Authors Of Original Research Articles Research Articles

Academic training of authors publishing in high-impact epidemiology and clinical journals.

BackgroundTo inform training program development and curricular initiatives, quantitative descriptions of the disciplinary training of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals are needed. Our objective was to assess whether interdisciplinary academic training and teamwork of authors publishing original research in 15 top-tier journals varied by year of publication (2000/2010/2020), type of journal (epidemiological/general clinical/specialty clinical), corresponding author gender, and time since the corresponding author completed formal training relative to the article publication date (<5/≥5 years).Methods and findingsWe invited corresponding authors of original research articles to participate in an online survey (n = 103; response rate = 8.3% of 1240 invited authors). In bivariate analyses, year of publication, type of journal, gender, and recency of training were not significantly associated with interdisciplinary team composition, whether a co-author with epidemiological or biostatistical training was involved in any research stage (design/analysis/interpretation/reporting), or with participants’ confidence in their own or their co-authors epidemiological or biostatistical expertise (p > 0.05 for each comparison). Exceptions were participants with more recent epidemiological training all had co-author(s) with epidemiological training contribute to study design and interpretation, and participants who published in 2020 were more likely to report being extremely confident in their epidemiological abilities.ConclusionsThis study was the first to quantify interdisciplinary training among research teams publishing in epidemiological and clinical journals. Our quantitative results show research published in top-tier journals generally represents interdisciplinary teamwork and that interdisciplinary training may provide publication type options. Our qualitative results show researchers view interdisciplinary training favorably.

Women Representation as First and Corresponding Authors in Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care Journals: A Retrospective Analysis.

There is limited literature on the representation of women in leading roles in neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care academia. We aimed to determine the representation of women as first and corresponding authors in articles published in 3 dedicated journals of neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care during last 5 years. Articles published in the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, Neurocritical Care, and Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020 were included in this study. The primary outcome was the proportion of women first authors, and secondary outcomes were the percentage of women corresponding authors, and representation of women as first and corresponding author by article type and country of affiliation. Of the 1164 articles included in the study, 403 (34.6%) had a woman first author. Women first authorship was highest for Special Articles (5/11; 45.5%), Clinical Reports (44/113; 38.9%) and Narrative Review Articles (58/151; 38.4%) and lowest for Original Research Articles (198/597; 33.2%). Women accounted for 29.6% (344/1164) of corresponding authors across all article types. Overall, the United States and India had the highest representation of women first authors (159/403; 39.0% and 107/344; 31.0%, respectively), and India also had highest proportion of women corresponding authors (107/272; 39.3%). Women were underrepresented compared with men as first author of articles published in 3 dedicated neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care journals over the last 5 years. Women had the lowest representation as authors of Original Research Articles.

Assessment of Women Physicians Among Authors of Perspective-Type Articles Published in High-Impact Pediatric Journals

Most pediatricians are women; however, women pediatricians are underrepresented in academic leadership positions such as department chairs and journal editors and among first authors of original research articles published in pediatric journals. Publication of all types of articles, particularly in high-impact specialty journals, is crucial to career building and academic success. To examine the gender-related profile associated with authors of perspective-type articles in the 4 highest-impact general pediatric journals to determine whether women physicians were similarly underrepresented. Cross-sectional study of perspective-type articles published between 2013 and 2017 in the 4 highest-impact general pediatric journals: Academic Pediatrics, JAMA Pediatrics, The Journal of Pediatrics, and Pediatrics. The primary outcome measure was the number and percentage of first-author women physicians as compared with men physicians. Secondary outcome measures included number and percentage of all men and all women among last authors and coauthors associated with physician first authors. A total of 425 perspective-type articles were identified, with physicians listed as the first author on 338 (79.5%). Women were underrepresented among physician first authors of known gender (140 of 336 [41.7%]), particularly among physician first authors of article categories described as scholarly (range, 15.4%-44.1%) vs categories described as narrative (range, 52.9%-65.6%) in nature. Women were also underrepresented among last authors and coauthors of articles attributed to both men and women physician first authors, although the underrepresentation of women among last authors and coauthors was more pronounced if a man physician was the first author. Because perspective-type articles provide an opportunity for authors to express their opinions, provide insights that may influence their field, and enhance their academic resumes, there is a need for pediatric journal editors and leaders of medical societies who are associated with these journals to ensure the equitable inclusion of women in medicine. A hallmark of best practices for diversity and inclusion in academic medicine is transparency with regard to reporting of gender disparities in all areas of scholarship attribution and credit.

Abstract 12: Gender Trends in Authorship of Cardiology Academic Literature - A 40-Year Perspective

Background: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and senior positions within academic medicine. This study seeks to determine the representation of female physician-investigators in cardiology through review of published literature in three prominent cardiology journals over time. Understanding disparities in research productivity can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology. Methods: Authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from three high impact cardiology journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal) were extracted from PubMed. Author sex were determined and the proportion of female first and senior authors were calculated for consecutive time cohorts. Results: We identified 78,558 unique authors of 55,085 primary research articles. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors, however they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors (p &lt; 0.001 for both). Looking at the most prolific authors, female authors are also underrepresented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Conclusions: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in cardiology research has increased over the last four decades. However there is still disproportionate underrepresentation in first authorship, senior authorship and in authors with the most publications. In addition to recruiting more women into cardiology, further efforts should be made to identify and address barriers in advancement for female physician-scientists.

Honorary Authorship in Radiologic Research Articles: Assessment of Pattern and Longitudinal Evolution

To analyze the pattern and longitudinal evolution of honorary authorship in major radiology journals. In this Institutional Review Board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of original research articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology, the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Radiology during 2 years (July 2014 through June 2016). Questions addressed the perception of honorary authorship and contributing factors, as well as demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship. Of 1839 first authors, 315 (17.3%) responded. Of these, 31.4% (97/309) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship and 54.3% (159/293) stated that one or more coauthors performed only "nonauthor" tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria. Of eight factors significantly associated with the perception of honorary authorship on univariate analysis, two were retained by the stepwise multivariate model: having someone suggest adding an author and a coauthor performing only a nonauthorship task. There has been little variation in the perception of honorary authorship among first authors of original research articles in radiology. The suggestion of adding an author and having coauthors performing only nonauthorship tasks are the two most important risk factors for honorary authorship. Our findings indicate that a prolonged course of transformation of current cultural norms is required to decrease honorary authorship.

Women among First Authors in Japanese Cardiovascular Journal.

The representation of women in Japanese academic medicine is not evident. We aimed to assess trends related to the proportion of female first authors in Japanese cardiovascular journals.We reviewed original research articles in 6 journals published in English by Japanese societies between 2006 and 2015 related to cardiovascular fields. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the factors associated with the gender of first authors and plotted the trend of predicted probability for female first authors over the study period. Of 7,005 original articles, 1,330 (19.0%) had female first authors. Affiliations located in Japan (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.81), concurrent first and corresponding authors (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74), and the total number of listed authors (aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) were negatively associated with female first authors. The adjusted probability of a female first author increased from 13% to 20% on an average between 2006 and 2009, but the increase reached a plateau after 2010.Female first authors of original research articles published in Japanese cardiovascular journals increased over the examined decade. However, the representation of women is still low and has plateaued in recent years. A gender gap in authorship for Japanese cardiovascular journals remains.

Gender trends in authorship of spine-related academic literature—a 39-year perspective

Background ContextDespite recent advances in gender equity in medicine, the representation of women in orthopedic and neurosurgery remains particularly low. Furthermore, compared with their male colleagues, female faculty members are less likely to publish research, limiting opportunities in the academic promotion process. Understanding disparities in research productivity provides insight into the “gender gap” in the spine surgeon workforce. PurposeThis study aims to determine the representation and longevity of female physician-investigators among the authors of five spine-related research journals from 1978 to 2016. Study DesignThis is a retrospective bibliometric review. MethodsThe authors of original research articles from five prominent spine-related journals (European Spine Journal, The Spine Journal, Spine, Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine) were extracted from PubMed. For authors with a complete first name listed, gender was determined by matching first name using an online database containing 216,286 distinct names across 79 countries and 89 languages.The proportion of female first and senior authors was determined during the time periods 1978 to 1994, 1995 to 1999, 2000 to 2004, 2005 to 2009, and 2010 to 2016. The authors who had their first paper published between 2000 and 2009 were included in additional analyses for publication count and longevity (whether additional articles were published 5 years after first publication). Student t test, chi-square analysis, and Cochran-Armitage trend test were used to determine significance between groups. ResultsFrom 1978 to 2016, 28,882 original research articles were published in the five spine-related journals. A total of 24,334 abstracts (90.9%) had first names listed, identifying 120,723 authors, in total of which 100,286 were successfully matched to a gender. A total of 33,480 unique authors were identified (female authors: 31.8%).Female representation increased for first and senior authors from 6.5% and 4.7% (1978–1994) to 18.5% and 13.6% (2010–2016, p<.001). Growth in female senior author representation declined after 2000 (12.3% vs. 12.9% vs. 13.5% between 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–2016). Compared with male authors, on average, female authors published fewer articles (mean: 2.1 vs. 3.3, p<.001).Of 15,304 authors who first published during 2000 to 2009, 3,478 authors (22.7%) continued to publish 5 years after their first publication. Female authors were less likely to continue publishing after their first article (15.3% of female authors vs. 24.8%, p<.001). ConclusionsFemale representation in academic spine research has doubled over the past 4 decades, although the growth of female representation as senior author has plateaued. Female physician-investigators are half as likely to continue participating in spine-related research longer than 5 years and on average publish half as many articles as senior author. In addition to recruiting more women into research, efforts should be made to identify and address barriers in research advancement and promotion for female physician-investigators.

Gender Trends in Radiology Authorship: A 35-Year Analysis.

The purpose of this study was to describe trends over time in female authorship in the radiology literature and to investigate the tendency of female first authors to publish with female senior authors. Data on the gender of academic physician authors based in the United States for all major articles published in three general radiology journals--Radiology, AJR, and Academic Radiology--were collected and analyzed for the years 1978, 1988, 1998, 2008, and 2013. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant trends over time, and a chi-square test of independence was performed to determine significant relations between the genders of first and senior authors. The gender of 4182 of 4217 (99.17%) authors with MD degrees was determined. The proportion of original research articles published by women as first authors increased from 8.33% in 1978 to 32.35% in 2013 (p < 0.001). The proportion of original research articles with women as senior authors increased from 6.75% in 1978 to 21.90% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Female first and senior authorship increased significantly over time (first author, p < 0.001; senior author, p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant relation between the genders of first and senior authors of original research articles and guest editorials (p < 0.001). Over 35 years, there was a statistically significant upward linear trend of female physician participation in authorship of academic radiology literature. Female first authors were more likely to publish with female senior authors.

Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment.

BackgroundIn the past 50 years there has been a substantial increase in the volume of published research and in the number of authors per scientific publication. There is also significant pressure exerted on researchers to produce publications. Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey corresponding authors in published medical journals to determine their opinion on publication impact in relation to performance review and promotion.MethodsCross-sectional survey of corresponding authors of original research articles published in June 2007 among 72 medical journals. Measurement outcomes included the number of publications, number of authors, authorship order and journal impact factor in relation to performance review and promotion.ResultsOf 687 surveys, 478 were analyzed (response rate 69.6%). Corresponding authors self-reported that number of publications (78.7%), journal impact factor (67.8%) and being the first author (75.9%) were most influential for their annual performance review and assessment. Only 17.6% of authors reported that the number of authors on a manuscript was important criteria for performance review and assessment. A higher percentage of Asian authors reported that the number of authors was key to performance review and promotion (41.4% versus 7.8 to 22.2%). compared to authors from other countries.ConclusionsThe number of publications, authorship order and journal impact factor were important factors for performance reviews and promotion at academic and non-academic institutes. The number of authors was not identified as important criteria. These factors may be contributing to the increase in the number of authors per publication.