Abstract
Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44% and 34% of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0% vs 28.2% for female first authors and 23.4% vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95% CI, 0.56-1.56). The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship.
Highlights
Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals
Female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0% vs 28.2% for female first authors and 23.4% vs 19.7% for female last authors)
Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams, an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.47-1.70)
Summary
Underrepresentation of women remains prevalent in science and medicine, tainting research practices, career advancement, leadership opportunities, financial compensation, and scientific recognition.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] Given the importance of publications in personal and professional development, it is concerning that female authors are underrepresented in biological and medical research publication bylines.[6,8,11,12,13,14] prior evidence supporting this finding has been based on the piecemeal examination of a few, often high-impact, journals of primary research without accounting for academic affiliation, geography, research content, and specialty-specific publishing patterns. Attributing female underrepresentation in primary research articles to authorship practices is difficult because disparities exist in multiple facets of research career development, including greater school debt, higher burnout rates, underrepresentation of women in higher-prestige graduate programs and laboratories, less funding for female investigators from their own institutions and the National Institutes of Health, and faculty promotion.[15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24] In addition, while female authors are reportedly scarce in many clinical specialties, it is unclear how author demographic characteristics differ across specialties and whether authorship is associated with the sex composition of specialties.[25,26,27,28,29] Whether past findings of female underrepresentation are truly pertinent or generalizable to broad authorship practices remains to be clarified
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.