Differences In Authorship Research Articles

Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument.

Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines. All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines. Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% (P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time (P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating. There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.

Racial Inequality and Publication in Economics

This paper examines racial disparities in economic publishing using bibliometric data from over 200 economic journals. We find notable differences in authorship between White and non-White authors, with Black, Hispanic, and Asian economists significantly underrepresented in comparison to their share of the overall population. While the publication of non-White economists has increased over the last three decades, the average number of Top 5 journal publications by non-White economists is 25 to 50 percent lower than that of White economists in comparable positions. These disparities highlight the need for measures to enhance knowledge diversity within the economics profession.

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

The objective of this study was to investigate gender differences in authorship in physical activity and health research. 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. 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. 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.

Pre- and post-COVID-19 gender trends in authorship for paediatric radiology articles worldwide: a systematic review.

Gender inequalities in academic medicine persist despite progress over the past decade. Evidence-based targeted interventions are needed to reduce gender inequalities. This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on gender trends in authorship of paediatric radiology research worldwide. This prospectively registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to May 29, 2023, with no restrictions on country of origin. Screening and data extraction occurred independently and in duplicate. Gender of first, last, and corresponding authors were determined using an artificial intelligence-powered, validated, multinational database ( www.genderize.io ). Two time periods were categorised according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering: pre-COVID (prior to March 2020) and peak and post-COVID (March 2020 onwards). One-sample binomial testing was used to analyse proportion of authorship based on gender. Categorical variables were described as frequencies and percentages, and compared using testing chi-square or Fisher exact testing, with a threshold of P<0.05 representing statistical significance. In total, 922 articles were included with 39 countries represented. A statistically significant difference in authorship based on gender persisted during the peak and post-COVID time period (March 2020 onwards) where women represented a statistically significant lower proportion of last (35.5%) and corresponding (42.7%) authors (P<0.001, P=0.001, respectively). Statistically significant differences for first authors were not found in either period (P=0.08 and P=0.48). This study identifies differences in gender trends for authorship in paediatric radiology research worldwide. Future efforts to increase authorship by women are needed.

P791 Trends in gender representation in inflammatory bowel disease randomized trials from 1955-2023

Abstract Background Historically women have been underrepresented in the field of gastroenterology and continue to be under-represented in academic scholarship and leadership despite the rising number of female medical graduates in recent years.This study aims to characterize the representation of women in authorship of published clinical trials in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and the trend in gender representation since 1955. Methods IBD randomized trials published between 1955 to 2023 were included. Author gender, trial specifics (phase, intervention, population) source of funding were examined. Results We included 241 trials with a total of 3,264 authors: 2,418 were men (74.1%), 834 women (25.6%) and 12 (0.4%) had unknown gender. Women authorship representation increased from 0% in 1971 up to 30% in 2023 (0.41% annual increase) Figure 1A. Women were first, second, corresponding and last authors in 36/241 (14.2%), 41/241 (15.3%), 27/241 (10.5%) and 30/241 (11.7%) of published trials, respectively, Figure 1. Statistical differences in authorship by gender were found in all study categories, with women being less represented than men in unicenter vs multicenter trials, adult vs pediatric population trials, different trial phases, type of intervention [standard, advance or other] and source of funding (p&amp;lt;0.0001 for all comparisons) Table 1. From 2000 to 2023, industry-sponsored studies (n=119) included 1,680 authors, with 1,295 (77.1%) men and 379 (22.9%) women. Among these authors, 576 had industry affiliation, and 318 (55.2%) were men and 258 (44.8%) women. Women were first, second, corresponding and last authors in 15/119 (12.6%), 12/119 (10.1%), 11/119 (11.2), 10/119 (8.4%) of these studies. Linear regression analysis revealed an upward trend since 1995 in the total number of authors listed per published trial, but with men consistently outnumbering women authors, the ratio of women to men authors per publication remains low over the years (p&amp;lt;0.0001) Figure 1B. Conclusion Our findings underscore persistent gender disparities in published IBD trials authorship. Despite an increase in representation over time, women still make up less than 35% of authors and less than 15% of lead authors with little if any improvement over recent years (Figure 1C, 1D). Recognizing that lead authorship in trials has an impact on research funding and academic promotion, this gender disparity in authorship contributes to the many barriers women face in advancing their career in the field of IBD.

Representation of female authors in oncology: the Indian perspective.

Despite an increasing number of female oncologists, disparities persist in authorship representation of women, especially in high-impact journals. This study aimed to investigate gender differences in authorship within select high-impact Indian oncology journals over a 5-year period, assessing trends in the gender gap. Six high-impact Indian oncology journals were selected for analysis. Data on original articles, reviews and editorials published between 2017 and 2022 were collected, including authors' gender, their role as first author or corresponding author and name of the journal. Gender determination was validated through web searches. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and to study the prevalence of female authorship across journals. A total of 2,235 articles were included. Across all journals, 30.4% of authors were female, with Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment exhibiting the highest proportion of female authors (948/2,507; 37.8%). Female authorship increased over time, with first authors rising from 33% to 41%, and corresponding authors from 29.4% to 36.4%. However, disparities persisted, and certain journals exhibited fluctuating trends. Female authorship was higher in original articles (30.9%) compared to reviews (27.8%) and editorials (24.5%). Women comprised 3.5%-24.4% of the editorial boards of the six journals. Female representation, both as authors and editorial board members of Indian oncology journals is disproportionately low. Proactive measures are necessary to address these disparities and promote gender equity in academic publishing.

Abstract 13734: Gender Differences in Authorship of Top Congenital Heart Disease Publications

Introduction: Despite progress in the representation of women in medical training, men continue to dominate fields such as academic medicine and cardiology. The proportion of female cardiology trainees and physicians has increased over time; however, women continue to be underrepresented in published cardiology literature. Research Question: Our study aims to investigate whether there are gender disparities in authorship amongst the top congenital heart disease publications. Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in PubMed from 2018 to 2022 from the top seven Cardiology and congenital heart disease (CHD) journals by impact factor and H5-index. The first authors, last authors, affiliations, and countries of origin were extracted. The genders of the authors were then determined from a database of name-to-gender mappings ( Gender API; gender-api.com ). One sample and independent sample t-tests were performed. Results: We identified 1058 CHD articles on PubMed which met the inclusion criteria. Female authors accounted for 38.1% of all first authors and 29.6% of all last authors, which was a statistically significant difference from the proportion of male authors (61.9% and 70.4%, respectively, p&lt;0.001). Europe showed a greater bias towards male first authors than the United States (p=0.010), whereas there was no significant gender difference seen in last authors between the two regions (p=0.170). Publications with a male senior author were more likely to have a male first author (67.1% male, p&lt;0.001), whereas there was no difference in first author gender in publications with a female last author (49.8% male, p=0.954). Conclusions: We analyzed the first and last author genders of publications in high-impact cardiology journals over the past 5 years and found that women are underrepresented in both first and last authorship positions. Patterns in underrepresentation emerged, both geographically and based on the gender of the senior author. Additional work is needed to address these gender disparities and identify concrete solutions to increasing female representation in CHD research, as it may elucidate obstacles to female representation in cardiology leadership, recruitment, and academic advancement.

Cross-platform social media analysis regarding ACL injury and surgery

Background:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury affects a broad patient population, but there is limited knowledge on how ACL injury is discussed across social media platforms. This study aims to develop an extensive snapshot of the social media milieu for understanding who uses social media platforms, what topics users discuss, and how these platforms vary regarding ACL injury and surgery.Methods:We utilized a qualitative, descriptive design with quantitative statistical analysis including Kruskal-Wallis tests and Fisher’s Exact tests with post hoc analyses to examine new posts across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok using ACL-specific search terms from August 2021 to January 2022. Posts were analyzed by authorship, content characterization, and engagement.Results:Across social media sites, 760 posts were examined involving ACL surgery and injury. There was statistically significant difference among the platforms when comparing categories of authorship (P&lt;0.001). There were statistically significant differences where physicians (P&lt;0.001) and patients (P&lt;0.001) posted, with physicians representing 20.6% and 19.5% of posts on Facebook and Twitter, respectively. TikTok displayed the highest patient authorship (83.5%) and greatest content engagement. There were also significant differences among platforms regarding content characterization (P&lt;0.001).Conclusions:This study breaks down a snapshot of social media revolving around ACL injury and surgery demonstrating differences in authorship, content, and engagement of posts across platforms. These findings demonstrate the frequent use of social media by patients to address unmet clinical needs and can help surgeons and patients connect on the same platforms.Level of Evidence:Level IV.

Gender Differences in North American and International Otolaryngology Clinical Practice Guideline Authorship: A 17-Year Analysis.

To analyze gender differences in authorship of North American (Canadian and American) and international published otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) over a 17-year period. Clinical practice guidelines published between 2005 and 2022 were identified through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) search strategy in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Studies were included if they were original studies, published in the English language, and encompassed Canadian, American, or international OHNS clinical practice guidelines. A total of 145 guidelines were identified, encompassing 661 female authors (27.4%) and 1756 male authors (72.7%). Among OHNS authors, women and men accounted for 21.2% and 78.8% of authors, respectively. Women who were involved in guideline authorship were 31.0% less likely to be an otolaryngologist compared to men. There were no gender differences across first or senior author and by subspeciality. Female otolaryngologist representation was the greatest in rhinology (28.3%) and pediatrics (26.7%). American guidelines had the greatest proportion of female authors per guideline (34.1%) and the greatest number of unique female authors (33.2%). Despite the increasing representation of women in OHNS, gender gaps exist with regards to authorship within clinical practice guidelines. Greater gender diversity and transparency is required within guideline authorship to help achieve equitable gender representation and the development of balanced guidelines with a variety of viewpoints.

Pharmaceutical Communication in Spain around the COVID-19 Crisis: A Scoping Review

This paper addresses the scientific production of pharmaceutical communication in Spain around the COVID-19 crisis, in which information overload, amplified by the digital media, evidenced the relevance of communication in the digital society. The research observes the evolution and characteristics of such studies, identifying scientific fields and disciplines related to communication, thematic lines, agents and publics. To this end, it proposes an exploratory review study adjusted to the PRISMA protocol with a search strategy including three databases (Scopus, WOS and Dialnet) and whose filtration produced a final population of 56 publications on Spanish pharmaceutical communication between 2018 and 2022. The results point to a greater production of scientific papers around the year of the pandemic. These papers were published by university institutions in health sciences journals, although differences in authorship by gender were detected. Most of them are empirical papers, with a predominance of mixed content analyses. The field of public relations stands out, but terminological confusion was also detected. This leads to a reflection on its causes and solutions in favour of the transparency and accountability in pharmaceutical communication.

Is it time to reconsider Henry V?

Abstract The average word length of the verse sections of Henry V is greater than that of the prose sections. Contrary to the assumption that word length primarily reflects literary medium (prose–verse), a more extended examination reveals that differences in word length can also reflect differences in authorship. Since 1998, a variety of stylistic analyses have pointed in the same direction: the verse of Henry V is not generally by Shakespeare who wrote the play’s prose.

Malaria Publications before and during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Bibliometric Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported to affect malaria intervention strategies, the suspension of malaria elimination programs, and the publication of malaria research. We compared differences in authorship, affiliations, countries, funding sources, article types, keywords, languages, and citations between studies published before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The searches were performed online using the Scopus database on 8 April 2022. The searches were limited to two periods: before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018–2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021). The information of authorship, affiliations, countries, funding sources, article types, keywords, languages, and citations between studies published before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared using frequency and percentage. The relationships between the most productive authors, countries, affiliations, journals, and frequently used keywords were visualized using the VOSviewer (version 1.6.18) software. A total of 2965 articles were identified in two periods and, among those, 1291 relevant studies were included. There was no difference in malaria publications before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (679 articles, 52.6% vs. 612 articles, 47.4%). Compared between the two periods, the preliminary trend of malaria publications in terms of authorship, affiliations, countries, funding sources, article types, keywords, languages, and citations were different. In conclusion, the current study showed the preliminary trends in malaria publications before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study would encourage researchers to perform a scoping review or systematic review to better understand the direction of malaria publications during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sex differences in authorship in cardiothoracic surgery during the early coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic negatively impacted cardiothoracic (CT) surgery, with changes in clinical, academic, and personal responsibilities. We hypothesized that the pandemic may disproportionately impact female academic CT surgeons, accentuating preexisting sex disparities. This study assessed sex differences in authorship of 2 major CT surgery journals during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsAll accepted submissions to The Annals of Thoracic Surgery and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery between April and August of 2019 and the same period in 2020 were reviewed. Article type and author characteristics were obtained from the journals. Author sex was predicted using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io) and verified with authors' institutional and public professional profiles. ResultsIn total, 1106 submissions were accepted during the 2019 period, whereas 900 articles (18.6% decrease) were accepted during the same period in 2020. Original research articles comprised 33.3% of the 2019 articles but only 4.9% of the 2020 articles. Female authors contributed to 39.3% (23.1% original research and 16.2% nonoriginal articles) and 29.4% (3.3% original research and 26.1% nonoriginal articles) of articles during the 2019 and 2020 periods, respectively. This represents a marked change in the type of articles that female authors contributed to. ConclusionsEarly on during the COVID-19 pandemic, the type of articles accepted, and authorship demographic changed. There was a decrease in contribution of female-authored CT surgery articles submitted to both journals, especially for original research. Future research will elucidate the long-term impact of the pandemic on sex disparities in academic productivity. Video Abstract [Display omitted]

A Protocol for a Scoping Review Comparative Bibliometric Analysis of Infectious Disease Research in Africa.

Introduction: Evidence on authorship trends of health research conducted about or in Africa shows that there is a lack of local researchers in the first and last authorship positions, with high income country collaborations taking up these positions. The differences in authorship calls into question power imbalances in global health research and who benefits from the production of new discoveries and innovations. Health studies may further go on to inform policy and clinical practice within the region having an impact on public health. This paper aims to compare the differences in authorship between COVID-19 and relevant infectious diseases in Africa.Materials and Methods: We will conduct a bibliometric analysis comparing authorship for COVID-19 research during a public health emergency with authorship for four other infectious diseases of relevance to Africa namely: Ebola, Zika Virus (ZIKV), Tuberculosis (TB) and Influenza. Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and reviewed by Levac et al. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), African Index Medicus (AIM), Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR) Index Medicus, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate). We will compare the different trends of disease research between the selected diseases. This study is registered with OSF registries and is licensed with the Academic Free License version 3.0. The open science registration number is 10.17605/OSF.IO/5ZPGN.

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Research: A Scientometric Analysis.

BackgroundWe sought to investigate sex‐specific differences in authorship of cardiovascular research over the past decade.Methods and ResultsAll 387 463 cardiovascular publications between 2010 and 2019 were retrieved from Web of Science. Articles increased from 19 960 to 29 604 articles per year (P>0.001). The number of articles written by female first authors increased by 76.3% (6434–11 343 articles) and by 35.0% for male first authors (13 526–18 261) (P<0.001). The first author was more likely to be a female author in articles with female last authors. The median impact factor (IF) for articles by female first authors was lower (2.46 [interquartile range, 7 1.11–4.03] versus 2.51 [interquartile range, 1.17–4.10]; P<0.001). Female authorship articles reached the highest IF in North America (average IF, 3.7), with the lowest in Africa (average IF, 1.8).ConclusionsPublications in cardiovascular research have increased over the past decade, particularly by female authors. Female researchers are cited less often compared with their male peers. The IF remains lower for articles by female researchers.

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

ObjectivesEvaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.DesignCross-sectional review.Data sourcesMedline database.Eligibility criteriaArticles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the...

Gender Differences in Authorship of Family Medicine Publications, 2002-2017.

Representation of women in medicine is increasing, including in academic family medicine. Despite this, women continue to hold a minority of senior faculty and leadership roles. This study examines the trends of women first and senior authorship between 2002 and 2017 in five family medicine journals: Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, and American Family Physician. The study also examines gender congruence between first and senior authors and women's membership on editorial boards. We collected and analyzed data on a total of 1,671 original articles published in the five family medicine journals in 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. We also examined the gender composition of the journals' editorial boards. Overall, women first authorship increased significantly from 32.6% in 2002 to 47.7% in 2017. There was no significant difference in women senior authorship or editorial board representation from 2002 to 2017. Both men and women senior authors partnered with women first authors significantly more over the 15 years. While there was a statistically significant increase in women first authors between 2002 and 2017, there is still a gap between women's authorship and editorial board representation and their representation within academic family medicine. These gaps could help to explain the continued lack of women represented within senior faculty positions.

Gender Differences in Publication Authorship During COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis of High-Impact Cardiology Journals.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in authorship of manuscripts in select high‐impact cardiology journals during the early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic.Methods and ResultsAll manuscripts published between March 1, 2019 to June 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 in 4 high‐impact cardiology journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, JAMA Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) were identified using bibliometric data. Authors' genders were determined by matching first name with predicted gender using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io) and manual adjudication. Proportions of women and men first, co‐first, senior, and co‐senior authors, manuscript types, and whether the manuscript was COVID‐19 related were recorded. In 2019, women were first authors of 176 (22.3%) manuscripts and senior authors of 99 (15.0%) manuscripts. In 2020, women first authored 230 (27.4%) manuscripts and senior authored 138 (19.3%) manuscripts. Proportions of woman first and senior authors were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019. Women were more likely to be first authors if the manuscript's senior author was a woman (33.8% for woman first/woman senior versus 23.4% for woman first/man senior; P<0.001). Women were less likely to be first authors of COVID‐19‐related original research manuscripts (P=0.04).ConclusionsRepresentation of women as key authors of manuscripts published in major cardiovascular journals increased during the early COVID‐19 pandemic compared with similar months in 2019. However, women were significantly less likely to be first authors of COVID‐19‐related original research manuscripts. Future investigation into the gender‐disparate impacts of COVID‐19 on academic careers is critical.

Gender differences in authorship among Hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgeons

BackgroundWhile studies have explored the gender gap in scientific publications, no study has investigated surgical literature in much detail. We examined the gender gap in Hepato-pancreato-biliary publications over the last decade. MethodsAll physician authored original clinical science articles published in HPB, Annals of Surgery, Surgery, Annals of Surgical Oncology, and JAMA Surgery were reviewed from 2008 to 2017. Chi square analysis was used to compare the proportions of female and male authors and Cochrane–Armitage test was used for comparisons over time. ResultsOf the 1067 publications, 84.0% of all authorships were held by men. Women physicians made up 10.3% of senior and 21.4% of first authorships with increased representation from 2.13% in 2007 to 14.8% in 2017 (p = 0.001). Women physicians comprised 14.1% of senior authors in JAMA Surgery, but only 2.46% in Annals of Surgical Oncology. Male authors were five times more likely to publish multiple articles compared to their female counterparts. Female first authors progressed to senior authors at a rate of 1.13% versus 5.73% for male authors (p = 0.89). ConclusionThese findings elucidate the continued underrepresentation of women in senior research roles and the need to recruit and mentor women in all stages of their academic careers.

Gender Differences in Authorship Among Transplant Physicians: Are We Bridging the Gap?

BackgroundDespite an increase in the number of practicing female physicians, gender disparities in academic medicine persist. For investigating gender gap in the transplantation field, this study examined the relationship between gender and authorship among medical and surgical transplant physicians. Materials and methodsIn this observational study, all original clinical science articles published in the journals of Transplantation, American Journal of Transplantation, and Clinical Transplantation were reviewed from January 2008 to December 2017. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the proportions of female and male authors, and the Cochrane-Armitage test was used for comparisons over time. ResultsA total of 2530 publications and 2988 individual authors met the inclusion criteria for the study. Male physicians published significantly more articles compared to female physicians as first (67.4% versus 30.4%) and senior authors (82.9% versus 16.2%), respectively. There were increases in the proportion of female first and senior authors between 2008 and 2017. The majority of authors with multiple publications were male (73.6%), specifically male medical physicians (44.3%). Male medical physicians were the most productive in publication amount and authorship positions. ConclusionsWhile research activity among female physicians increased over time, gender disparity continues to exist among female and male physicians in the transplantation field. Academic activity is lower among females in publication amount and authorship positions. These trends emphasize the need to identify barriers to female physician academic productivity within the transplantation field.