productivity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and medicine fields. The analysis examined if inequitable changes in duties and responsibilities for caregiving for children, family, and/or households exist between scientists who are mothers compared to scientists who are fathers or non-parents. The survey collected data from 2548 survey responses in six languages across 132 countries. Results indicate that many scientists suffered from delays and restrictions on research activities and administrations due to the lockdown of institutions, as well as increased workloads from adapting to online teaching environment. Caregiving responsibility for children and family increased, which compromised time for academic efforts, especially due to the temporary shutdown of social supports. Higher percentages of female parent participants than male parent participants expressed such increased burdens indicating unequal divisions of caregiving between women and men. A range of physical and mental health issues was identified mainly due to overworking and isolation. Despite numerous obstacles, some participants reported advantages during the pandemic including the efficiency of online teaching, increased funding for COVID-related research, application of alternative research methodologies, and fluidity of the workday from not commuting. Findings imply the need for rapid institutional support to aid various academic activities and diminish gender inequity in career development among academicians, highlighting how crisis can exacerbate existing inequalities.

A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Gender and Career Status Differences in the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Underrepresented Postdoctoral Fellows and Early-Career Faculty

PURPOSE

The lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the biomedical workforce is pronounced and those from underrepresented backgrounds encounter more challenges than their majority counterparts. The extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early-career investigators from underrepresented backgrounds is not yet fully understood. To examine the impact of the pandemic on underrepresented early-career biomedical researchers, this study evaluated differences in productivity, research, and psychological well-being by gender and career status.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional analysis of preintervention data, collected in September-October 2020, from 220 participants enrolled in the Building Up a Diverse Biomedical Research Workforce study. Participants were from 25 academic medical centers in the United States and were underrepresented early-career researchers. The primary outcomes were agreement on a 5-point Likert scale with pandemic impact statements (e.g., "The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted my ability to conduct research"). Thematic analysis was conducted on responses to 2 open-ended questions assessing the pandemic's impact.

RESULTS

Most participants were female (79.9%), of non-Hispanic/Latinx/Spanish origin Black/African American (33.2%) or Hispanic/Latinx/Spanish origin (34.1%), and early-career faculty (53.4%). Over half of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted their ability to work (55.7%) and conduct research (70.7%). Themes from qualitative analysis suggested lower research productivity, concerns about the academic job market and funding, and psychological distress due to the pandemic. Women were more likely to attribute lost productivity and psychological distress to homeschooling and childcare responsibilities. Postdoctoral fellows were concerned about more competition for fewer academic positions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of early-career underrepresented biomedical researchers, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely felt by participants, varying by gender and career status. For those postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty who are underrepresented, it is critical for institutions to offer flexibility in their positions.

Scientific authorship by gender: trends before and during a global pandemic

Many fields of science are still dominated by men. COVID-19 has dramatically changed the nature of work, including for scientists, such as lack of access to key resources and transition to online teaching. Further, scientists face the pandemic-related stressors common to other professions (e.g., childcare, eldercare). As many of these activities fall more heavily on women, the pandemic may have exacerbated gender disparities in science. We analyzed self-identified gender of corresponding author for 119,592 manuscripts from 151 countries submitted January 2019 to July 2021 to the Institute of Physics (IOP) portfolio of 57 academic journals, with disciplines of astronomy and astrophysics, bioscience, environmental science, materials, mathematics, physics, and interdisciplinary research. We consider differences by country, journal, and pre-pandemic versus pandemic periods. Gender was self-identified by corresponding author for 82.9% of manuscripts (N = 99,114 for subset of submissions with gender). Of these manuscripts, authors were 82.1% male, 17.8% female, and 0.08% non-binary. Most authors were male for all countries (country-specific values: range 0.0-100.0%, median 86.1%) and every journal (journal-specific values range 63.7-91.5%, median 83.7%). The contribution of female authors was slightly higher in the pandemic (18.7%) compared to pre-pandemic (16.5%). However, prior to the pandemic, the percent of submissions from women had been increasing, and this value slowed during the pandemic. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find that manuscript submissions from women decreased during the pandemic, although the rate of increased submissions evident prior to the pandemic slowed. In both pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, authorship was overwhelmingly male for all journals, countries, and fields. Further research is needed on impacts of the pandemic on other measures of scientific productivity (e.g., accepted manuscripts, teaching), scientific position (e.g., junior vs. senior scholars), as well as the underlying gender imbalance that persisted before and during the pandemic.

Trends of research productivity across author gender and research fields: A multidisciplinary and multi-country observational study

Bibliographic properties of more than 75 million scholarly articles, are examined and trends in overall research productivity are analysed as a function of research field (over the period of 1970-2020) and author gender (over the period of 2006-2020). Potential disruptive effects of the Covid-19 pandemic are also investigated. Over the last decade (2010-2020), the annual number of publications have invariably increased every year with the largest relative increase in a single year happening in 2019 (more than 6% relative growth). But this momentum was interrupted in 2020. Trends show that Environmental Sciences and Engineering Environmental have been the fastest growing research fields. The disruption in patterns of scholarly publication due to the Covid-19 pandemic was unevenly distributed across fields, with Computer Science, Engineering and Social Science enduring the most notable declines. The overall trends of male and female productivity indicate that, in terms of absolute number of publications, the gender gap does not seem to be closing in any country. The trends in absolute gap between male and female authors is either parallel (e.g., Canada, Australia, England, USA) or widening (e.g., majority of countries, particularly Middle Eastern countries). In terms of the ratio of female to male productivity, however, the gap is narrowing almost invariably, though at markedly different rates across countries. While some countries are nearing a ratio of .7 and are well on track for a 0.9 female to male productivity ratio, our estimates show that certain countries (particularly across the Middle East) will not reach such targets within the next 100 years. Without interventional policies, a significant gap will continue to exist in such countries. The decrease or increase in research productivity during the first year of the pandemic, in contrast to trends established before 2020, was generally parallel for male and female authors. There has been no substantial gender difference in the disruption due to the pandemic. However, opposite trends were found in a few cases. It was observed that, in some countries (e.g., The Netherlands, The United States and Germany), male productivity has been more negatively affected by the pandemic. Overall, female research productivity seems to have been more resilient to the disruptive effect of Covid-19 pandemic, although the momentum of female researchers has been negatively affected in a comparable manner to that of males.

Differences in self-perception of productivity and mental health among the STEMM-field scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic by sex and status as a parent: A survey in six languages

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented challenges for working conditions for scientists, but little is known for how the associations of these challenges with scientists' mental health and productivity differ by sex and status as a parent. This online survey study in six languages collected data from 4,494 scientists in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine fields across 132 countries during October-December 2021. We compared the type of challenges for work, changes in work hours, and perception in productivity during the pandemic by sex and status as a parent (children <18 years living at home). Regression analyses analyzed the impacts of changed working conditions and work-life factors on productivity and mental health. We found that the percentage of participants with increased work hours was the highest in female participants, especially without children. Disproportionately higher increases in work hours were found for teaching and administration in women than men and for research/fundraising in non-parent participants than parent participants (p-value<0.001). Female participants were more concerned about the negative impacts of the pandemic on publications and long-term career progress, and less satisfied with their career progress than their male counterparts. There were differences in the type of institutional actions for the pandemic across study regions. The identified obstacles for work and home-life factors were associated with higher risks of experiencing depression, anxiety, and stress. Decision makers should consider the gender differences in the pandemic's adverse impacts on productivity in establishing equitable actions for career progress for scientists during pandemics.

Evolution and Trends in Male Versus Female Authorship of Articles in Flagship Orthopaedic Journals From 1995 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

The gender disparity in orthopaedic surgery has been recognized for many years. Because research affects promotions, this study investigates trends in female authorship in three journals over the past 25 years for both first and senior authors.

METHODS

All articles from Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research from 1995 to 2020 in 5-year intervals were downloaded, and the data for first and senior authors were extracted. The sex of the first and senior authors was determined using the validated Genderize algorithm. The demographics of the first and senior author cohorts were analyzed using chi square tests. The trends in female authorship controlling for year and journal were assessed with logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Within the studied journals, 5,636 individuals were identified as first authors and 4,572 as senior authors. Sex was determined for 82.59% of the authors. Female first authorship increased significantly from 1995 to 2020 (6.70% to 15.37%, P < 0.001). Similarly, female senior authorship increased significantly from 1995 to 2020 (8.22% to 13.65%, P < 0.001). Overall, there was no significant difference in gender composition of authors between journals (P = 0.700 first author and P = 0.098 senior author). Women were much more likely to publish as first or senior author in later years, regardless of the journal (P < 0.001 first author and P < 0.001 senior author).

DISCUSSION

Female authorship in prominent orthopaedic journals has increased markedly from 1995 to 2020 with interjournal differences in senior author gender disparity. Although female orthopaedic surgeons publish at rates equal to or greater than their representation in the specialty, additional research is needed into the persistence of gender disparities in orthopaedics.

Gender differences in authorship prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic in research submissions to Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2017-2021)

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted productivity of female academics in the field of occupational and environmental health, by examining trends in male and female authorship of submissions during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

METHODS

Administrative data on submissions between January 2017 and November 2021 were obtained through databases held at BMJ journals. Author gender was identified using an existing algorithm based on matching names to social media accounts. The number and proportion of female and male primary (first) and senior (last) authors were examined for each quarter, and the average change in share of monthly submissions from male authors in the months since the pandemic compared with corresponding months prior to the pandemic were identified using regression models estimating least squares means.

RESULTS

Among 2286 (64.7%) and 2335 (66.1%) manuscripts for which first and last author gender were identified, respectively, 49.3% of prepandemic submissions were from male first authors, increasing to 55.4% in the first year of the pandemic (difference of 6.1%, 95% CI 1.3% to 10.7%), before dropping to 46.6% from April 2021 onwards. Quarterly counts identified a large increase in submissions from male authors during the first year after the onset of the pandemic, and a smaller increase from female authors. The proportion of male last authors did not change significantly during the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that there has been an increase in male productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic within the field of occupational and environmental health research that is present to a lesser extent among women.

Impact of the Pandemic on the Teaching and Research Staff at a Technological University in Spain: Deepening the Gender Gap

The alteration of the educational model caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has not affected all university faculty equally. This work explores the academic, digital and gender inequalities caused by the pandemic on the teaching and research staff of a technological university for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines in Spain, the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya—BarcelonaTech (UPC). The study considers an anonymous survey with a non-probabilistic voluntary sample (n = 355). The results of the survey reveal that, over these months, the teaching and research staff of the university, regardless of gender, has significantly increased its academic activity due especially to the number of hours devoted to virtual teaching compared to its teaching dedication in a situation of normalcy. This study shows that the lockdown has strongly affected women who are more vulnerable to crisis. In particular, the negative impact on research has been higher in female faculty staff from the UPC, who already face disparities regarding promotion and, during lockdown, stated more difficulties with household work reconciliation. From the results of this study, it is possible to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened the gender gap in the academic field.

The Changes in the Daily Lives and Life Satisfaction of Female Academicians during the Pandemic Process

Objective: The new type of coronavirus (COVID-19) disease has more serious consequences and risks by gender and plays a role in biological, socio-cultural and behavioral differences. This process is particularly severe in terms of the problems faced by women and some disadvantaged groups. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of changes in the daily lives of female academicians on life satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic process. Methods: The sample of this descriptive study consists of 178 female academicians who have been actively working at a public university in the northeast of Turkey between Oct 1, 2020 and Feb 1, 2021. The data of the research were collected by "Personal Information Form" and "Contentment with Life Scale". Descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, average), Pearson product-moment correlation analysis, t-test, and ANOVA test were used to evaluate the data. Results: It was found that 83.1% of the female academicians preferred to stay at their own homes and 52.8% of them did not receive support while fulfilling their daily responsibilities during the pandemic process in which female academicians had to work and learn at home. The total score of the Contentment with Life Scale of female academicians was found to be 20.15 ± 6.95. Female academicians who participated in the study had moderate level of contentment with life. It was determined in the study that the increase in the time spent on academic development, academic studies, and themselves increased female academicians’ life contentment and was statistically significant (p˂0.05). It was found that increased time spent for housework decreased life satisfaction. Conclusions: It was determined that professional and individual development is quite significant in increasing life satisfaction in female academicians. That strategies that can increase female academicians life contentment should be developed and women who are sensitive and need to be protected should be supported more in this situation.

Further Divided Gender Gaps in Research Productivity and Collaboration during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Coronavirus-related Literature

Based on publication data on coronavirus-related fields, this study applies a difference in differences approach to explore the evolution of gender inequalities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the differences in the numbers and shares of authorships, leadership in publications, gender composition of collaboration, and scientific impacts. We find that, during the pandemic: (1) females’ leadership in publications as the first author was negatively affected; (2) although both females and males published more papers relative to the pre-pandemic period, the gender gaps in the share of authorships have been strengthened due to the larger increase in males’ authorships; (3) the share of publications by mixed-gender collaboration declined; (4) papers by teams in which females play a key role were less cited in the pre-pandemic period, and this citation disadvantage was exacerbated during the pandemic; and (5) gender inequalities regarding authorships and collaboration were enhanced in the initial stage of COVID-19, widened with the increasing severity of COVID-19, and returned to the pre-pandemic level in September 2020. This study shows that females’ lower participation in teams as major contributors and less collaboration with their male colleagues also reflect their underrepresentation in science in the pandemic period. This investigation significantly deepens our understanding of how the pandemic influenced academia, based on which science policies and gender policy changes are proposed to mitigate the gender gaps.

COVID-19 effect on the gender gap in academic publishing

The authors wanted to verify a popular belief that women scholars have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the first names of authors of 266,409 articles from 2813 journals in 21 disciplines, and we found no significant differences between men and women in publication patterns between 2021, 2020, and 2019 overall. However, we found significant differences in publication patterns between gender in different disciplines. In addition, in disciplines where the proportion of women authors is higher, there are fewer single-authored articles. In the multi-author articles if the first author is female, there is more gender balance among authors, although there are still fewer women co-authors.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Authors and Reviewers of American Geophysical Union Journals

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the scientific workforce in many ways. Many worried that stay-at-home orders would disproportionately harm the productivity and well-being of women and early-career scientists, who were expected to shoulder more childcare, homeschooling, and other domestic duties while also interrupting field and lab research, essential for career advancement. AGU journal submission and author and reviewer demographic data allowed us to investigate the effect the pandemic may have had on many Earth and space scientists, especially on women and early career scientists. However, we found that submissions to AGU journals increased during the pandemic as did total submissions from women (with no difference in the proportion). Although the rate at which women agreed to review decreased slightly (down 0.5%), women still made up a larger proportion of agreed reviewers during the pandemic compared to 2 years earlier. Little difference was seen overall in median times to complete reviews except with women in their 40s and 70s, suggesting that they were affected more during the pandemic than other age and gender groups. Although AGU's data do not show that the effects of the pandemic decreased women's participation in AGU journals, the lag between research and writing/submitting may still be seen in later months, which we will continue to report on as we analyze the data. The stay-at-home orders may also have allowed people to devote time to writing up research conducted prepandemic; writing too can be done during down-time hours, which may have supported the increase in submissions to and reviews for AGU journals.

Mapping Intellectual Structures and Research Hotspots of Triple Negative Breast Cancer: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a highly heterogeneous breast cancer subtype with a poor prognosis due to its extremely aggressive nature and lack of effective treatment options. This study aims to summarize the current hotspots of TNBC research and evaluate the TNBC research trends, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Methods

Scientific publications of TNBC-related studies from January 1, 2010 to October 17, 2020 were obtained from the Web of Science database. The BICOMB software was used to obtain the high-frequency keywords layout. The gCLUTO was used to produce a biclustering analysis on the binary matrix of word-paper. The co-occurrence and collaboration analysis between authors, countries, institutions, and keywords were performed by VOSviewer software. Keyword burst detection was performed by CiteSpace.

Results

A total of 12,429 articles related to TNBC were identified. During 2010-2020, the most productive country/region and institution in TNBC field was the USA and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, respectively. Cancer Research, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and Annals of Oncology were the first three periodicals with maximum publications in TNBC research. Eight research hotspots of TNBC were identified by co-word analysis. In the core hotspots, research on neoadjuvant chemotherapy, paclitaxel therapy, and molecular typing of TNBC is relatively mature. Research on immunotherapy and PARP inhibitor for TNBC is not yet mature but is the current focus of this field. Burst detection of keywords showed that studies on TNBC proteins and receptors, immunotherapy, target, and tumor cell migration showed bursts in recent three years.

Conclusion

The current study revealed that TNBC studies are growing. Attention should be paid to the latest hotspots, such as immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors, target, and TNBC proteins and receptors.

Working role of women in a pandemic world: a poetic inquiry

Purpose

The sudden outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of people globally, and it has exacerbated the existing gender inequalities that have affected women. The purpose of this study is to understand the perceptions of women concerning gender inequality in the workplace during the current pandemic. The goal is to give women a voice so they can explain their feelings regarding the problems they face in a pandemic world.

Design/methodology/approach

In this study, four poetic inquiries were developed to investigate how the lives of working women were changed during the pandemic in Italy. Poetic methodology is a creative and aesthetic representation of qualitative research that is capable of reporting data with more fluidity and freedom.

Findings

The results suggest that the gender gap is increasing and is embodied in a series of relational and economic problems related to remote work, in difficulty in reconciling private and work life and in a series of new telematic violence against women.

Practical implications

This study offers practical implications for policymakers by suggesting the application of diversity management initiatives to remove barriers to gender equality.

Originality/value

This study, through a poetic approach, is the first to investigate women's perceptions during the pandemic related to difficulties experienced in the work sphere.

Gender trends in authorship of Pediatric Radiology publications and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has heightened existing gender differences in academic productivity in medicine. There have been discrepant repercussions for women in academics due to the pandemic, including fewer publications, potentially impacting academic advancement.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends over time in the gender of authors of manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective review of unsolicited manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology from January 2017 to December 2020 included only submissions from North America. For each submission, genders of the first, last (senior) and corresponding authors were inferred by inspection or confirmed by internet search. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare authorship gender proportions. Quarterly comparisons between 2019 and 2020 were performed to assess for differences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2020, 1,018 manuscripts were submitted. There was no significant difference in female authorship over time (P > 0.05 for first, last and corresponding authors), but there was an increase in female first authorship (38.6% in 2017, 43.2% in 2020). The frequencies of female first (P = 0.03) and last (P = 0.01) authors were significantly higher for educational manuscripts (reviews and pictorial essays) versus other manuscript types. Manuscript submissions increased in the second quarter of 2020; however, there was a statistically significant decrease in last authorship by women during this period (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Female authorship of manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology has remained relatively stable between 2017 and 2020. During the early phase (March-May 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic, female last authorship was significantly lower versus the previous year.

Journal submissions, review and editorial decision patterns during initial COVID-19 restrictions

We use the full administrative records from four leading agricultural economics journals to study the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on manuscript submission, editorial desk rejection and reviewer acceptance rates, and time to editorial decision. We also test for gender differences in these impacts. Manuscript submissions increased sharply and equi-proportionately by gender. Desk rejection rates remained stable, leading to increased demand for reviews. Female reviewers became eight percentage points more likely to decline a review invitation during the early stage of the pandemic. First editorial decisions for papers sent out for peer review occurred significantly faster after pandemic lockdowns began. Overall, the initial effects of the pandemic on journal editorial tasks and review patterns appear relatively modest, despite the increased number of submissions handled by editors and reviewers. We find no evidence in agricultural economics of a generalized disruption to near-term, peer-reviewed publication.

Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.

Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

Nine specialist and two large general medical journals.

POPULATION

Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome: first author's gender.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

Shaping the Future of Science: COVID-19 Highlighting the Importance of GeoHealth

From the heated debates over the airborne transmission of the novel coronavirus to the abrupt Earth system changes caused by the sudden lockdowns, the dire circumstances resulting from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have brought the field of GeoHealth to the forefront of visibility in science and policy. The pandemic has inadvertently provided an opportunity to study how human response has impacted the Earth system, how the Earth system may impact the pandemic, and the capacity of GeoHealth to inform real-time policy. The lessons learned throughout our responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are shaping the future of GeoHealth.

Will COVID-19 result in a giant step backwards for women in academic science?

COVID-19 has disproportionately placed women in academic science on the frontlines of domestic and clinical care compared to men. As a result, women in science are publishing less and potentially acquiring less funding during COVID-19 than compared to before. This widens the pre-existing gap between men and women in prevailing, publication-based measures of productivity used to determine academic career progression. Early career women and those with intersectional identities associated with greater inequities, are facing unique challenges during this time. We argue that women will fall further behind unless academic reward systems adjust how and what they evaluate. We propose several strategies that academic institutions, funders, journals, and men in academic science can take.