The role of gender in scholarly authorship

Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities reveals a number of understated and persistent ways in which gender inequities remain. For instance, even where raw publication counts seem to be equal between genders, close inspection reveals that, in certain fields, men predominate in the prestigious first and last author positions. Moreover, women are significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers. Academics should be aware of the subtle ways that gender disparities can occur in scholarly authorship.

Women Physicians and Promotion in Academic Medicine

BACKGROUND

In 2000, a landmark study showed that women who graduated from U.S. medical schools from 1979 through 1997 were less likely than their male counterparts to be promoted to upper faculty ranks in academic medical centers. It is unclear whether these differences persist.

METHODS

We merged data from the Association of American Medical Colleges on all medical school graduates from 1979 through 2013 with faculty data through 2018, and we compared the percentages of women who would be expected to be promoted on the basis of the proportion of women in the graduating class with the actual percentages of women who were promoted. We calculated Kaplan-Meier curves and used adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models to examine the differences between the early cohorts (1979-1997) and the late cohorts (1998-2013).

RESULTS

The sample included 559,098 graduates from 134 U.S. medical schools. In most of the cohorts, fewer women than expected were promoted to the rank of associate or full professor or appointed to the post of department chair. Findings were similar across basic science and clinical departments. In analyses that included all the cohorts, after adjustment for graduation year, race or ethnic group, and department type, women assistant professors were less likely than their male counterparts to be promoted to associate professor (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.78). Similar sex disparities existed in promotions to full professor (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.81) and appointments to department chair (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.54). These sex differences in promotions and appointments did not diminish over time and were not smaller in the later cohorts than in the earlier cohorts. The sex differences were even larger in the later cohorts with respect to promotion to full professor.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a 35-year period, women physicians in academic medical centers were less likely than men to be promoted to the rank of associate or full professor or to be appointed to department chair, and there was no apparent narrowing in the gap over time. (Funded by the University of Kansas Medical Center Joy McCann Professorship for Women in Medicine and the American Association of University Women.).

The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?

Women comprise a minority of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) workforce. Quantifying the gender gap may identify fields that will not reach parity without intervention, reveal underappreciated biases, and inform benchmarks for gender balance among conference speakers, editors, and hiring committees. Using the PubMed and arXiv databases, we estimated the gender of 36 million authors from >100 countries publishing in >6000 journals, covering most STEMM disciplines over the last 15 years, and made a web app allowing easy access to the data (https://lukeholman.github.io/genderGap/). Despite recent progress, the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths. The gap is especially large in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals have fewer women authors. Additionally, we estimate that men are invited by journals to submit papers at approximately double the rate of women. Wealthy countries, notably Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, had fewer women authors than poorer ones. We conclude that the STEMM gender gap will not close without further reforms in education, mentoring, and academic publishing.

In most fields of science, medicine, and technology research, men comprise more than half of the workforce, particularly at senior levels. Most previous work has concluded that the gender gap is smaller today than it was in the past, giving the impression that there will soon be equal numbers of men and women researchers and that current initiatives to recruit and retain more women are working adequately. Here, we used computational methods to determine the numbers of men and women authors listed on >10 million academic papers published since 2002, allowing us to precisely estimate the gender gap among researchers, as well as its rate of change, for most disciplines of science and medicine. We conclude that many research specialties (e.g., surgery, computer science, physics, and maths) will not reach gender parity this century, given present-day rates of increase in the number of women authors. Additionally, the gender gap varies greatly across countries, with Japan, Germany, and Switzerland having strikingly few women authors. Women were less often commissioned to write ‘invited’ papers, consistent with gender bias by journal editors, and were less often found in authorship positions usually associated with seniority (i.e., the last-listed or sole author). Our results support a need for further reforms to close the gender gap.

Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines

There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are underrepresented in most scientific disciplines and publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender differences in performance through a bibliometric analysis of academic publishing careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines. We find that, paradoxically, the increase of participation of women in science over the past 60 years was accompanied by an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact. Most surprisingly, though, we uncover two gender invariants, finding that men and women publish at a comparable annual rate and have equivalent career-wise impact for the same size body of work. Finally, we demonstrate that differences in publishing career lengths and dropout rates explain a large portion of the reported career-wise differences in productivity and impact, although productivity differences still remain. This comprehensive picture of gender inequality in academia can help rephrase the conversation around the sustainability of women's careers in academia, with important consequences for institutions and policy makers.

Discrimination and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States

Health disparities among sexual minority groups, particularly mental health disparities, are well-documented. Numerous studies have demonstrated heightened prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders among lesbian, gay, and bisexual groups as compared with heterosexuals. Some authors posit that these disparities are the result of the stress that prejudice and perceived discrimination can cause. The current study extends previous research by examining the associations between multiple types of discrimination, based on race or ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, and past-year mental health disorders in a national sample of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men (n = 577). Findings suggest that different types of discrimination may be differentially associated with past-year mental health disorders. Notably, sexual orientation discrimination was associated with higher odds of a past-year disorder only in combination with other types of discrimination. These findings point to the complexity of the relationship between discrimination experiences and mental health, and suggest that further work is needed to better explicate the interplay among multiple marginalized identities, discrimination, and mental health.

Perceptions of gender-based discrimination during surgical training and practice

BACKGROUND

Women represent 15% of practicing general surgeons. Gender-based discrimination has been implicated as discouraging women from surgery. We sought to determine women's perceptions of gender-based discrimination in the surgical training and working environment.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we fielded a pilot survey measuring perceptions and impact of gender-based discrimination in medical school, residency training, and surgical practice. It was sent electronically to 1,065 individual members of the Association of Women Surgeons.

RESULTS

We received 334 responses from medical students, residents, and practicing physicians with a response rate of 31%. Eighty-seven percent experienced gender-based discrimination in medical school, 88% in residency, and 91% in practice. Perceived sources of gender-based discrimination included superiors, physician peers, clinical support staff, and patients, with 40% emanating from women and 60% from men.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of responses indicated perceived gender-based discrimination during medical school, residency, and practice. Gender-based discrimination comes from both sexes and has a significant impact on women surgeons.

Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study

BACKGROUND

Energized and productive faculty are critical to academic medicine, yet studies indicate a lack of advancement and senior roles for women.

OBJECTIVE

Using measures of key aspects of the culture of academic medicine, this study sought to identify similarity and dissimilarity between perceptions of the culture by male and female faculty.

DESIGN

The C - Change Faculty Survey was used to collect data on perceptions of organizational culture.

PARTICIPANTS

A stratified random sample of 4,578 full-time faculty at 26 nationally representative US medical colleges (response rate 52 %). 1,271 (53 %) of respondents were female.

MAIN MEASURES

Factor analysis assisted in the creation of scales assessing dimensions of the culture, which served as the key outcomes. Regression analysis identified gender differences while controlling for other demographic characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

Compared with men, female faculty reported a lower sense of belonging and relationships within the workplace (T = -3.30, p < 0.01). Self-efficacy for career advancement was lower in women (T = -4.73, p < 0.001). Women perceived lower gender equity (T = -19.82, p < 0.001), and were less likely to believe their institutions were making changes to address diversity goals (T = -9.70, p < 0.001). Women were less likely than men to perceive their institution as family-friendly (T = -4.06, p < 0.001), and women reported less congruence between their own values and those of their institutions (T = -2.06, p < 0.05). Women and men did not differ significantly on levels of engagement, leadership aspirations, feelings of ethical/moral distress, perception of institutional commitment to faculty advancement, or perception of institutional change efforts to improve support for faculty.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty men and women are equally engaged in their work and share similar leadership aspirations. However, medical schools have failed to create and sustain an environment where women feel fully accepted and supported to succeed; how can we ensure that medical schools are fully using the talent pool of a third of its faculty?

Barriers to Care Among Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Adults

Policy Points: Transgender and gender nonconforming (GNC) adults may experience barriers to care for a variety of reasons, including discrimination and lack of awareness by providers in health care settings. In our analysis of a large, population-based sample, we found transgender and GNC adults were more likely to be uninsured and have unmet health care needs, and were less likely to have routine care, compared to cisgender (nontransgender) women. Our findings varied by gender identity. More research is needed on transgender and GNC populations, including on how public policy and provider awareness affects health care access and health outcomes differentially by gender identity.

CONTEXT

Very little population-based research has examined health and access to care among transgender populations. This study compared barriers to care between cisgender, transgender, and gender nonconforming (GNC) adults using data from a large, multistate sample.

METHODS

We used data from the 2014-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to estimate the prevalence of having no health insurance, unmet medical care needs due to cost, no routine checkup, and no usual source of care for cisgender women (n = 183,370), cisgender men (n = 131,080), transgender women (n = 724), transgender men (n = 449), and GNC adults (n = 270). Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each barrier to care while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.

FINDINGS

Transgender and GNC adults were more likely to be nonwhite, sexual minority, and socioeconomically disadvantaged compared to cisgender adults. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, transgender women were more likely to have no health insurance (OR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.07-2.40) compared to cisgender women; transgender men were more likely to have no health insurance (OR = 2.02; 95% CI = 1.25-3.25) and no usual source of care (OR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.18-2.88); and GNC adults were more likely to have unmet medical care needs due to cost (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.02-3.67) and no routine checkup in the prior year (OR = 2.41; 95% CI = 1.41-4.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Transgender and GNC adults face barriers to health care that may be due to a variety of reasons, including discrimination in health care, health insurance policies, employment, and public policy or lack of awareness among health care providers on transgender-related health issues.

Assessment of the Inclusion of Racial/Ethnic Minority, Female, and Older Individuals in Vaccine Clinical Trials

Importance

Medical research has not equitably included members of racial/ethnic minority groups or female and older individuals. There are limited data on participant demographic characteristics in vaccine trials despite the importance of these data to current trials aimed at preventing coronavirus disease 2019.

Objective

To investigate whether racial/ethnic minority groups and female and older adults are underrepresented among participants in vaccine clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study examined data from completed US-based vaccine trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2020. The terms vaccine, vaccination, immunization, and inoculation were used to identify trials. Only those addressing vaccine immunogenicity or efficacy of preventative vaccines were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The numbers and percentages of racial/ethnic minority, female, and older individuals compared with US census data from 2011 and 2018. Secondary outcome measures were inclusion by trial phase and year of completion.

Results

A total of 230 US-based trials with 219 555 participants were included in the study. Most trials were randomized (180 [78.3%]), included viral vaccinations (159 [69.1%]), and represented all trial phases. Every trial reported age and sex; 134 (58.3%) reported race and 79 (34.3%) reported ethnicity. Overall, among adult study participants, White individuals were overrepresented (77.9%; 95% CI, 77.4%-78.4%), and Black or African American individuals (10.6%; 95% CI, 10.2%-11.0%) and American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%) were underrepresented compared with US census data; enrollment of Asian individuals was similar (5.7%; 95% CI, 5.5%-6.0%). Enrollment of Hispanic or Latino individuals (11.6%; 95% CI, 11.1%-12.0%) was also low even among the limited number of adult trials reporting ethnicity. Adult trials were composed of more female participants (75 325 [56.0%]), but among those reporting age as a percentage, enrollment of participants who were aged 65 years or older was low (12.1%; 95% CI, 12.0%-12.3%). Black or African American participants (10.1%; 95% CI, 9.7%-10.6%) and Hispanic or Latino participants (22.5%; 95% CI, 21.6%-23.4%) were also underrepresented in pediatric trials. Among trials reporting race/ethnicity, 65 (48.5%) did not include American Indian or Alaska Native participants and 81 (60.4%) did not include Hawaiian or Pacific Islander participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found that among US-based vaccine clinical trials, members of racial/ethnic minority groups and older adults were underrepresented, whereas female adults were overrepresented. These findings suggest that diversity enrollment targets should be included for all vaccine trials targeting epidemiologically important infections.

Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators

This Research Letter examines differences in the size of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants awarded to first-time male and female principal investigators at top research institutions, including the Big Ten and Ivy League universities.

Working toward gender diversity and inclusion in medicine: myths and solutions

Women's representation in science and medicine has slowly increased over the past few decades. However, this rise in numbers of women, or gender diversity, has not been matched by a rise in gender inclusion. Despite increasing representation, women still encounter bias and discrimination when compared with men in these fields across a variety of outcomes, including treatment at school and work, hiring, compensation, evaluation, and promotion. Individual and systemic biases create unwelcome environments for women, particularly for those who additionally identify with other traditionally devalued groups (eg, women of colour). This Review draws on several decades of research in the field of management and its cognate disciplines to identify five myths that continue to perpetuate gender bias and five strategies for improving not only the number of women in medicine, but also their lived experiences, capacity to aspire, and opportunity to succeed. We argue for a move away from a singular focus on interventions aimed at targeting individual attitudes and behaviour to more comprehensive interventions that address structural and systemic changes.

Association of Gender and Race With Allocation of Advanced Heart Failure Therapies

Importance

Racial bias is associated with the allocation of advanced heart failure therapies, heart transplants, and ventricular assist devices. It is unknown whether gender and racial biases are associated with the allocation of advanced therapies among women.

Objective

To determine whether the intersection of patient gender and race is associated with the decision-making of clinicians during the allocation of advanced heart failure therapies.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this qualitative study, 46 US clinicians attending a conference for an international heart transplant organization in April 2019 were interviewed on the allocation of advanced heart failure therapies. Participants were randomized to examine clinical vignettes that varied 1:1 by patient race (African American to white) and 20:3 by gender (women to men) to purposefully target vignettes of women patients to compare with a prior study of vignettes of men patients. Participants were interviewed about their decision-making process using the think-aloud technique and provided supplemental surveys. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory methodology, and surveys were analyzed with Wilcoxon tests.

Exposure

Randomization to clinical vignettes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thematic differences in allocation of advanced therapies by patient race and gender.

Results

Among 46 participants (24 [52%] women, 20 [43%] racial minority), participants were randomized to the vignette of a white woman (20 participants [43%]), an African American woman (20 participants [43%]), a white man (3 participants [7%]), and an African American man (3 participants [7%]). Allocation differences centered on 5 themes. First, clinicians critiqued the appearance of the women more harshly than the men as part of their overall impressions. Second, the African American man was perceived as experiencing more severe illness than individuals from other racial and gender groups. Third, there was more concern regarding appropriateness of prior care of the African American woman compared with the white woman. Fourth, there were greater concerns about adequacy of social support for the women than for the men. Children were perceived as liabilities for women, particularly the African American woman. Family dynamics and finances were perceived to be greater concerns for the African American woman than for individuals in the other vignettes; spouses were deemed inadequate support for women. Last, participants recommended ventricular assist devices over transplantation for all racial and gender groups. Surveys revealed no statistically significant differences in allocation recommendations for African American and white women patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

This national study of health care professionals randomized to clinical vignettes that varied only by gender and race found evidence of gender and race bias in the decision-making process for offering advanced therapies for heart failure, particularly for African American women patients, who were judged more harshly by appearance and adequacy of social support. There was no associated between patient gender and race and final recommendations for allocation of advanced therapies. However, it is possible that bias may contribute to delayed allocation and ultimately inequity in the allocation of advanced therapies in a clinical setting.

Genital evolution: why are females still understudied?

In many animal groups genital structures appear to have evolved extremely rapidly, prompting enduring interest in why this is so. Throughout this literature there remains a bias towards studying male genitalia; here we examine the extent of that bias and its possible causes.

The diversity, variability, and apparent rapid evolution of animal genitalia are a vivid focus of research in evolutionary biology, and studies exploring genitalia have dramatically increased over the past decade. These studies, however, exhibit a strong male bias, which has worsened since 2000, despite the fact that this bias has been explicitly pointed out in the past. Early critics argued that previous investigators too often considered only males and their genitalia, while overlooking female genitalia or physiology. Our analysis of the literature shows that overall this male bias has worsened with time. The degree of bias is not consistent between subdisciplines: studies of the lock-and-key hypothesis have been the most male focused, while studies of cryptic female choice usually consider both sexes. The degree of bias also differed across taxonomic groups, but did not associate with the ease of study of male and female genital characteristics. We argue that the persisting male bias in this field cannot solely be explained by anatomical sex differences influencing accessibility. Rather the bias reflects enduring assumptions about the dominant role of males in sex, and invariant female genitalia. New research highlights how rapidly female genital traits can evolve, and how complex coevolutionary dynamics between males and females can shape genital structures. We argue that understanding genital evolution is hampered by an outdated single-sex bias.

Gender Bias in Resident Assessment in Graduate Medical Education: Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Competency-based medical education relies on meaningful resident assessment. Implicit gender bias represents a potential threat to the integrity of resident assessment. We sought to examine the available evidence of the potential for and impact of gender bias in resident assessment in graduate medical education.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to evaluate the presence and influence of gender bias on resident assessment. We searched Medline and Embase databases to capture relevant articles using a tiered strategy. Review was conducted by two independent, blinded reviewers. We included studies with primary objective of examining the impact of gender on resident assessment in graduate medical education in the USA or Canada published from 1998 to 2018.

RESULTS

Nine studies examined the existence and influence of gender bias in resident assessment and data included rating scores and qualitative comments. Heterogeneity in tools, outcome measures, and methodologic approach precluded meta-analysis. Five of the nine studies reported a difference in outcomes attributed to gender including gender-based differences in traits ascribed to residents, consistency of feedback, and performance measures.

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that gender bias poses a potential threat to the integrity of resident assessment in graduate medical education. Future study is warranted to understand how gender bias manifests in resident assessment, impact on learners and approaches to mitigate this bias.

Quantifying Sex Bias in Clinical Studies at Scale With Automated Data Extraction

IMPORTANCE

Analyses of female representation in clinical studies have been limited in scope and scale.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a large-scale analysis of global enrollment sex bias in clinical studies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, clinical studies from published articles from PubMed from 1966 to 2018 and records from Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov from 1999 to 2018 were identified. Global disease prevalence was determined for male and female patients in 11 disease categories from the Global Burden of Disease database: cardiovascular, diabetes, digestive, hepatitis (types A, B, C, and E), HIV/AIDS, kidney (chronic), mental, musculoskeletal, neoplasms, neurological, and respiratory (chronic). Machine reading algorithms were developed that extracted sex data from tables in articles and records on December 31, 2018, at an artificial intelligence research institute. Male and female participants in 43 135 articles (792 004 915 participants) and 13 165 records (12 977 103 participants) were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sex bias was defined as the difference between the fraction of female participants in study participants minus prevalence fraction of female participants for each disease category. A total of 1000 bootstrap estimates of sex bias were computed by resampling individual studies with replacement. Sex bias was reported as mean and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals from articles and records in each disease category over time (before or during 1993 to 2018), with studies or participants as the measurement unit.

RESULTS

There were 792 004 915 participants, including 390 470 834 female participants (49%), in articles and 12 977 103 participants, including 6 351 619 female participants (49%), in records. With studies as measurement unit, substantial female underrepresentation (sex bias ≤ -0.05) was observed in 7 of 11 disease categories, especially HIV/AIDS (mean for articles, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.18 to -0.16]), chronic kidney diseases (mean, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.17 to -0.16]), and cardiovascular diseases (mean, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.13]). Sex bias in articles for all categories combined was unchanged over time with studies as measurement unit (range, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.13] to -0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.06]), but improved from before or during 1993 (mean, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.05]) to 2014 to 2018 (mean, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) with participants as the measurement unit. Larger study size was associated with greater female representation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Automated extraction of the number of participants in clinical reports provides an effective alternative to manual analysis of demographic bias. Despite legal and policy initiatives to increase female representation, sex bias against female participants in clinical studies persists. Studies with more participants have greater female representation. Differences between sex bias estimates with studies vs participants as measurement unit, and between articles vs records, suggest that sex bias with both measures and data sources should be reported.

Association for Academic Surgery presidential address: sticky floors and glass ceilings

This 2017 Presidential Address for the Association for Academic Surgery was delivered on February 8, 2017. It addresses the difficult topic of gender disparities in surgery. Mixing empirical data with personal anecdotes, Dr. Caprice Greenberg provides an insightful overview of this difficult challenge facing the surgical discipline and practical advice on how we can begin to address it.

Weightism, racism, classism, and sexism: shared forms of harassment in adolescents

PURPOSE

To document the prevalence of harassment on the basis of weight, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, as well as sexual harassment, among a diverse population of adolescents. Specifically, this study examined rates of each type of harassment reported across groups within the corresponding sociodemographic category (e.g., racial/ethnic category differences in prevalence of racial harassment), and also explored patterns of "cross-harassment" (i.e., differences in prevalence of each harassment type across all other sociodemographic characteristics).

METHODS

We used data from Project Eating and Activity in Teens 2010 for the study. The sample was composed of 2,793 adolescents (53% female; 81% nonwhite). We conducted regression analyses to yield prevalence estimates of each type of harassment in each demographic and body mass index category.

RESULTS

Weight- and race-based harassment (35.3% and 35.2%, respectively) was most prevalent, followed by sexual harassment (25.0%) and socioeconomic status-based harassment (16.1%). Overweight and obese adolescents reported disproportionately higher rates of all forms of harassment than did normal-weight and underweight adolescents. In addition, Asian and mixed-/other race adolescents were more vulnerable to harassment overall compared with those from other racial/ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Harassment experiences are prevalent among adolescent boys and girls. Differential rates of each type of harassment are reported across groups within the corresponding sociodemographic category, but a pattern of cross-harassment also is evident, such that differences in prevalence of each type of harassment emerge across a variety of sociodemographic characteristics. Adolescents from various intersecting sociodemographic and weight-status groups are particularly vulnerable to certain types of harassment.

Longitudinal Analysis of Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Medical Faculty Across 24 Medical Schools in the United States

PURPOSE

To examine gender differences in academic productivity, as indicated by publications and federal grant funding acquisition, among a longitudinal cohort of medical faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools, 1995 to 2012-2013.

METHOD

Data for this research were taken from the National Faculty Survey involving a survey with medical faculty recruited from medical schools in 1995, and followed up in 2012-2013. Data included surveys and publication and grant funding databases. Outcomes were number of publications, h-index, and principal investigator on a federal grant in the prior two years. Gender differences were assessed using negative binomial regression models for publication and h-index outcomes, and logistic regression for the grant funding outcome; analyses adjusted for race/ethnicity, rank, specialty area, and years since first academic appointment.

RESULTS

Data were available for 1,244 of the 1,275 (98%) subjects eligible for the follow-up study. Men were significantly more likely than women to be married/partnered, have children, and hold the rank of professor (P < .0001). Adjusted regression models documented that women had a lower rate of publication (relative number = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.63, 0.81; P < .0001) and h-index (relative number = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.90; P < .0001) relative to men, but there was no gender difference in grant funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Women faculty acquired federal funding at similar rates as male faculty, yet lagged behind in terms of publications and their impact. Medical academia must consider how to help address ongoing gender disparities in publication records.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

PURPOSE

Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex.

METHOD

The authors analyzed 739 critiques-268 from 88 unfunded and 471 from 153 funded applications for grants awarded to 125 PIs (76 males, 49 females) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. The authors used seven word categories for text analysis: ability, achievement, agentic, negative evaluation, positive evaluation, research, and standout adjectives. The authors used regression models to compare priority and criteria scores, and results from text analysis for differences due to PI sex and whether the application was for a new (Type 1) or renewal (Type 2) R01.

RESULTS

Approach scores predicted priority scores for all PIs' applications (P < .001), but scores and critiques differed significantly for male and female PIs' Type 2 applications. Reviewers assigned significantly worse priority, approach, and significance scores to female than male PIs' Type 2 applications, despite using standout adjectives (e.g., "outstanding," "excellent") and making references to ability in more critiques (P < .05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue to operate in the post-2009 NIH review format in ways that could lead reviewers to implicitly hold male and female applicants to different standards of evaluation, particularly for R01 renewals.

Gender Differences in Publication Productivity, Academic Rank, and Career Duration Among U.S. Academic Gastroenterology Faculty

PURPOSE

Female representation in academic medicine is increasing without proportional increases in female representation at senior ranks. The purpose of this study is to describe the gender representation in academic gastroenterology (GI) and compare publication productivity, academic rank, and career duration between male and female gastroenterologists.

METHOD

In 2014, the authors collected data including number of publications, career duration, h-index, and m-index for faculty members at 114 U.S. academic GI programs.

RESULTS

Of 2,440 academic faculty, 1,859 (76%) were men and 581 (24%) were women. Half (50%) of men held senior faculty position compared with 29% of women (P < .001). Compared with female faculty, male faculty had significantly (P < .001) longer careers (20 vs. 11 years), more publications (median 24 [0-949] vs. 9 [0-438]), and higher h-indices (8 vs. 4). Higher h-index correlated with higher academic rank (P < .001). The authors detected no difference in the h-index between men and women at the same rank for professor, associate professor, and instructor, nor any difference in the m-index between men and women (0.5 vs. 0.46, respectively, P = .214).

CONCLUSIONS

A gender gap exists in the number and proportion of women in academic GI; however, after correcting for career duration, productivity measures that consider quantity and impact are similar for male and female faculty. Women holding senior faculty positions are equally productive as their male counterparts. Early and continued career mentorship will likely lead to continued increases in the rise of women in academic rank.

Males Under-Estimate Academic Performance of Their Female Peers in Undergraduate Biology Classrooms

Women who start college in one of the natural or physical sciences leave in greater proportions than their male peers. The reasons for this difference are complex, and one possible contributing factor is the social environment women experience in the classroom. Using social network analysis, we explore how gender influences the confidence that college-level biology students have in each other's mastery of biology. Results reveal that males are more likely than females to be named by peers as being knowledgeable about the course content. This effect increases as the term progresses, and persists even after controlling for class performance and outspokenness. The bias in nominations is specifically due to males over-nominating their male peers relative to their performance. The over-nomination of male peers is commensurate with an overestimation of male grades by 0.57 points on a 4 point grade scale, indicating a strong male bias among males when assessing their classmates. Females, in contrast, nominated equitably based on student performance rather than gender, suggesting they lacked gender biases in filling out these surveys. These trends persist across eleven surveys taken in three different iterations of the same Biology course. In every class, the most renowned students are always male. This favoring of males by peers could influence student self-confidence, and thus persistence in this STEM discipline.

Proportion of Female Speakers at Academic Medical Conferences Across Multiple Specialties and Regions

IMPORTANCE

Women in medicine have been underrepresented at medical conferences; however, contributing factors have not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the distribution of invited conference speakers by gender and factors associated with representation of women as speakers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis used medical conference programs from March 2017 to November 2018 across 20 specialties in 5 regions (Australasia, Canada, Europe, the UK, and the US) that were obtained online or from conference conveners.

EXPOSURES

Gender of invited lecturers, panelists, and planning committee members for each conference based on name or picture and publicly available data on compositions of specialties by gender for included regions.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes included the proportion of female speakers (invited lecturers and panelists), the number of single-gender panels, and the proportion of female speakers compared with the specialties' gender composition. Correlations between the gender composition of conference planning committees and the proportion of female speakers were assessed. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate factors independently associated with the proportion of female speakers at conferences.

RESULTS

A total of 8535 sessions (panels and invited lectures) with 23 440 speakers across 98 conferences were identified. Women accounted for 7064 (30.1%) of speakers; 1981 of 5409 panels (36.6%) consisted of men only, and 363 (6.7%) consisted of women only. The proportion of women speakers varied by region and specialty from 5.8% to 74.5%. In general, specialties with low baseline proportions of women (<20%) had a ratio of female speakers to female specialists greater than 1, whereas specialties with high baseline proportions of women (>40%) had a ratio of female speakers to female specialists less that 1. There was a strong positive correlation between the proportion of women on planning committees and conference representation of female speakers (r = 0.67; P < .001). The association remained statistically significant after controlling for other variables, including the regional gender balance of the specialty (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15; P < .001 for every 10% increase in the proportion of women on the planning committee).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, the proportion of female speakers at medical conferences was lower than that of male speakers, and more than one-third of panels were composed of men only. Increasing the number of women on planning committees may help address gender inequities.

All Other Things Being Equal: Exploring Racial and Gender Disparities in Medical School Honor Society Induction

PURPOSE

A large body of literature has demonstrated racial and gender disparities in the physician workforce, but limited data are available regarding the potential origins of these disparities. To that end, the authors evaluated the effects of race and gender on Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society (AOA) and Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) induction.

METHOD

In this retrospective cohort study, the authors examined data from 11,781 Electronic Residency Application Service applications from 133 U.S. MD-granting medical schools to 12 residency programs in the 2014-2015 application cycle and to all 15 residency programs in the 2015-2016 cycle at Yale-New Haven Hospital. They estimated the odds of induction into AOA and GHHS using logistic regression models, adjusting for Step 1 score, research publications, citizenship status, training interruptions, and year of application. They used gender- and race-matched samples to account for differences in clerkship grades and to test for bias.

RESULTS

Women were more likely than men to be inducted into GHHS (odds ratio 1.84, P < .001) but did not differ in their likelihood of being inducted into AOA. Black medical students were less likely to be inducted into AOA (odds ratio 0.37, P < .05) but not into GHHS.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate significant differences between groups in AOA and GHHS induction. Given the importance of honor society induction in residency applications and beyond, these differences must be explored further.