Contribution of women authors in French medical journals from 1983 to 2019

PURPOSE

Despite the feminization of the medical profession, the academic world remains largely male-dominated. Several studies conducted in the English-speaking world have shown that women are published less than men. Our goal is to define the evolution of the role of women in five French medical journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The articles from five French journals (Revue du Praticien, Bulletin du Cancer, Exercer, Presse Médicale, Cancer/Radiothérapie) published in February between 1983 and 2019 were included. We selected twelve years from that period of time. The analysis was completed using Cochran-Armitage tests with a significance level of<0,05. Among the authors, 4397 were included in total and we were able to determine the gender of 4309 of them.

RESULTS

The percentage of female authors went from 16% in 1983 to 36.4% in 2019 (p<0.001). This rise is more significant for those specializing in surgery than for those specializing in medicine, with a percentage going from 14% to 38.5% (p<0.001) against 16.8% to 35.4% (p<0.001) respectively. In 2019, women still only represent 30.2% of the last authors, 27.6% of editorial authors and 30.6% of corresponding authors.

CONCLUSION

Our study underlines a significant increase in the number of female authors and highlights that their position as authors remains on the margins of the most prestigious authorial positions. While we can celebrate this increase, we nevertheless notice that there are fewer female authors than female practitioners.

[COVID-19 and medical publications: How three articles have influenced the media and public decisions in France]

Cet article détaille le processus et les aléas de publication de trois articles se rapportant au SARS-CoV-2 et à la maladie qu’il provoque (COVID-19). Ces trois articles ont été publiés à un mois d’intervalle, entre mars et mai 2020. Leur médiatisation a conduit les autorités de santé françaises à intervenir. Notre article ne s’intéresse pas et n’évalue pas la qualité scientifique des articles présentés, mais a pour unique objectif d’ouvrir la réflexion sur la publication médicale. En décrivant ces trois cas particuliers, il soulève des questions sur la rétractation des articles, l’évaluation par les pairs, la prépublication, la paternité des articles, et la diffusion des informations scientifiques médicales y compris via les médias de masse. Il discute des nouveaux modes d’édition qui se profilent et de la diffusion des informations publiées en recherche clinique.