Female First Authors Research Articles

Trends in female first-author abstracts at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, 1990–2020

ObjectivesTo describe first author gender differences and characteristics in 1) Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting abstracts and 2) resulting manuscript publications. MethodsWe performed cross-sectional evaluation of SAEM abstracts from 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, compiling and reviewing a random sample of 100 abstracts for each year (total n = 700 abstracts). We documented abstract characteristics, including first author gender, and used the 2020 SAEM scoring rubric. We then searched PubMed to identify manuscript publications resulting from abstracts from 1990 to 2015 (n = 600). Finally, among abstracts that resulted in manuscript publication, we identified first and last author gender on both the abstracts and the resulting publication. ResultsOverall, 29% (202/695; n = 5 missing gender) of abstracts had female first authors. Female first authors increased over time (e.g., 17% in 1990 to 35% in 2020). Abstract quality scores were similar (both median [interquartile range] of 11 ([9–12]). Overall, 42% (n = 254/600) of abstracts resulted in a manuscript publication, 39% (n = 65/202) with female and 44% (n = 189/493) with male first authors (p = 0.26). The median time (IQR) from abstract to manuscript publication was longer for abstracts with female first authors vs. those with male first authors (2 [1–3] years and 1 [1, 2] years, p < 0.02); 77% and 78% of publications resulting from abstracts with female and male first authors, respectively, had the same first author. Female first author abstracts more often converted to a male first author manuscript publication (18%, n = 12/65) compared to male first author abstracts converting to female first author publications (7%, n = 14/189). ConclusionsA minority of SAEM abstracts, and manuscript publications resulting from them, had female first authors. Abstracts with female first authors took longer to achieve manuscript publication, and almost a fifth of female first author abstracts resulted in male first author manuscript publication.

Gender Disparity in Publishing Six Months after the KITP Workshop Probes of Transport in Stars

Conferences and workshops shape scientific discourse. The Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) hosts long-term workshops to stimulate scientific collaboration that would not otherwise have taken place. One goal of KITP programs is to increase diversity in the next generation of scientists. In this analysis, we examine gender trends in the authorship of papers that have been generated as a result of the KITP program Probes of Transport in Stars, which ran from 2021 October 11th to 2021 December 17th. While 38% of workshop participants were women, only 19% of publications produced between 2021 December 1st and 2022 June 3rd had female first-authors. Furthermore, of these early publications, 61% had all-male author lists. Among publications resulting from the KITP program, the proportions of both male first-author papers and papers with all-male author lists are higher than predicted by models that take into account the gender distribution of the KITP participants. These results motivate more thorough investigations of collaboration networks at scientific conferences and workshops. Importantly, they also suggest that programs, conferences, and workshops of any kind need to take steps beyond those implemented in this KITP program to enable more diverse collaborations and address gender disparities in science.

316 The impact of COVID-19 on gender representation in academic dermatology publications

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected female academics, where publications by women authors in many fields have decreased during the pandemic. This trend has yet to be examined in dermatology. We surveyed the recent representation of total female authors, female first authors (FFA), and female senior authors (FSA, a potential indicator of career advancement) in the dermatologic literature. Publications from five top h-index Web of Science dermatology journals (Journal of Investigative Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, JAMA Dermatology, Dermatologic Surgery, Lasers in Surgery and Medicine) were analyzed.

Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia

Ongoing problems attracting women into many Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have many potential explanations. This article investigates whether the possible undercitation of women associates with lower proportions of, or increases in, women in a subject. It uses six million articles published in 1996–2012 across up to 331 fields in six mainly English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The proportion of female first- and last-authored articles in each year was calculated and 4,968 regressions were run to detect first-author gender advantages in field normalized article citations. The proportion of female first authors in each field correlated highly between countries and the female first-author citation advantages derived from the regressions correlated moderately to strongly between countries, so both are relatively field specific. There was a weak tendency in the United States and New Zealand for female citation advantages to be stronger in fields with fewer women, after excluding small fields, but there was no other association evidence. There was no evidence of female citation advantages or disadvantages to be a cause or effect of changes in the proportions of women in a field for any country. Inappropriate uses of career-level citations are a likelier source of gender inequities.

Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal.

The loss of talented women from senior academic positions has partly resulted from a lower number of published papers and the accompanying reduced visibility of female compared to male scientists. The reasons for these gender-differences in authorship is unclear. One potential reason is a bias in the editorial and review process of scientific journals. We investigated whether patterns of authorship and editorial outcome were biased according to gender and geographic location in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Such potential bias may contribute to inequality in the field. We found patterns of gender differences in authorship, but this was unrelated to the editorial decision of whether to publish the manuscript. Female first-authors (the lead role) were six times less likely to be named as the corresponding author than male first-authors, and female first-authors were more likely to be displaced as corresponding authors by female co-authors than were male first-authors. We found an under-representation of female first- and last-authors compared to baseline populations of members of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (which publishes the Journal of Evolutionary Biology) and of Evolutionary Biology faculty at the world top-10 universities for the Life Sciences. Also, manuscripts from Asia were five times more likely to be rejected on the final decision, independent of gender. Overall our results suggest that the peer review processes we investigated at the Journal of Evolutionary Biology are predominately gender-neutral, but not neutral to geographic location. Editorial gender-bias is thus unlikely to be a contributing factor to differences in authorship in this journal.

Editorial Comment

Success in academic urology is measured by academic productivity, specifically, by first-authorship. An indirect corollary are first-author presentations traditionally given first viewing at AUA section meetings. Accordingly, these authors sought to determine if there were gender disparities in first-authorship at their section meetings over a 6 year period. Only 17% of abstracts were female first-authors despite representing nearly a third of residents! It is worth exploring if this disproportion exists more broadly. Why this wide disparity in first-author presentations? What can be done about it?

Longitudinal Gender Disparity in Female Urology Resident Primary Authorship at an American Urological Association Sectional Meeting

To further evaluate the academic representation of female urology residents in the United States, we reviewed abstracts from the Mid-Atlantic American Urological Association (MA-AUA) sectional meetings to determine if the recent increase in the number of female urology residents mirrored an increase in this group's abstract authorship. Full text abstracts from the MA-AUA meetings were analyzed from 2008 to 2014 excluding 1 joint section meeting. First-author gender was determined by querying publicly available institutional websites, social media platforms, and the U.S. News & World Report. First-author gender was indeterminable in 10 abstracts based on search criteria and these were excluded. Individual abstracts were broadly categorized based on keywords into 1 of several topics. Chi-square statistical tests examined the relationship between first-authorship gender, publication year, and abstract category. The number of female urology residents in the MA-AUA increased over the study period. A total of 484 abstracts were analyzed. Three hundred ninety-three abstracts (81%) included a male first-author, whereas 81 abstracts (17%) included a female first-author. Female first-authorship ranged from 13% to 25% annually. Comparison of male-to-female first-authorship was statistically significant in all years evaluated (P <.001). There was a statistically significant difference between male and female first-authorship in all topic categories (P <.01), except Education/Other (P = .56). Despite continued gains and increasing female representation in urology, these data highlight significantly fewer female first-authors at the regional Mid-Atlantic section meetings. Larger studies are necessary to identify contributing factors and further areas for improvement toward decreasing gender imbalances within the academic community.

Presentation and Publication Rates among Women and Men at AAO-HNS Meetings

Objective: We attempted to assess the percentages of abstracts submitted to annual American Academy of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) meetings from 2000 to 2004 by both women and men. We sought to determine the subsequent peer-reviewed overall publication rates for all submissions. We also studied trends of submission among female presenters and compared them to males. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Tertiary academic medical center. Methods: 2,463 total abstracts presented between 2000 and 2004 were searched in the computerized databases Medline and Pubmed in 2008. The published articles were examined by reviewers to assess publication rate, time to publication, gender of authorship and subspecialty of publication. Results: 1,413 (57.35%) posters and 1,051 (42.65%) oral presentations were presented from 2000 to 2004. Of the 1,413 posters presented, 275 (19.46%) were presented by female first authors. The female first-author poster publication rate was 33.81%, while the male first-author poster publication rate was 36.99% (p = 0.353). Of 1,051 oral presentations, 154 (14.65%) were presented by female first authors. The male first-author oral presentation publication rate was 60.98%, while the female first-author oral presentation publication rate was 59.09% (p = 0.657). There were no statistical differences in time to publication for posters (p = 0.796) or oral presentations (p = 0.737) between the genders. The majority of female first-author submissions involved pediatric (29.94%) and general (17.88%) otolaryngology. Conclusion: While women are increasingly drawn to otolaryngology, they represented less than 20% of total submissions at the annual AAO-HNS meetings from 2000 to 2004. Women more commonly submit poster than oral presentations. The eventual publication rates of abstracts and the average time to publication of presentations are equal between the genders.

Deutschsprachige psychiatrische Zeitschriften in der Bundesrepublik – eine quantitative Bestandsaufnahme

Although English is medicine's lingua franca, practising physicians in Germany express the need for articles in German. This study aimed at surveying the number and characteristics of German-language psychiatric journals in Germany. Journals were identified by the standard handbook "Fachmedien Gesundheit" as well as by an online and library search, and divided into specialty journals and general psychiatry journals. Volume 2009 of all general psychiatry journals was analyzed regarding form and content. In 2009 74 journals addressed psychiatrists, albeit many not exclusively. Ten were general psychiatry journals publishing 391 review articles and 97 original papers. They differed with regard to focus (science, education, health politics) and formal characteristics, such as circulation (500-30 000), share of academia-affiliated authors (39-93 %), female first-authors (13-44 %), COI statements (0-98 % of articles), and international visibility. While much of German psychiatric science appears in English, there are still a substantial number of original articles published in German, and there is a diverse psychiatric journal scene in Germany.