DRUG REACTIONS AFTER INGESTION OF ALCOHOL.

J. Barboriak

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Gender equity in the scientific nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports: A cross-sectional study

Vicente Gea-Caballero,Regina Ruíz de Viñaspre-Hernández,Carlos Saus-Ortega,Luís Celda-Belinchón,Ivan Santolalla-Arnedo,Elena Marques-Sule,Raúl Juárez-Vela

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1119117

IF: 5.2

2023-03-18

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Background: Scientific activity has been connected to the proven inequality between women and men. To examine the state of gender equality in nursing research by analyzing the representation of male and female as editors and as authors of articles published in scientific journals. Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out between September-2019 and May-2020. All the scientific publications published in 115 nursing journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports in the years 2008, 2013, and 2017 were chosen as analysis units. The main variables studied were gender of the "journal editor"; gender of the "first author", "last author", "corresponding author", and "first author in funded articles". Descriptive and inferential analysis was performed. Results: The proportion of male editors in 2008, 2013, and 2017 was 23.3, 19, and 18.5% respectively, with a male/female ratio of 1:3, 1:4 and 1:5. Male editors are mainly found in the journals of the first quartile (Q1 = 33.8%, ratio1:2), compared to the journals of the fourth quartile (Q4 = 6.6%, ratio1:14), p < 0.01. The male authorship position was "last author" (30.9%, ratio1:2), "corresponding author" (23.3%, ratio 1:3), "first author" (22.1%, ratio 1:4) and "first author in funded articles" (21.8%, ratio 1:4). Furthermore, in 19.5%, of the articles there were more male authors. The percentage of articles with male authorship increased from 2008 to 2017, "first author" (21.1–23.4%; p < 0.01), "last author" (30.0–31.1%; p = 0.22), "corresponding author" (22.5–24.2; p = 0.01), and "first author in funded articles" (18.1–25.9%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Men are over-represented in the editor role in the most prestigious nursing journals. There are a higher proportion of male authors in the main positions of authorship.

public, environmental & occupational health
Women occupying preferential authorship positions for articles in the journal Emergencias: an analysis of authorship during the last decade

Julia González,Daniel Hernández-Vaquero,Aida T Igareta-Herraiz,Rocío Díaz,Virginia Domínguez-González,Alberto Domínguez-Rodríguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/e049.2022

2024-07-29

Emergencias

Abstract:Objetivos. Analizar la desigualdad de género en la producción científica de la revista EMERGENCIAS en la última década. Método. Estudio longitudinal retrospectivo que revisó los números publicados entre enero de 2011 y diciembre de 2020. Se analizaron el número de autores, género, tipo y año de publicación y autoría preferencial (primera autoría, autoría de correspondencia o última autoría). La participación de la mujer se calculó en base a valores porcentuales y se analizó la tendencia existente a lo largo de los años. Resultados. Se recogieron 1.240 artículos con un número total de 5.213 firmantes, 1.889 de ellos (36,2%) mujeres. En 384 (31%) artículos, una mujer asumió la primera autoría, en 352 (28,4%) fue autora para correspondencia y en 358 (28,9%) la última autora. A lo largo de la década, se identificó una tendencia creciente en los que una mujer fue primera autora en los artículos originales o metanálisis (p = 0,047). En los editoriales, revisiones, cartas científicas o comunicaciones breves, cartas al editor y otros no existió una tendencia creciente significativa en las autorías preferenciales. Conclusión. La participación de autoras en la producción científica de la revista EMERGENCIAS ha aumentado en la última década. No obstante, comparado con la de hombres, sigue existiendo una menor participación.

emergency medicine
The inclusion of the gender perspective in oncology research with Spanish participation

Rut Lucas-Domínguez,María Aragonés González,Andrea Sixto-Costoya,Emmanuel Ruiz-Martínez,Alonso Alonso-Arroyo,Juan Carlos Valderrama-Zurián

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30043

IF: 3.776

2024-04-27

Heliyon

Abstract:The gender perspective is important for a better diagnosis and treatment of diseases, especially in the field of oncology. This study aimed to analyse the gender approach in scientific articles in the field of oncology by studying the gender composition of the authorship of papers and the gender inclusion in the research carried out. A bibliographic search of articles and reviews signed by at least one Spanish institution published between 2010 and 2019 was carried out using the Science Citation Index Expanded database in the Oncology category. A total of 7523 studies were classified according to the gender composition determined by the author's name and a randomised sample was used to evaluate the inclusion of gender perspectives using a checklist. This study revealed a lack of gender parity in the authorship of oncology publications involving Spanish participation. Papers without author gender parity were eight times higher than papers with parity and showed a greater presence of male than female authorship (58 % versus 31 %). Regarding the introduction of the gender perspective, a negative response of 68 % referring to compliance with the entire checklist was obtained, and only a fifth of the articles presented gender balance in the study sample. Moreover, there is a positive correlation between gender parity in authorship and gender perspective integration in published research. In conclusion, there is a great need to advance the inclusion of gender perspectives in cancer research to overcome gender bias and promote better prevention, detection, and intervention for cancer.
Gender inequalities in oral medicine and pathology research: Temporal trends of two decades

Gabriel Lima Braz,Amanda dos Santos Figueiredo,Alini Cardoso Soares,Francielli Fernandez Garcia,Camila Barcellos Calderipe,Luiz Alexandre Chisini,Ana Carolina Uchoa Vasconcelos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.15105

2024-08-23

Oral Diseases

Abstract:Objectives To analyze gender inequities and trends in the authorship of articles published in high‐impact factor journals of the field of Oral Medicine and Pathology. Methods The gender and country of first and last authors were retrieved from original articles published between 2000 and 2022. Poisson regression models and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were performed. Results A total of 6595 studies were analyzed for first authorship, and 6627 for last authorship. Only 39.2% (CI 95% 38.0–40.3) of the first authors and 24.1% (CI 95% 23.1–25.1) of the last authors were females. Females consistently faced underrepresentation throughout the 23‐year evaluation. The only region where female first authors are not a minority is Latin America. Having a female as the last author increased the prevalence of females in the first author position by 42% (PR = 1.42, CI 95% [1.30–1.54]). The most important discriminant variable by CART was the first author region. Conclusion Although a slight decrease in underrepresentation was noted over the period, after 2020, the gender gap tended to widen for both first and last authors. It is crucial to implement measures aimed at attracting, retaining, and advancing women in the field of science, while also actively monitoring advancements toward achieving gender equity.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals

Michael H. K. Bendels,Ruth Müller,Doerthe Brueggmann,David A. Groneberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136

IF: 3.7

2018-01-02

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The present study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-quality research by analyzing the representation of female authorships in the last decade (from 2008 to 2016).METHODS: Based on the Gendermetrics platform, 293,557 research articles from 54 journals listed in the Nature Index were considered covering the categories Life Science, Multidisciplinary, Earth & Environmental and Chemistry. The core method was the combined analysis of the proportion of female authorships and the female-to-male odds ratio for first, co- and last authorships. The distribution of prestigious authorships was measured by the Prestige Index.RESULTS: 29.8% of all authorships and 33.1% of the first, 31.8% of the co- and 18.1% of the last authorships were held by women. The corresponding female-to-male odds ratio is 1.19 (CI: 1.18-1.20) for first, 1.35 (CI: 1.34-1.36) for co- and 0.47 (CI: 0.46-0.48) for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorships compared to men (Prestige Index = -0.42). The underrepresentation accentuates in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. More specifically, a large negative correlation between the 5-Year-Impact-Factor of a journal and the female representation at prestigious authorships was revealed (r(52) = -.63, P < .001). Women publish fewer articles compared to men (39.0% female authors are responsible for 29.8% of all authorships) and are underrepresented at productivity levels of more than 2 articles per author. Articles with female key authors are less frequently cited than articles with male key authors. The gender-specific differences in citation rates increase the more authors contribute to an article. Distinct differences at the journal, journal category, continent and country level were revealed. The prognosis for the next decades forecast a very slow harmonization of authorships odds between the two genders.

multidisciplinary sciences
Trends in gender of authors of original research in oncology among major medical journals: a retrospective bibliometric study

Shing Fung Lee,Daniel Redondo Sánchez,María‑José Sánchez,Bizu Gelaye,Chi Leung Chiang,Irene Oi Ling Wong,Denise Shuk Ting Cheung,Miguel Angel Luque Fernandez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046618

IF: 3.006

2021-10-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective We evaluated the temporal trend in gender ratios of first and last authors in the field of oncological research published in major general medical and oncology journals and examined the gender pattern in coauthorship. Design We conducted a retrospective study in PubMed using the R package RISmed. We retrieved original research articles published in four general medical journals and six oncology specialty journals. These journals were selected based on their impact factors and popularity among oncologists. We identified the names of first and last authors from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2019. The gender of the authors was identified and validated using the Gender API database ( https://gender-api.com/ ). Primary and secondary outcome measures The percentages of first and last authors by gender and the gender ratios (male to female) and temporal trends in gender ratios of first and last authors were determined. Results We identified 34 624 research articles, in which 32 452 had the gender of both first and last authors identified. Among these 11 650 (33.6%) had women as the first author and 7908 (22.8%) as the last author, respectively. The proportion of female first and last authors increased from 26.6% and 16.2% in 2002, to 32.9% and 27.5% in 2019, respectively. However, the gender ratio (male to female) of first and last authors decreased by 1.5% and 2.6% per year, respectively, which were statistically significant (first author: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.00; last author: IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). Male first and last authorship was the most common combination. Male–female and female–female pairs increased by 2.0% and 5.0%, respectively (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 and IRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06, respectively). Conclusions The continued under-representation of women means that more efforts to address parity for advancement of women in academic oncology are needed.

medicine, general & internal
Women in Radiology: A perspective from Spain

S Cayón Somacarrera,C Alonso Rodríguez,L Del Campo Del Val,L Oleaga Zufiría,P Rodríguez Carnero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rxeng.2023.04.009

Abstract:Introduction: There are gender inequalities in all fields, including radiology. Although the situation is improving, the presence of radiologists in leadership positions continues to be a minority. The objective of this article is to analyse the situation of women in the spanish radiology, comparing it with Europe and the United States. Materials and methods: We selected the years 2000-2022 as reference period to make a comparison with feminization data throughout history. In addition, relevant specific data from the just begun 2023 were also included. The variables in which we investigated feminization were the following: medical students, medical graduates, radiology residents and specialists, section chiefs, department chairs, radiology residency programme directors, radiology university professors, presidents of the main radiological entities and societies in Spain, Europe and the United States, recipients of the main awards given by these radiological societies and chief editors of their journals. In order to perform this analysis we conducted an in-depth bibliographic research, we contacted the radiological societies of Spain, Europe and the USA and we carried out a survey in the main Spanish radiology departments. Results: The female presence in radiology decreases as we rise to leadership positions, a situation that is patent in Spain, Europe and the US, comparison that will be analysed in depth throughout the article. In Spanish hospitals in 2021 there were 58.1% female radiology residents, 55% female radiologists, 42.9% female section chiefs and 24.4% female department chairs. In SERAM's history there have been 10% female presidents, 22% female gold medallists and 5% female editors-in-chief. If we analyse data from 2000 to 2023, female presidents reach 32% and female gold medallists 31%. Conclusions: Although gender inequality is declining, in radiology women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. Work must be done in order to build a diverse and inclusive profession that reflects demographic reality.
Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

Vaidehi Misra,Frozan Safi,Kathryn A Brewerton,Wei Wu,Robin Mason,An-Wen Chan,Paula A Rochon,Iliana C Lega,Husam Abdel-Qadir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051224

IF: 3.006

2021-07-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. Design Cross-sectional review. Data sources Medline database. Eligibility criteria Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. Data extraction Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). Results We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. Conclusions Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women’s authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020186702.

medicine, general & internal
Scientific production in sexual and reproductive health and rights research according to gender and affiliation: An analysis of publications from 1972 to 2021

Livia Oliveira-Ciabati,Anna Thorson,Vanessa Brizuela

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304659

IF: 3.7

2024-06-26

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Introduction: Peer-reviewed literature is commonly used to assess academic progress and research excellency. However, representation in authorship of global health publications is biased and unfair. In order to shed light on current gaps towards attaining gender equality in scientific production and shift power asymmetries in global health research, we conducted an assessment of authorship trends from 1972 to 2021 with a focus on gender and geographic representation in scientific articles authored or co-authored by researchers affiliated with UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP). Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and HRP public reports for publications where at least one author was affiliated with HRP. Our main outcome measures were author gender and location of author affiliation, classified by region and country income group. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the publications under analysis as well as the total number of authors from the included papers. We applied a logistic regression model to explore associations between author gender and other characteristics of published articles and a time series analysis to assess how time can influence the inclusion of women as authors in a publication. Python and R were used for all analyses. Results: A total of 1,484 publications with 14,424 listed authors representing 5,950 unique authors were included in our analysis: 42.5% were female, 35.1% male, and 22.4% unknown (p<0.0001). First authorship was more likely female (56.9%) and from a high-income country (74.6%, p<0.0001) while last authorship was mostly male (53.7%) also from a high-income country (82.5%, p<0.0001). Females more frequently published papers using qualitative data (61.4%) and reviews/estimates (59.4%) while men published more case control (70.7%) and randomised controlled studies (53.0%), p<0.0001. The adjusted odds of there being a female author increased 4% for every additional year that passed. Conclusion: While there are more females authoring articles as compared to the past, they are still lagging behind with regards to seniority and prestige. Likewise, female representation is closely tied to what institution they are affiliated with and where that institution is located. Global health research institutions need to actively promote change by ensuring women are included in research and research outputs, giving them opportunities to lead.
Simple and Rapid Method for the Coding of Punched Cards

J. Thoma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.137.3526.278

IF: 56.9

1962-07-27

Science

Abstract:A novel method for the coding of hand-sorted, edge-punched cards based in part on the phonetics of a word is outlined. The greatest utility of the scheme lies in its speed because of the elimination of a need of a controlled index. Experience gained in the operation of the new system is briefly described.
Academic medicine’s glass ceiling: Author’s gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success

John E Krstacic,Brendan M Carr,Ashutosh R Yaligar,Annet S Kuruvilla,Joshua S Helali,Jamie Saragossi,Chencan Zhu,Robert Hutnik,Mohammad Noubani,Jie Yang,Henry J Tannous,A Laurie W Shroyer,John E. Krstacic,Brendan M. Carr,Ashutosh R. Yaligar,Annet S. Kuruvilla,Joshua S. Helali,Henry J. Tannous,A. Laurie W. Shroyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261209

IF: 3.7

2022-04-20

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Introduction In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [ NEJM ], Journal of the American Medical Association [ JAMA ], and Lancet). Materials and methods Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities. Results Compared to 37.23% of 2002 – 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women’s first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and co-authors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001). Discussion Since 2002, this authorship “gender disparity chasm” has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet’s 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation.

multidisciplinary sciences
Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles

Paula Chatterjee,Rachel M. Werner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509

2021-07-02

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: Women are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently.Objective: To evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently.Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021.Exposures: Primary and senior authors' genders.Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of citations per article.Results: Among 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles.Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.

medicine, general & internal
Development of a diagnostic real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of invasive Haemophilus influenzae in clinical samples.

K. Meyler,M. Meehan,D. Bennett,R. Cunney,M. Cafferkey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.08.018

IF: 2.983

2012-12-01

Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease

Abstract:
Closing the gender authorship gap

Manon C. W. Spaander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2292-9227

2024-04-05

Endoscopy

Abstract:Since the mid-1960s, slightly more men than women have been present on this planet. In 2022, 4 billion males and 3.95 billion females were living worldwide, implying 50.4% of the world population is male and 49.6% female. By 2050, however, it is expected that the sex ratio will even out and, after 2050, females will outnumber males [1]. Currently, women already outnumber men in the older age groups because of the differences in mortality between men and women, with woman tending to live longer than men. Although females account for a significant proportion of the patient population, in the past women were excluded from participation in studies. Therefore, research data collected from men were generalized to women, despite the fact that disease symptoms and drug metabolism are different in women and men. The gap in female data resulted in longer times to diagnosis for women than for men, with more frequent misdiagnoses and women more often mistakenly discharged while having a serious medical event [2]. Although this gender gap is improving, it is still present [3]. But what about a gender gap in authorships? In this issue of Endoscopy , Elisabetta Mastrorocco et al. performed a systematic review to assess whether there is a gender gap in the authorship of scientific research in gastrointestinal journals and in the principal investigators [4] of ongoing research. "I hope that both this editorial and the systematic review written mostly by women will contribute to, stimulate, and encourage men and women to further close the gender authorship gap." A total of 4207 articles were included: 2205 US-based and 2002 European-based. First female authorship was found in 33.4% of the articles; senior female authorship in 21.6%. US-based journals showed a statistically significant lower percentage of first female authors, but not of senior female authors. In the analysis of single journals, they found the lowest percentage of first female authors to be in the endoscopy-related journals, namely Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GIE) at 23% and Endoscopy at 25%. For senior female authorship, the lowest rate was found in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology at 9%, followed by Endoscopy and GIE, at 12.3% and 15%, respectively. There was more likelihood of publications having female authorship in the more clinically oriented topics, like hepatology, inflammatory bowel disease, and upper and lower gastrointestinal disease; however, even in these topics, the percentage of female senior authors remained significantly lower than the percentage of first female authors. Mastrorocco et al. also found a significant correlation between last and first female authorship. Where the last author was a woman, the first author was female in 51% of publications; when the last author was a man, this percentage came down to 28%. This correlation between last and first female authorship has also been found in other specialties, such as vascular surgery, transplantation surgery, and cardiology [4] [5] [6], while in infectious disease journals, the proportion of female editors appeared to influence the proportions of female last and first authors [7]. Remarkably, in most of the papers that have addressed the gender authorship gap, the first author has been a woman. This may be due to the fact that women recognize this gender gap and want to publish about it, or that the idea became apparent by men and asking women to dive into it to close the gap at the same time. The positive news is that overall there has been a slight increase in female first and last authorships over recent years, which may be a result of the increase in women in science and medicine. I hope that both this editorial and the systematic review written mostly by women – including first and last female authorship – being published in an endoscopy journal will contribute to, stimulate, and encourage men and women to further close the gender authorship gap. Article published online: 04 April 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Marie-Laure Charpignon,João Matos,Luis Nakayama,Jack Gallifant,Pia Gabrielle I Alfonso,Marisa Cobanaj,Amelia Fiske,Alexander J Gates,Frances Dominique V Ho,Urvish Jain,Mohammad Kashkooli,Liam G McCoy,Jonathan Shaffer,Naira Link Woite,Leo Anthony Celi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.21.24304695

2024-03-22

MedRxiv

Abstract:Background: Health research that significantly impacts global clinical practice and policy is often published in high-impact factor (IF) medical journals. These outlets play a pivotal role in the worldwide dissemination of novel medical knowledge. However, researchers identifying as women and those affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been largely underrepresented in high-IF journals across multiple fields of medicine. To evaluate disparities in gender and geographical representation among authors who have published in any of five top general medical journals, we conducted scientometric analyses using a large-scale dataset extracted from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and Nature Medicine. Methods: Author metadata from all articles published in the selected journals between 2007 and 2022 were collected using the DimensionsAI platform. The Genderize.io API was then utilized to infer each author's likely gender based on their extracted first name. The World Bank country classification was used to map countries associated with researcher affiliations to the LMIC or the high-income country (HIC) category. We characterized the overall gender and country income category representation across the medical journals. In addition, we computed article-level diversity metrics and contrasted their distributions across the journals. Findings: We studied 151,536 authors across 49,764 articles published in five top medical journals, over a long period spanning 15 years. On average, approximately one-third (33.1%) of the authors of a given paper were inferred to be women; this result was consistent across the journals we studied. Further, 86.6% of the teams were exclusively composed of HIC authors; in contrast, only 3.9% were exclusively composed of LMIC authors. The probability of serving as the first or last author was significantly higher if the author was inferred to be a man (18.1% vs 16.8%, P < .01) or was affiliated with an institution in a HIC (16.9% vs 15.5%, P < .01). Our primary finding reveals that having a diverse team promotes further diversity, within the same dimension (i.e., gender or geography) and across dimensions. Notably, papers with at least one woman among the authors were more likely to also involve at least two LMIC authors (11.7% versus 10.4% in baseline, P < .001; based on inferred gender); conversely, papers with at least one LMIC author were more likely to also involve at least two women (49.4% versus 37.6%, P < .001; based on inferred gender). Conclusion: We provide a scientometric framework to assess authorship diversity. Our research suggests that the inclusiveness of high-impact medical journals is limited in terms of both gender and geography. We advocate for medical journals to adopt policies and practices that promote greater diversity and collaborative research. In addition, our findings offer a first step towards understanding the composition of teams conducting medical research globally and an opportunity for individual authors to reflect on their own collaborative research practices and possibilities to cultivate more diverse partnerships in their work.
Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled

Elisabetta Mastrorocco,Maria Terrin,Giulia Migliorisi,Benedetta Masoni,Valeria Farinola,Diletta De Deo,Silvia Ferretti,Valeria Poletti,Miriana Mercurio,Bianca Bartocci,P. Alessia Galtieri,Gaia Pellegatta,Elisa Ferrara,Silvia Carrara,Amrita Sethi,Uzma D. Siddiqui,Maria Pellisé,Antonio Facciorusso,Cesare Hassan,Alessandro Repici,Roberta Maselli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2252-3958

2024-02-08

Endoscopy

Abstract:Background The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. Methods A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020–2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. Results The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83–2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60–2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18–1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58–2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66–0.91]). Conclusion Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship. Received: 20 September 2023 Accepted after revision: 10 January 2024 Article published online: 07 February 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Gender differences in publication in emergency medicine journals

Matthew E Purdy,Brittnee N Zmuda,Allyson M Owens,Vivek Choudhary,Ryder C Olsen,Julia O Bader,Chase M Donaldson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.06.039

Abstract:Background: Some studies have suggested gender disparities in both pay and academic promotion which may adversely affect salary and career progression for female physicians. The areas of research output, funding, and authorship have not been fully and systematically examined in the emergency medicine literature. We hypothesize that gender differences may exist in research output, impact, authorship, and funding. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study examining all published articles in the top three emergency medicine journals as determined by Impact Factor between February 2015 and February 2018. We compared the authorship, number of citations of each article, funding, and h-index of each author by gender. Results: Of the 10,118 authors representing 4166 original articles in our sample, 7562 (74.7%) were male and 2556 (25.3%) were female, with females underrepresented relative to the known proportion of female emergency medicine faculty. Males were proportionally more likely to be last authors (OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.47-1.86) and less likely to be first authors than females (OR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.77-0.94). No difference in proportions of males and females in terms of being named as having funding was found (OR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.78-1.35). Males had higher h-indexes than females (5 vs. 3, p < .001) as well as a higher average number of citations (OR 1.068, 95% CI, 1.018-1.119). Conclusions: Males outnumber females in terms of numbers of publications, but also in number of citations, h-index, and last authorship. Future studies on physician gender disparities in emergency medicine need to account for these population differences.
Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ben Li,Jean Jacob-Brassard,Fahima Dossa,Konrad Salata,Teruko Kishibe,Elisa Greco,Nancy N Baxter,Mohammed Al-Omran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050322

IF: 3.006

2021-11-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. Study selection All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. Data extraction and synthesis Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Results Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010–2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12). Conclusions Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020197414.

medicine, general & internal
Gender Differences in Physical Activity and Health-Related Authorships Between 1950 and 2019

Eduardo Ribes Kohn,Pedro Curi Hallal,Gloria Isabel Niño-Cruz,Julia Almentero,Diana Pinzón,Maristela Böhlke,Katja Siefken,Michael Pratt,Andrea Ramirez-Varela

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2023-0442

2024-03-28

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

Abstract:Background: The objective of this study was to investigate gender differences in authorship in physical activity and health research. Methods: A bibliometric study including 23,399 articles from 105 countries was conducted to estimate the participation of female researchers in physical activity publications from 1950 to 2019. The frequency of female researchers was analyzed and classified by first and last authors and the overall percentage of female authors by region and country. Results: The proportion of female first authors increased from <10% in the 50s and 80s to 55% in the last decade. On the other hand, the proportion of last authors increased from 8.7% to 41.1% in the same period. Most publications with female researchers were from the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, England, Germany, Sweden, and China. Nine of these countries had over 50% of the articles published by female first authors. However, in all 10 countries, <50% of the articles were published by female last authors. Conclusions: The proportion of female researchers increased over time. However, regional differences exist and should be addressed in gender equity policies. There is a gap in the participation of female researchers as last authors. By actively addressing the gender gap in research, the global society can harness the full potential of all talented individuals, regardless of gender, leading to more inclusive and impactful scientific advancements.

public, environmental & occupational health
Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors

John P. A. Ioannidis,Kevin W. Boyack,Thomas A. Collins,Jeroen Baas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002385

IF: 9.8

2023-11-21

PLoS Biology

Abstract:We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992 to 2001, 2002 to 2011, and post-2011). Using NamSor, we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had > = 50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had > = 30% women, and 3 subfields had = <10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the United States of America) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology

DRUG REACTIONS AFTER INGESTION OF ALCOHOL.

Gender equity in the scientific nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports: A cross-sectional study

Women occupying preferential authorship positions for articles in the journal Emergencias: an analysis of authorship during the last decade

The inclusion of the gender perspective in oncology research with Spanish participation

Gender inequalities in oral medicine and pathology research: Temporal trends of two decades

Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals

Trends in gender of authors of original research in oncology among major medical journals: a retrospective bibliometric study

Women in Radiology: A perspective from Spain

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

Scientific production in sexual and reproductive health and rights research according to gender and affiliation: An analysis of publications from 1972 to 2021

Simple and Rapid Method for the Coding of Punched Cards

Academic medicine’s glass ceiling: Author’s gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success

Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles

Development of a diagnostic real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of invasive Haemophilus influenzae in clinical samples.

Closing the gender authorship gap

Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled

Gender differences in publication in emergency medicine journals

Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gender Differences in Physical Activity and Health-Related Authorships Between 1950 and 2019

Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors