Does double-blind peer review impact gender authorship trends? An evaluation of two leading neurosurgical journals from 2010 to 2019

Posters Presented at North American Skull Base Society 2016-2018: What Factors Influence Their Publication?

Objective  Research productivity impacts an individual's academic credentials and serves to advance the field of neurosurgery at large. Poster presentations allow researchers to share preliminary results with respected colleagues; however, more critical is the ability to publish peer-reviewed articles. Key factors that lead posters to journal publication are not well understood and difficult to quantify. This study investigates the association between bibliometrics of authors who presented posters at the North American Skull Base Society (NASBS) meeting and odds of journal publication. Methods  Posters from the 2016 to 2018 NASBS archive were reviewed. Hirsch-index (h-index) of first (FH) and senior (SH) authors, research type, research topic, and number of poster authors (nAuthPost) were collected. For posters published as journal articles, number of days from poster presentation to publication (nDays), number of authors in published articles (nAuthArt), and journal impact factor (JIF) were recorded. Results  One-hundred sixty-nine of 481 posters (35.1%) were published as articles. Median FH and SH for published versus unpublished posters were 7 versus 5 ( p  = 0.01) and 29 versus 19 ( p  < 0.001), respectively. When adjusted with multivariate regression, only SH ( p  < 0.001) and nAuthPost ( p  = 0.001) were significantly associated with odds of publication. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) nDays was 361 (394). Increased authors from poster to article ( p  = 0.017) and lower FH ( p  = 0.08) were correlated with increased time to publication. Median (IQR) JIF for all publications was 1.723 (1.068). Conclusions  Bibliometrics such as h-index and number of authors from posters can help objectively characterize and predict future success in research productivity.

Evaluating Match and Attrition Rates for Women and African Americans in Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Previous efforts to increase diversity in neurosurgery have been aimed primarily at female inclusion while little analysis of other under-represented groups has been performed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate match and retention rates of under-represented groups in neurosurgery, specifically Black and female applicants compared with non-Black and male applicants.

METHODS

Match lists, Electronic Residency Application Service data, and National Resident Matching Program data were retrospectively reviewed along with publicly available residency program information for successful matriculants from 2017 to 2020. Residents were classified into demographic groups, and analysis of match and retention rates was performed.

RESULTS

For 1780 applicants from 2017 to 2020, 439 identified as female while 1341 identified as male. Of these 1780 applicants, 128 identified as Black and 1652 identified as non-Black. Male and female applicants matched at similar rates ( P = .76). Black applicants matched at a lower rate than non-Black applicants ( P < .001). From 2017 to 2020, neither race nor sex was associated with retention as 94.1% of male applicants and 93.2% of female applicants were retained ( P = .63). In total, 95.2% of Black residents and 93.9% of non-Black residents were retained ( P = .71). No intraregional or inter-regional differences in retention were found for any group.

CONCLUSION

Although sex parity has improved, Black applicants match at lower rates than non-Black applicants but are retained after matriculation at similar rates. Neurosurgery continues to recruit fewer female applicants than male applicants. More work is needed to extend diversity to recruit under-represented applicants. Future studies should target yearly follow-up of retention and match rates to provide trends as a measure of diversification progress within the field.

Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?

Male researchers dominate scientific production in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, potential mechanisms to avoid this gender imbalance remain poorly explored in STEM, including ecology and evolution areas. In the last decades, changes in the peer-review process towards double-anonymized (DA) have increased among ecology and evolution (EcoEvo) journals. Using comprehensive data on articles from 18 selected EcoEvo journals with an impact factor >1, we tested the effect of the DA peer-review process in female-leading (i.e., first and senior authors) articles. We tested whether the representation of female-leading authors differs between double and single-anonymized (SA) peer-reviewed journals. Also, we tested if the adoption of the DA by previous SA journals has increased the representativeness of female-leading authors over time. We found that publications led by female authors did not differ between DA and SA journals. Moreover, female-leading articles did not increase after changes from SA to DA peer-review. Tackling female underrepresentation in science is a complex task requiring many interventions. Still, our results highlight that adopting the DA peer-review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in EcoEvo scientific publications. Ecologists and evolutionists understand how diversity is important to ecosystems' resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this "diversity" in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.

Authorship Gender Composition in Urology Literature From 2015 Through 2020

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current landscape of first and last female authorship in urology journals relative to the journals' impact factor. We hypothesized that women would have a smaller proportion of publications in journals with higher impact factors.

METHODS

Eighteen urology journals were divided into groups based on impact factor accordingly: from 33.2 to 6.2 were classified as high (European Urology, Nature Reviews Urology, The Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and The Journal of Sexual Medicine), from 5.8 to 5.0 as medium (Asian Journal of Andrology, European Urology Focus, Sexual Medicine Reviews, Bladder Cancer, Prostate and World Journal of Urology), and from 4.8 to 2.2 as low (Urologic Oncology, Journal of Endourology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology and Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery). A computer script was designed using Python to search PubMed and record first and last author of publications between 2015 and 2020. Gender was determined by Gender-Api (https://gender-api.com). Names with an accuracy of <90% were excluded. Type of peer-review and scope of each journal were also analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Matlab.

RESULTS

A total of 37,413 first and 28,414 last authors were identified during the study period. Overall, women represented 21% (8,029/37,413) of first and 15% (4,232/28,414) of last authors. Women were significantly less published in high impact journals compared to both medium and low impact journals (P <.001 in all). Among all journals, articles with female first authors were more likely to have a female last author (OR: 2.72, CI: 2.5-2.9, P <.001). Subspecialty journals had more female last authors than general journals (P <.05), and female representation increased if reviews were double-blinded (P <.001). Over the last 6 years, there has been a significant increase in female senior authorship among all journals (P = .045).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of female authorship was significantly lower in higher impact urology journals. While the underlying cause is likely multifactorial, this finding highlights a gender discrepancy that may impact women's ability to achieve career goals in academic medicine when compared to their male counterparts.

A step toward equal representation? A cross-sectional analysis of the gender composition of neurosurgical editorial boards from 2000 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

At present, females constitute less than 10% of neurosurgeons in the US, despite representing approximately half of all medical students. Multiple barriers have been described for females entering the neurosurgical field, particularly academic neurosurgery. Understanding the environment that female neurosurgeons face and any potential barriers preventing career advancement is needed to recruit, promote, and retain females in neurosurgery.

METHODS

The gender composition of editorial boards for 5 high-impact neurosurgery journals was analyzed from 2000 to 2020. The names of editorial board members were obtained directly from the journal administration, physical copies of the published journal, or publicly available data through each journal's website. The gender, degrees, academic titles, H-index, and country were determined for each individual and statistical tests were performed to identify significant differences.

RESULTS

Of the 466 identified individuals that served on at least one editorial board between 2000 and 2020, there were 36 females (7.7%) and 430 males (92.3%). There were no significant differences between males and females serving on multiple editorial boards. Most females possessed an additional graduate degree (58.3%), while only one-third of males (33.5%) obtained such a degree (p = 0.002). In addition, males had significantly higher average H-indices than females (p = 0.002). These trends were also observed when analyzing only US-based editorial board members. Although females were more likely overall to be identified as associate professors, males were more likely to be appointed as full professors (p = 0.001); this trend did not remain true in the US-based cohort. When analyzing the editorial boards for individual journals, all 5 journals experienced an increase of female representation since 2000 or since their inception after 2000. The highest proportion of females for a single journal was 27.3% in 2020. All other journals ranged from 11.0% to 13.5% in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

When entering the field of neurosurgery, females continue to face significant social and academic barriers. While the proportion of females on editorial boards for neurosurgery journals in 2020 is consistent with the proportion of practicing female neurosurgeons, there is a statistically significantly higher likelihood that females possess additional graduate degrees and lower H-indices compared to their male counterparts. The authors encourage neurosurgical journals to continue expanding female representation on editorial boards.

Gender Gap in Neurology Research Authorship (1946-2020)

Gender disparity in the field of neurology impedes scientific advancements and innovations. In 2018, 45.0% of neurology and neurological subspecialty residents were women. Despite a notable rise in the proportion of women neurologists over the past decades, inequalities regarding publication proportions between men and women persist in the field. This cohort study examines authorship trends in articles published in 155 international neurology journals, identified as those listed in the annual Journal Citation Reports' “Clinical Neurology” section. Authors' names, authorship positions and countries of affiliation were extracted from PubMed for indexed articles published from 1946 to 2020. Gender-API (a validated and highly accurate application program interface) assigned binary genders to authors. Author gender proportions were compared across subspecialties, authorship position and years. In 303,385 unique articles, 1,663,036 total authors were identified of which 34.1% were women. Neuroradiology demonstrated the lowest proportion of women authors (21.3%), while neurogenetics displayed the highest (44.5%). In articles with multiple authors, both men and women last authors were more likely to publish with a male first author, though this was significantly more pronounced for men last authors (1.86 vs. 1.08; p < 0.001). From 2002 to 2020, women remained in the minority of last (24.6%), first (36.2%), and middle author positions (35.8%). The authorship gender distribution in neurological journals neither reflects the gender proportion of neurologists in the field overall nor in any subspecialty examined. We also find a tendency for senior and junior authors of the same gender to publish together which perpetuates authorship inequity. Further work is needed to identify underlying causes so that interventions might be developed to improve authorship diversity.