Gender Differences in Citation Rate: An Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology High-Impact Journals Over Two Decades.

Abstract

Historically, women's scientific contributions have been under-recognized. We investigated whether the number of citations, a key metric used for academic promotions and scientific productivity, differs in nephrology high impact publications based on author's gender. We identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 2000-2021 in ten high impact journals. We assessed author gender, citations, h-index, m-index, years active publishing, education, and grant funding. The main predictor of interest was the gender of the first author. The main outcome was the standardized citation count for analysis of the selected publications. Additionally, we evaluated standardized author citation counts using the author, rather than paper. Among the selected publications, women were first authors of 65 (17.1%) and men of 315 manuscripts (82.9%). In crude analyses, publications with male first authors had a significantly higher median number of standardized citations (14 vs. 10, P=0.01). Adjusted analyses revealed, the m-index (β=29.48, P≤0.01) and journal impact factor (β=0.78, P<0.001) were significantly associated with the standardized citation index. In contrast, neither the gender of the first author (βmale gender=1.42, P=0.71) nor of the last author (βmale gender=8.89, P=0.38) were significantly associated with the standardized citations. Similarly, in adjusted analyses based on author profiles, male authorship was not significantly associated with the standardized author citation number (βmale gender=-7.79, P=0.08). Our study highlights marked disparities in the overall number of women publishing high impact nephrology trials and the number of papers with women scientists as first authors of high impact trials in the nephrology literature. Although crude citation rates were lower in papers with female first authors, the gender of the first author was not independently associated with citation metrics. Addressing gender disparities in academic recognition requires nuanced approaches extending beyond authorship and a broader focus on complex factors that influence academic recognition and scientific contributions.