Gender 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gender Differences in Authorship in Urology: a Five-year Review of Publications in Five High-impact Journals

To describe the proportions of peer-reviewed manuscripts authored by women in 5 high-impact, widely available urology journals, and to compare these to the proportion of women in urology. About 9% of attending urologists and 25% of urology residents are women. We hypothesized that women comprised fewer than 25% of first authors and fewer than 10% of last/senior authors. We searched peer-reviewed original manuscripts in the Journal of Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urology, and Urologic Oncology from January 2014 to June 2019. First and last author gender identity was recorded. Observed and expected proportions and temporal trends were compared, with findings considered statistically significant at P < .05. Of 8653 multiple-author papers, 2275 (26.3%) had women as first authors, paralleling the current proportion of women in training (P = .98). Women were senior/last authors in 1255 (14.5%) papers; this was higher than the current proportion of female urologists in practice (P < .0001) for all journals but NAU (P = .59). Only 527 (6.1%) of multiple-author papers had both female first and last authors whereas 5640 (65.3%) of papers had both male first and last authors. The first author was more likely female when the senior author was female (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 2.06-2.65); most female-first and -last authored manuscripts were published in subspecialty journals and those utilizing double-blind peer review. The proportion of female first- and senior-authored manuscripts is significantly higher than the proportion of women in urology, and may reflect differential subspecialty choices and mentorship opportunities for women.

Gender Differences in Authorship of Clinical Problem-Solving Articles.

Authors of clinical reasoning exercises analyze diagnostic dilemmas and serve as role models of clinical excellence. We investigated the percentage of women authors in the clinical problem-solving series of three general medicine journals from the inaugural article in each series until July 2019. Women were underrepresented among first, last, and all authors. While the percentage of women among first and all authors has increased, women still constituted <40% of all authors and ≤25% of last authors, and there have been no significant increases in women last authors in any of the three journals. Including more women in clinical reasoning exercises is an opportunity to amplify the voices of women as master clinicians.

Women in Neurosurgery: Gender Differences in Authorship in High-Impact Neurosurgery Journals through the Last Two Decades

Despite common gender disparities in authorship across the vast majority of specialties, the presence of a similar lack of equality in neurosurgery literature is not published yet. Therefore the authors examined the changes in representation of women among the first and senior (last) authors of original articles in high-impact neurosurgical journals between 2003 and2018. Data regarding women proportions among the first and senior authors were collected from the issues of Neurosurgery and Journal of Neurosurgery published in 2003, 2008, 2013, and2018. According to the analysis of 3247 original articles, compared with male authors, female authors have published fewer articles as the first (518 of women, 2729 of men) and senior authors (352 of women, 2884 of men). Nonetheless, the proportion of women in the first authorship represented a significant increase from 2003 to 2018 (from 12% to 16.5%, respectively; P < 0.01), but not in senior authorship (11.7% in 2003 vs. 10.5% in 2018; P>0.05). Overall, women wrote more research articles than case reports as both first and senior authors (451and 301 vs. 67 and 51, respectively). In addition, women demonstrated a higher percentage of first authors on female senior author articles (30.4%) than male senior author articles (14.1%). Although a rising trend in female authorship of neurosurgical literature has been going on through the last 2 decades, this advancement could not be regarded as satisfactory, as the gender gap in authorship is still excessive. Strikingly, female first authors had a tendency of coauthoring with female senior authors.

Gender Differences in Authorship in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: A 28-Year Analysis of Publications Originating From the United States, 1990-2017

Gender-based differences in scholarship among cardiothoracic anesthesiologists have not been studied. The authors examined the gender distribution of authorship of original research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (JCVA) originating from the United States during four 3-year intervals to determine temporal changes in productivity of women in cardiothoracic anesthesiology. The authors tested the hypothesis that scholarly output of women has increased progressively in JCVA over time concomitant with greater participation in first, last, and corresponding author roles. Observational study. Internet analysis. Authors of research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials published in JCVA in 1990-92, 1999-2001, 2008-10, and 2015-17. None. The gender of each author was determined by inspection of the first name. If gender could not be established easily, the author's institutional website was examined or an internet search using the Google search engine was conducted. First, last, and corresponding authors as well as coauthors were noted for each article. A total of 1,195 publications with 4,982 authors (1,032 women; 20.7%) were examined. Gender was identified positively in 98.5% of authors. Women were first, last, and corresponding authors on 22.4%, 10.3%, and 14.6% of publications, respectively. The percentage of women who were authors increased from 12.1% in 1990-92 to 20.9% in 1999-2001 (p < 0.05), but plateaued in 2008 to 2010 (22.3%) and 2015 to 2017 (22.9%). Greater percentages of women were first authors (26.2%), senior authors (11.8%), and corresponding authors (16.6%) in 2015 to 2017 compared with 1990 to 1992 (9.6%, 7.0%, and 8.7%, respectively; p < 0.05 for each). The contributions of women to research articles and case reports were primarily responsible for these observed increases, although women also made a substantial impact with review articles in 2015 to 2017. The percentage of publications that included at least 1 female author in any capacity increased in a time-dependent manner (p < 0.05) from 31.0% (1990-1992) to 74.4% (2015-2017). The proportion of female first or last authors (35.0%) appearing in JCVA during 2015 to 2017 was modestly higher than the current percentage of female cardiothoracic anesthesiologists practicing in departments with accredited fellowship programs (29.1%). The results indicate that scholarly output of women rose in JCVA over time, but gains in productivity have plateaued more recently. These findings are encouraging, but women continue to be underrepresented in corresponding and last author roles.

Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography.

The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., “senior”) authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years, and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year‐on‐year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all‐male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non‐English‐speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English‐speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role.

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.

Book genre and author gender: Romance&gt;Paranormal‐Romance to Autobiography&gt;Memoir

Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book‐based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender‐based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male‐authored chick‐lit.

Age and Gender Differences in Authorship among University Hospital Physicians in Sweden, Norway and Italy (The HOUPE Study)

Background: For decades there has been a prominent gender gap in the number publications among physicians in academic medicine. Increased recruitment of women into medicine and a new generation work force that emphasize work -life balance can contribute to narrow this gap. Aims: The present study investigates whether younger hospital physicians may display less gender differences in authorship of scientific publications compared to t hose older of age. Methodology: Baseline cross-sectional survey data among senior consultants (N=1379) working at public university hospitals in three European countries, participating in the HOUPE study (Health and Organization among University hospital Physicians in Short communication