Author Gender Research Articles

Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal

Abstract There is substantial evidence that systemic biases influence the scholarly peer review process. Many scholars have advocated for double‐blind peer review (also known as double‐anonymous review) to reduce these biases. However, the effectiveness of double‐blind peer review in eliminating biases is uncertain because few randomized trials have manipulated blinding of author identities for journal submissions and those that have are generally small or provide few insights on how it influences reviewer biases. In 2019, Functional Ecology began a large, randomized trial, using real manuscript submissions, to evaluate the various consequences of shifting to double‐blind peer review. Research papers submitted to the journal were randomly assigned to be reviewed with author identities blinded to reviewers (double‐blind review) or with authors identified to reviewers (single‐blind review). In this paper, we explore the effect of blinding on the outcomes of peer review, examining reviewer ratings and editorial decisions, and ask whether author gender and/or location mediate the effects of review type. Double‐blind review reduced the average success of manuscripts in peer review; papers reviewed with author identities blinded received on average lower ratings from reviewers and were less likely to be invited for revision or resubmission. However, the effect of review treatment varied with the author's location. Papers with first authors residing in countries with a higher human development index (HDI) and/or higher average English proficiency fared much better than those from countries with a lower HDI and lower English proficiency, but only when author identities were known to reviewers; outcomes were similar between demographic groups when author identities were not known to reviewers. Blinding author identities had no effect on gender differences in reviewer ratings or editor decisions. Our data provide strong evidence that authors from higher income and/or English‐speaking countries receive significant benefits (a large positive bias) to being identified to reviewers during the peer review process and that anonymizing author‐identities (e.g. double‐blind review) reduces this bias, making the peer review process more equitable. We suggest that offering optional blinding of author identities, as some journals allow, is unlikely to substantially reduce the biases that exist because authors from higher‐income and English‐speaking countries are the least likely to choose to be reviewed with their identity anonymized. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

MP75-18 WOMEN'S REPRESENTATION IN UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY PUBLISHING: 30 YEARS PAST AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP75-18 WOMEN'S REPRESENTATION IN UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY PUBLISHING: 30 YEARS PAST AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE Orel Carmona, Reut Cohen, and Miki Haifler Orel CarmonaOrel Carmona More articles by this author , Reut CohenReut Cohen More articles by this author , and Miki HaiflerMiki Haifler More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003349.18AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urology has traditionally been a male-dominant field, with only 10.3% of practicing urologists in the US being women. Women are also underrepresented in academic publications in urology, which has a critical influence on promotion within the field of urology. The objective of this study is to examine female authorship trends in urologic oncology literature as first and last authors over the last three decades and to forecast the trend in decades to come. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted for urologic oncology papers from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020. The 333 most relevant “best match” papers from each decade were extracted according to a predefined research strategy. Author gender, specialty, advanced degrees, and the continent of origin in addition to journal variables were collected. Forecasting analyses were conducted to determine the projected proportions of female authors over the next 3 decades by considering female authorship trends over the previous 3 decades, using the Holt-Winters exponential smoothing method. RESULTS: Females represent only 10% and 17% of first and last authors, with a lower H-index for females compared with males, both as first and last authors. Female authorship increased over the last 3 decades and we predict an increasing trend for female first and last authors by 2050. CONCLUSIONS: Most of urologic oncology literature has been generated by male authors. A significant rising trend was shown in female first and last authorship over the last three decades, and these trends will continue over the next 3 decades. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e1087 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Orel Carmona More articles by this author Reut Cohen More articles by this author Miki Haifler More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Gender disparities in authorship of invited submissions in high-impact psychology journals.

Women comprise the majority of graduates from psychology doctoral programs, but equity is yet to be achieved in the professoriate. Publication drives career advancement, underscoring the need to investigate publication-based metrics of eminence. To our knowledge, authorship of invited submissions-a proxy of research esteem-has not been the focus of any psychology studies. In this cross-sectional study, authorship of invited submission(s) in five elite psychology journals (2015-2019) was investigated: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Annual Review of Psychology, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, and Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. We hypothesized that women would be underrepresented. Author gender was classified using publicly available details (e.g., pronouns on professional websites). Primary outcomes were the proportion of women solo-, first-, or likely invited authors, relative to the proportion of women full and associate professors in psychology at R1 institutions (42.3%). Of 1,828 authorship positions (713 articles), 35.6% were occupied by women. Relative to the nominated base rate, women were disproportionately underrepresented. When the likely invited author on a multi-author publication was a woman, the first author was a woman on 51.0% of papers; when the likely invited author was a man, the first author was a woman on 34.1% of papers. These findings align with prior studies and extend the research by demonstrating that the gender publication gap in psychology is exacerbated in invited submissions and driven by particular subfields. Continued efforts are needed to redress gender disparities in authorship of invited submissions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Where are the Women

Using bibliographic metadata from 177 Philosophy Journals between 1950 and 2020, this article presents new data on the under- representation of women authors in philosophy journals across decades and across four different compounding factors. First, we examine how philosophy fits in comparison to other academic disciplines. Second, we consider how the regional academic context in which Philosophy Journals operate impacts on author gender proportions. Third, we consider how the regional specialization of a journal impacts on author gender proportions. Fourth, and perhaps most interestingly, we consider the impact of author ethnicity on gender representation, and we examine the breakdown of author ethnicity across Philosophy Journals between 1950 and 2020. To our knowledge, this is the first work to offer an estimate for author ethnicity and gender in philosophy publications using a large- scale data set. We find that women authors are underrepresented in Philosophy Journals across time, across disciplines, across the globe, and regardless of ethnicity.

Gender stereotypes in ecological research themes: An analysis of the last 20 years of the Argentinian ecology conferences

AbstractAlthough Argentina harbours a notable increase in the academic community, achieving the highest number of researchers per capita in Latin America, the gender gap is still evident. The objective was to identify and evaluate the evolution of the main research themes in Argentinian ecology during the last 20 years to address whether social gender stereotypes were reproduced in research theme selection. We analysed four books of abstracts from the Argentinian Ecology conferences of the last 20 years and identified gender of the first author and co‐authors. Natural Language Processing approach was used to analyse gender associations with the 16 319 words appearing in the 2208 titles of abstracts. The average number of female co‐authors was always larger in female‐led abstracts although the proportion of female co‐authors/total authors increased the most in male‐led abstracts. Research themes evolved from those considered cornerstones of ecology (e.g. population‐oriented studies) to contemporary themes defined by Management and policy studies. Gender differences were present and changed with time. Currently, men work on research themes related to decision‐making, while women focus on environmental processes therefore it is urgent to create more leadership spaces for women to reduce gender inequalities.

Mensuration and Mitigation of Gender-Based Disparity in Aesthetic Academia: How Can We Do Better?

Introduction: Females have long been underrepresented in all surgical disciplines, particularly plastic surgery. In this study, we sought to characterize the state of gender parity in aesthetic surgery academia by comparing gender authorship ratios in published literature as well as a comparison of the current number of practicing female and male plastic surgeons. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of peer-reviewed publications relating to Aesthetic/Cosmetic surgery from the Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) and Annals of Plastic Surgery (APS) from January 2009 to December 2020. Title of publication, senior and first authors’ names were extracted and gender of the first and senior authors was assigned by a gender determination application. First author:senior ratios were determined and recorded as follows- Male:Male (M:M), Female:Male (F:M), Male:Female (M:F), and Female:Female (F:F). Temporal trends of practicing plastic surgeons stratified by gender from 2009-2020 was obtained from the ACGME. Univariate, Multivariable logistic regression and Spearman’s rank correlation tests were used as appropriate. Results: We included 1025 articles. Sixteen percent (n= 169) of first authors and 20% (n= 202) of senior authors were female. Obtained ratios include 46 F:F, 156 F:M, 123 M:F, and 700 M:M. There was a positive correlation between increasing year and number of female surgeons r(3) =.99, p = 0.01. In multivariable logistic regression, female senior authorship (OR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.083- 2.343; p <0.0001) and publication year (OR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.119-2.129; p <0.0001) were independently associated with female first authorship. Conclusion: Compared to male first authors, female senior authors were more than one and half times as likely to include a female first author. To achieve gender parity in aesthetic academic surgery, men should mentor and include more female first authors.

Contributions of Women to Cardiovascular Science Over Two Decades: Authorship, Leadership, and Mentorship.

Background Women remain underrepresented in cardiology. We aimed to assess gender trends in research authorship, authorship in leading roles, mentorship, and research team diversity. Methods and Results We identified "cardiac and cardiovascular systems" journals from 2002 to 2020 using Journal Citation Reports 2019 (Web of Science, Clarivate Analytics). Gender authorship, mentorship, research team diversity, and trends were assessed. Associations between author gender and impact factor, journal region, and cardiology subspecialties were analyzed. Analysis of 396 549 research papers from 122 journals showed the percentage of women authors increased from 16.6% to 24.6% (β=0.38 [95% CI, 0.29-0.46]; P<0.001), whereas the proportion of women first (β=-0.03 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.004]; P=0.09) or last authors (β=-0.017 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.006]; P=0.15) was unchanged. Compared with men last authors, women last authors were more likely to mentor women first authors and lead more diverse research teams (both P<0.001). Journal impact factor was related to percentage of women authors overall (Spearman's correlation coefficient RS=0.208 [95% CI, 0.02-0.38]; P=0.03) but not first or last women authors (both P>0.5). Women comprised 18.4%-25.7% of authors in cardiology subspecialties. Journal region and author gender were unrelated (all P>0.4). Conclusions Women's inclusion as authors of cardiology papers increased slightly over the past 2 decades, yet the proportions of women in first and last authorship roles were unchanged. Women are increasingly likely to mentor women first authors and lead diverse research teams. Women last authors are essential to increasing diversity of future independent investigators and inclusive research teams, both of which are associated with innovation and excellence in science.

Analysis of gender representation, authorship inflation, and institutional affiliation in abstract acceptance: a 5-year study.

Our goals were to characterize associations of author number, author gender, and institutional affiliation on ratings and acceptances of abstracts submitted to one surgical education conference over 5 years. We retrospectively reviewed all abstracts submitted between 2017 and 2021 to the annual meeting of the Association for Surgical Education (ASE). Abstract data included average rater scores, acceptance status, author lists, and institutional affiliations. We cross-referenced last author affiliation with top-40 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded institutions and used a gender determination software to code first and last author genders. We analyzed 1,162 abstracts. Higher reviewer scores demonstrated positive, weak associations with more authors [r(1160) = 0.191, p < 0.001] and institutions [r(1160) = 0.182, p < 0.001]. Significantly higher scores were noted for abstracts with last authors affiliated with top-40 NIH-funded institutions [4.18 (SD 0.96) vs. 3.72 (SD 1.12), p < 0.001]. Women were first authors (51.8%) (n = 602) and last authors (35.4%) (n = 411) of the time. Abstracts were rated significantly higher with women rather than men as first authors [3.98 (SD 0.99) vs. 3.82 (SD 1.12), p = 0.011] or last [4.01 (SD 1.04) vs. 3.82 (SD 1.10), p = 0.005]. Across all years, abstracts were accepted more often as podium or plenary presentations when submitted by women first [n = 279, 59.7% (p = 0.002)] or last [n = 183, 38.4% (p = 0.095)] authors. Abstracts whose last authors were affiliated with top-40 NIH-funded institutions received significantly higher scores, possibly indicating increased tangible or intangible resources contributing to research efforts. Abstracts with women first and last authors scored higher and were more frequently invited for plenary and podium presentations.

How Many Plastic Surgeons Does It Take to Write an Article? A 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis of Authorship Inflation.

Publications measure academic productivity; they can affect research funding and career trajectory. There is a trend of increased authors per publication in surgery journals. We sought to determine whether authorship inflation exists in the plastic surgery literature and identify independent predictors of the number of co-authors. We performed a bibliometric analysis of articles published in 3 high impact plastic surgery journals at 2-year intervals between 2010 and 2020. For each publication, we collected details on year of publication, article type, plastic surgery topic, gender of senior author, geographical origin of study, and the number of authors. A total of 5593 articles were collected. The median number of authors per article increased over time (ρ = 0.20, P < 0.001). Cohort studies, basic science investigations, literature reviews, and systematic reviews experienced a significant increase in the number of authors per article from 2010 to 2020 (P < 0.001). The rise in the number of authors was consistent across all plastic surgery topics (P < 0.001). Both male and female senior authors had a significant increase in the number of co-authors (P < 0.001). The regression model demonstrated that article type (cohort studies, basic science investigations, and systematic reviews) predicted more co-authors, whereas geographical region (Africa, Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and United Kingdom and Ireland) and plastic surgery topics (aesthetic and hand surgery) predicted fewer authors. The number of authors per publication is increasing in plastic surgery. Author proliferation was consistent across most article types and unaffected by gender. Possible reasons behind this trend include research complexity, increased collaboration, or gift authorship.

Content analysis of research in the human-animal interaction bulletin (2013–2022)

Abstract Research in the field of human-animal interaction (HAI) has been growing exponentially as the field has been increasingly recognized as a valid empirical science. With the growth in research, the number of publishing opportunities has also expanded. To gain a greater understanding of the research activity in the articles published in the Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin (HAIB), a content analysis was conducted. Demographic variables of authors (gender, affiliation, geographical location, etc.), study participants (location, age, gender, condition, etc.), non-human study participants (species, breed, location, etc.), and research activity types ( Buboltz et al ., 1999 ) were examined to provide an overview of the state of research in HAI as viewed through the HAIB journal. Findings align with previous research identifying females as the predominant publishers in the field of HAI. Articles submitted by researchers in the United States, Australia, and Europe were most common. The study participants included children, college students, adults, and participants with medical conditions ranging from anxiety to loneliness. Last, research studies focusing on a combination of process and outcome activity were more prolific than articles focusing on either process or outcome activities alone.

Looking Back, Moving Forward: Determining the Current State of Diversity in Campus Common Reads Programs

ABSTRACT Long-standing criteria for Common Reads (CR) programs recognize the value of diversity in the book selection process. This study, examining 1,801 books chosen over a four-year period (2017–20), explored the extent to which these programs have embodied this spirit. In particular, this work focused on the diversity of the books (through genre and subject headings) and the authors (gender, nationality, ethnicity and race). We also looked at characteristics of participating institutions and publishers. Initial data was gathered from an annual list of CR selections posted online by Penguin Random House. Findings revealed a notable presence of diverse topics in the titles selected and an examination of a subset of authors showed that 58% of these authors were people of color. Possible areas of improvement are noted, including expanding the geographic focus of books as well as potential implications for CR programs.

Promoting inclusion, diversity, and equity in pain science.

Promoting inclusion, diversity, and equity in pain science.

African Archaeological Journals and Social Issues 2014–2021

The two waves of reflexivity in archaeology are the identity politics of archaeologists and stakeholder politics. These social issues are considered in this article through the perspective of three African archaeological journals produced from 2014 to 2021. Identity politics is examined through a quantitative analysis of authorship, book reviewing, and the countries covered. I conclude that parity of gender authorship—assuming 61% male and 39% female archaeologists—has been achieved by the African Archaeological Review, Journal of African Archaeology, and Azania. In book reviewing, this is less so. The geographical coverage across the three journals shows lacunae. Stakeholder politics is most visible in book reviews and special issues. Journal ethics and goals and the final topics of open access and other ways of broadening the pool of authors, reviewers, and accessibility are offered.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis.

Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages. Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists. Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals. We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals. During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women. Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Global geographic and gender disparities in stem cell-related surgical research: bibliometric review of the top 200 most-cited articles.

The study aimed to identify geographic and gender disparities in the quality, academic impact, and media attention of the top-cited articles related to stem cell-related surgical research. The following data was extracted for the top 200 most-cited articles (2011-2021): article- (including citation metrics and country of publication), journal- (including impact factor), and author-level (including corresponding author gender) variables. Article Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a measure of mass mainstream and social media attention, was also recorded. Most articles originated from high-income countries (HICs: 175 [87.5%]), with only 7 (3.5%) from lower-middle-income countries. Articles from non-HIC were published in journals with significantly lower impact factors (6.66 [3.75-9.46] vs. 23.2 [7.3-32.5]; p < 0.001) and AAS (7 [3-14.5] vs. 30 [11-83]; p < 0.001). Only 44 (22%) of articles were authored by a female corresponding author, with these having significantly fewer citations than those authored by a male (289 [250-400] vs. 331.5 [267.25-451.25]; p=0.031). Even amongst the top-cited literature, our results demonstrate worrying disparities in the geographic origins of stem cell-related surgical research. The vast majority originates from HICs, with these articles being published in better journals and receiving greater media attention. We also identified significant gender disparities, with female representation being concerningly low and female-authored articles receiving significantly fewer citations.

A Meta-Study of the Journal of Creativity in Mental Health (JCMH): An Analysis of Publication Characteristics, 2005-2019

ABSTRACT Articles published in Journal of Creativity in Mental Health (JCMH) from 2005 to 2019 were analyzed to determine trends over time in the article content (e.g., topical content, research methodology, participant characteristics, research design, statistics used, reporting standards) and author characteristics (e.g., leading contributors and institutions, lead author gender, work setting, and domicile).

Female Dynamics in Authorship of Scientific Publications in the Public Library of Science: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research.

Women are generally underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As scientific production reflects scholarly impact and participation in the scientific process, the number of journal publications forms a pertinent measure of academic productivity. This study examined the prevalence and evolution of female representation in prominent author positions across multidisciplinary biomedical research. Publications from seven exemplar cross-specialty journals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, PLoS One, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases) between January 2010 and December 2020 were extracted from Web of Science. Using Genderize.io, the gender of authors from their first names was estimated using a 75% threshold. The association between female prevalence in first and last authorship and journal was evaluated using a binary logistic regression, and odds ratios were estimated against a 50:50 reference on gender. In 266,739 publications, 43.3% of first authors and 26.7% of last authors were females. Across the ten-year period, female first authorship increased by 19.6% and last authorship by 3.2%. Among all journals, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion of female first authors (45.7%) and PLoS Medicine of female last authors (32%), while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories (23.7% and 17.2%). First authors were less likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.05) except for PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases (odds ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.00), where the odds of female authorship were not significantly different (p = 0.054). Last authors were not more likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.001). Overall, women still appear underrepresented as first authors in biomedical publications and their representation as last authors has severely lagged. Efforts towards gender equality in scholarly authorship will contribute to the representation of women in biomedical research and ensure that their potential is not lost.

Disciplinary and gender-based variations: A frame-based analysis of interest markers in research articles

Linguistic expressions of interest as emotive responses are not uncommon in academic discourse but have hardly attracted any research attention. This paper reports on a study designed to examine how the deployment of such expressions in academic writing is mediated by an academic author's disciplinary background and gender. Drawing on a semantic frame developed for interest markers found in a corpus of 640 research articles sampled from four disciplines, corpus-based quantitative analyses were conducted on the incidence of the various elements of the Interest frame. Text-based interviews were also conducted with 16 disciplinary informants to explore considerations behind their use of interest markers. The corpus analyses found that although discipline and gender did not reliably predict academic authors' overall use of interest markers, they were robust predictors of several frame elements. The analyses of the interview data revealed that the observed quantitative differences were related to disciplinary knowledge-making practices, knowledge/knower epistemological orientations prevailing in the disciplines, gender-preferential discursive practices and an author's relative status in academia.

Gender differences in first authorship of randomized controlled trials from India

BackgroundIt has been established that identity of the trial leadership plays a role in the conduct of the trial. An estimation of the gender composition of RCT leadership in India has not been undertaken. We performed this study to quantify the gender composition of first authors of RCTs published from India for the years 2011 to 2020. MethodsPubMed database was searched using the keyword “randomized controlled trial”. We included studies that were classified as a RCT, had a first author affiliation that belonged to India and were published online between 1st January 2011 to 31st December 2020. The gender of the first authors was determined using Gender-API and manually. ResultsOut of the total 4136 RCTs included in our study, the gender of 4056 (98%) first authors were identified. Of the 4056 first authors, 1198 (30%) were women and 2858 (70%) were men. The mean (SD) percentage of yearly distribution of women and men as first authors was 29.53(2.23) and 70.46(2.23), respectively. We did not find any significant change in gender distribution of first authors over the course of ten years [P = 0.78]. ConclusionThe persistence of gender disparity in the leadership of RCTs from India demands greater efforts towards inclusion of women as leaders of clinical trials.

Investigation of potential gender bias in the peer review system at Reproduction

AbstractThis study examined whether publication outcome was affected by the gender of author, handling associate editor (AE), or reviewer, and whether there was gender bias in reviewer selection, in the journal Reproduction. Analyses were carried out on 4289 original research manuscripts submitted to the journal between 2007 and 2019. Both female and male AEs appointed more male reviewers than female reviewers, but female AEs were significantly more likely to appoint female reviewers than male AEs were (p &lt; 0.001). When examining the gender of either first or last author manuscripts, those with female authors that were reviewed by female reviewers received better scores than those with male authors that were reviewed by female reviewers (p &lt; 0.05): where the reviewer was male, no such effect was observed. Acceptance rates of manuscripts were similar for both female and male authors, whether first or last, regardless of AE gender. Overall, there was no significant correlation between gender of first or last author, or of AE, on the likelihood of acceptance of a research paper. These data suggest no bias against female authors during the peer review process in this reproductive biology journal.