You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research III (MP20)1 Sep 2021MP20-14 REDEFINING THE GENDER GAP IN UROLOGY AUTHORSHIP: AN 18 YEAR PUBLICATION ANALYSIS Megan Prunty, Stephen Rhodes, Sarah Markt, Helen Sun, Sarah Psutka, Kirtishri Mishra, Adam Calaway, and Laura Bukavina Megan PruntyMegan Prunty More articles by this author , Stephen RhodesStephen Rhodes More articles by this author , Sarah MarktSarah Markt More articles by this author , Helen SunHelen Sun More articles by this author , Sarah PsutkaSarah Psutka More articles by this author , Kirtishri MishraKirtishri Mishra More articles by this author , Adam CalawayAdam Calaway More articles by this author , and Laura BukavinaLaura Bukavina More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002005.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Academic authorship has important implications as a metric of productivity used for academic promotion. As the complement of female urologists is increasing, our study aims to characterize temporal changes in female representation in academic authorship in ten urology journals. We hypothesized that female authorship would increase from 2002 to 2020, but that the rate of females in senior (last) author roles would not increase proportionately. METHODS: Publication records were retrieved from 2002 to 2020 for the 10 highest impact factor urology journals using the easyPubMed package for R. First names of all listed authors were retrieved and both the gender and genderizeR packages for R inferred the gender of each author. Trends in first and senior authorship by gender were evaluated overall and within journals. RESULTS: 59,375 articles were analyzed, of which 94.1% had first and 94.2% had last author gender information. The proportion of female authors increased positively from 0.17, [0.13, 0.21] (95% highest density interval, p<0.01) in 2002 to 0.27, [0.22, 0.34] (p<0.01) in 2020 (Figure 1). Overall female first authorship increased from 0.15, [0.11, 0.20] (p<0.01) to 0.28, [0.22, 0.36] (p<0.01). However, female senior authors did not have the same growth (0.10, [0.08, 0.13] (p<0.05) to 0.19, [0.14, 0.24] (p<0.01)). When assessing journal specific changes, Neurourology and Urodynamics and Journal of Sexual Medicine had statistically higher growth of female authors (13% and 16%, respectively), compared to Journal of Endourology (7%) and Urologic Oncology (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall female authorship grew from 2002 to 2020, females in senior (last) author positions did not see equivalent growth. This may be a reflection of the “leaky pipeline” - with loss of females from academic medicine. Journal specific differences are likely attributable to gender based differences in subspecialized fields. Source of Funding: n/a © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e342-e342 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Megan Prunty More articles by this author Stephen Rhodes More articles by this author Sarah Markt More articles by this author Helen Sun More articles by this author Sarah Psutka More articles by this author Kirtishri Mishra More articles by this author Adam Calaway More articles by this author Laura Bukavina More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...