Rate Of Publication In Journals Research Articles

Publication patterns of posters and oral presentations at the Annual Meeting of the Joint AANS/CNS Cerebrovascular Section.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Joint Cerebrovascular (CV) Section serves as a centralized entity for the dissemination of information related to CV neurosurgery. The quality of scientific conferences, such as the CV Section's Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery Annual Meeting, can be gauged by the number of poster and oral presentations that are published in peer-reviewed journals. However, publication rates from the CV Section's meetings are unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the rate at which abstracts presented at the AANS/CNS CV Section Annual Meeting from 2014 to 2018 were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. The abstract titles for all accepted poster and oral podium presentation abstracts from the 2014-2018 Annual Joint AANS/CNS CV Section Meetings were searched using PubMed. A match was defined as sufficient similarity between the abstract and its corresponding journal publication with regard to title, authors, methods, and results. Five-year impact factors (IFs) from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), the country of the corresponding author, and the number of citations in the Scopus database were obtained using the articles' digital object identifier when available, or the exact article title, journal, and year of publication. Of the 607 total poster and oral presentations from the 2014-2018 Annual Meetings of the AANS/CNS Joint CV Section, 46.29% (n = 281) have been published. Published articles received 3233 total citations for an average number of citations per article (± SD) of 10.89 ± 16.37. The average 5-year JCR IF of published studies was 4.64 ± 3.13. Additionally, 98.22% of published abstracts were in publication within 4 years from the time the abstract was presented. The most common peer-reviewed neurosurgical journals featuring these publications were the Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Neurosurgery, and the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. Nearly half of all poster and oral presentations at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Joint CV Section from 2014 to 2018 have been published in PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed journals. The average number of citations per publication (10.89 ± 16.37) reflects the high quality of abstracts accepted for presentation. It is important to continuously assess the quality of research presented at national conferences to ensure that standards are being maintained for the advancement of clinical practice in a given area of medicine. Conference abstract publication rates in peer-reviewed journals represent a way in which research quality can be gauged, and the authors encourage others to conduct similar investigations in their subspecialty area of interest and/or practice.

Social justice content in counseling journals: Comparison of publication rates

AbstractSocial justice is listed as a professional value for the American Counseling Association (ACA) (2014), yet professional publication in this topic may not be commensurate with its importance to the profession. This article presents the results of a qualitative content analysis (QCA, Schreier, 2012) of titles and abstracts of 917 articles in 18 ACA journals and one American School Counselor Association journal to document each journal's publication rate of social justice‐related articles for 2 years: 2018 (2 years before the ACA Anti‐Racism Statement, 2020) and 2022 (2 years after the statement). Results for each journal are presented, and topics of social justice content are listed. Implications are provided for researchers, association leaders, editors, and reviewers.

Peer review journal publication rates of award-winning presentations from a multi-disciplinary multi-institutional medical education consortium annual research forum: 40-year experience

IntroductionResident research has been mandated by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education across all specialties. Southeast Michigan Center for Medical Education (SEMCME) has an annual Research Forum for resident competition, and we assessed the publication status of award-winning presentations. MethodsThe SEMCME Research Forum's winning presentations from 1978 to 2018 were reviewed. The author's information and keywords from the abstract's title were used to search PubMed and Google Scholar databases for publications. Descriptive statistics were generally used to characterize the data. ResultsOf 147 winning projects, 62% (78/126) were oral and 48% (10/21) were poster presentations; 88 (60%) were published. Obstetrics and gynecology had the highest publication rate (71%), followed by surgical (61%) and medical specialties (48%). ConclusionWhile 60% of the award-winning presentations at the SEMCME Research Forum were published, more work needs to be done to examine the barriers preventing the publication of the remaining projects.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Productivity in Oncology: A Journal-, Conference- and Author-level Analysis

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity in oncology as measured by conference abstracts, journal publications and individual authorship trends. Using a reference time frame of 2018 to 2022, we obtained data on the number of abstracts and articles submitted and published from a selection of oncology conferences and journals. To assess individual authorship patterns, we randomly selected 200 articles from 2018 (i.e., the 'index paper') and tracked publications over subsequent years for the first or last authors. Linear time-trend analyses and independent two-sample t-tests were used to assess changes in academic productivity over time, and univariable and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze individual factors predictive of publication rates, including gender, continent, specialty, MD vs. non-MD, and career status (early if within 5 years of training completion vs. late for all others). Data on submitted and published abstracts were available from 5 and 7 conferences, respectively. Both abstract categories demonstrated decreasing values over time but not statistically significant: conference submissions decreased from 15,308 in 2018 to 13,623 in 2022, (p = 0.11), and published abstracts decreased from 13,111 to 11,848, respectively (p = 0.16). Journal submissions were available from 6 journals and increased from 14,142 in 2018 to a peak of 20,241 in 2020 (2018 vs. 2020: p<0.001), and then declined to 15,650 in 2021. Journal publications from 10 journals showed no clear trends over time (p = 0.64). For the author-level analysis, of the 200 authors randomly selected, the majority were male (66.5%), from North America (55.5%), with an MD degree (80.9%, 131/162) and late career (86.6%, 129/149). Most common specialties included surgery (29%), radiation oncology (18.5%), epidemiology/public health (11%) and medical oncology (10%). For articles authored per year, there was no linear trend detected (p = 0.51), although mean number of publications per author peaked in 2020/2021 (papers/year for 2018-2022: 18.1, 18.1, 20.1, 21.2, 19.6). On univariable analysis, factors significantly associated with increasing publication rates were male gender, last author position on index paper, late career status, MDs, speciality of surgery or public/health epidemiology, and authors from Asia (all p<0.01). On multivariable analysis, factors remaining significantly predictive were late career status, MDs, specialty of surgeons or public health/epidemiologists, and authors from Asia (all p<0.01). Conference submissions and publications trended downward from 2018 to 2022. Journal submissions peaked overall in 2020, but did not translate to increases in journal publication rates. Disparities in publication trends were found, based on speciality and geographic regions, including a negative impact on early-career researchers.

The Major Characteristics and Trends of Gifted Education Doctoral Dissertation Research From 2006 Through 2016

This study features a content analysis of gifted education doctoral dissertation studies from 2006 through 2016 ( n = 683) to identify the characteristics and shifts of the field. The major topics of the studies were categorized into the National Association for Gifted Children’s 16 networks and compared with the future directions suggested by the State of the States in Gifted Education report to locate the gaps between research and practical needs. The findings of this study not only outline gifted education’s significant features and trends but also provide an understanding of the evolving nature and insights of the field such as research methods, data sources, study participants, and journal publication rates.

Why do not we talk about MIS fellowship? A short review of the short literature.

The minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellowship has existed for three decades and has steadily grown in both number of positions available and variety of techniques practiced. Despite continued popularity, growth, and wide breadth of surgical techniques of the MIS fellowship, publication rates in medical journals regarding these fellowships have not been as robust as one may expect. Our goal was to review the available literature on MIS fellowship. We reviewed PubMed to search for articles pertinent for MIS fellowship. The initial search included "MIS fellowship" "minimally invasive surgery fellowship" and "laparoscopy fellowship." Articles pertaining to MIS fellowship were then reviewed by title and abstract for content. Articles were excluded from subsequent analysis if they focused on disciplines that were not direct extensions of general surgery (such as urology, gynecology, oncology). Using similar search techniques, we tabulated unfiltered publications rates specific to other major surgical fellowship disciplines. The metric articles per position was created by dividing the total number articles for each discipline by the annual fellowship positions RESULTS: An initial review of available literature produced 134 articles pertinent to MIS fellowship. Further analysis for direct relevance to MIS yielded only 58 published articles. MIS had the fewest number of publications and smallest APP, 0.7, of any of the major fellowship disciplines. There is a surprising dearth of material on MIS fellowship. While, MIS fellowship is a one-year experience, we have the opportunity to build on three decades of clinical experience to continue optimize the fellow experience and improve subspecialized surgical training and patient outcomes. This could be facilitated through broadened focus of inquiry and publication of findings.

Completion and publication of clinical trials in a cooperative group: a cohort study of trials of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK)

BackgroundPremature trial discontinuation and non-publication of trial results are still major issues negatively affecting reliable evidence generation.ObjectivesTo investigate trial completion and publication rate of cancer trials conducted within the Swiss...

Ranking researchers: Evidence from Indonesia

In the span of three years, Indonesia went from being the second worst to the top producer of scientific journal articles in Southeast Asia. We investigate whether a transparent system of ranking every single researcher in the country based on publications and citations (SINTA) contributed to this turnaround. Using panel data from over 200,000 Indonesian researchers (and comparing to researchers from Thailand and the Philippines), we show that the implementation of SINTA coincides with changes in the production of publications by Indonesian researchers consistent with the weights used in the ranking formula. Although we see modest improvements in publication rates in top-ranked journals, 62 % of the observed increase in total publications is from conference proceedings. Because SINTA was launched around the same time as other policies that focused on increasing publications, isolating the precise impact of SINTA remains challenging. Nevertheless, after accounting for such policies, our results imply that a ranking and evaluation system for researchers can contribute to overall improvements in scientific capacity in low- and middle-income countries.

Formulaic Sequences and Discourse Markers in Applied Linguistics Research Papers. A cross-linguistic corpus-based analysis of native and non-native authors published articles

Metadiscourse markers and their importance to academic writing are essential research subjects nowadays. The current corpus-based study aims at identifying interactional and interactive metadiscourse markers in terms of frequency and function in the abstract section of published research articles in applied linguistics developed by Algerian, Saudi, and Native researchers. 20 research articles for each group, with a total of 60 articles have been randomly selected and compiled as the research corpus for this study, then analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using AntConc.3.2.4 relying on Hyland’s classification of metadiscourse markers. As a comparative study, the research considered the abstracts written by natives as a benchmark and attempted to find an answer to the main inquiry related to the frequency of use of metadiscourse devices by Algerian and Saudi researchers in comparison to their Native counterparts. The main research results showed how close were Algerian abstracts to native ones in terms of using endophorics, frame markers, code glosses, hedges, attitude markers, and self-mentions. While Saudi abstracts were close to the benchmark only in two markers that are transitions and engagement markers. The rest of the devices were shown to be far from the native norm in both cases. The findings also revealed that the use of metadiscourse markers is not the only indicator of papers publication rate in indexed journals by comparing the corpus analysis results to the source of the articles (journals), to find that even if Algerian researchers publish less in high indexed journals in comparison to Saudis, they are still closer in using markers to the natives as a benchmark.

How Open Is the U15? A Preliminary Analysis of Open Access Publishing in Canadian Academic Libraries

Introduction: This study offers insight into open access (OA) culture at Canadian university libraries by detailing the degree to which librarians working at Canada’s U15 (a collective of research-intensive institutions in Canada) make their research OA, as well as exploring the depth and reach of any OA mandates these institutions have. Method: This study uses a combination of bibliometric analysis and a review of institutional OA policies, beginning with an examination of a six-year span (2014–2019) of librarian-authored publications, searching four key library and information science databases, followed by a systematic search for a university-wide or library OA statement, policy, or mandate on each of the U15 websites. Results &amp;amp; Discussion: The data suggest that Canadian academic librarians are personally motivated to self-archive and make their research open. The high rate of publication in Gold OA journals, combined with the fact that several of the key library and information science journals for Canadian librarians are already OA, points to the importance of OA publishing for librarians as a community, as does the high number of expressions of commitment to OA publishing. Given the lack of variance comparatively between schools with an expression and without, the authors cannot comment on whether the expressions of support correlate to higher proportions of OA articles. Conclusion: This article provides a snapshot of a positive OA publishing culture at 15 Canadian university libraries by presenting data that show that most libraries have an expression of commitment to OA principles and most Canadian academic librarians working at U15 schools ensure that their research is OA.

Oral 23 - Has urological run-through training had an impact on specialist trainee presentation and subsequent publication rates in peer-reviewed journals?

Oral 23 - Has urological run-through training had an impact on specialist trainee presentation and subsequent publication rates in peer-reviewed journals?

Gender Gap in Political Science: An Analysis of the Scientific Publications and Career Paths of Italian Political Scientists

ABSTRACTThis article assesses whether a gender gap in political science, identified in the international literature, also is present in the context of Italian political science. The literature has mostly centered on the comparison of female publication rates in international journals with the academic workforce in the United States, but this raises an issue of data comparability. As an alternative strategy to avoid comparability biases, this study focuses on the analysis of a single national case: Italy. The article evaluates to what extent the “glass-ceiling” effect persists for political scientists who intend to publish their contributions. By analyzing data on articles published between 2015 and 2020 by the three major Italian political science journals, this contribution shows that (1) the proportion of published articles written by female authors is lower than that of male authors; (2) the hypothesis that the lower female proportion depends on a lower female presence in the field of political science is refuted; (3) there is little collaboration between men and women; (4) there is a correlation between the presence of female editors in scientific journals and the proportion of female-authored articles; and (5) gender differences are reflected in women’s academic career progression.

Full Abstract to Published Manuscript: Evaluation of the Scientific Impact of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Conference.

BackgroundThe scientific rigor of the abstracts presented at the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) annual meeting has not been recently evaluated. In this study, we sought to determine the rate at which abstracts presented at the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compared the rates with breast abstracts presented at the 2018 Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meeting.Methodss from the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS and 2018 SSO conferences were searched in PubMed for published manuscripts using the abstract title and/or first or last author.ResultsIn 2017, 21.6% of the 268 abstracts presented at the ASBrS conference resulted in full publication, compared with 36.6% of the 273 abstracts presented at the 2018 ASBrS conference, resulting in a significant difference in the publication rate (p < 0.001). Of the 158 abstracts published from the 2017 and 2018 meetings, 75 (47.8%) were published in Annals of Surgical Oncology (ASO). There was no correlation between impact factor and time to publication. Oral presentations and quick shots were more likely to be published than poster presentations, and oral presentations were more likely to be published in higher-impact journals. The 2018 SSO meetings resulted in 54 of 111 (48.6%) breast abstracts leading to full publication.ConclusionApproximately 29.2% of the abstracts presented at the ASBrS 2017 and 2018 conferences resulted in a published manuscript. A higher publication rate in higher impact journals for oral presentations indicates that the abstract review process properly stratifies the research.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10493-1.

Academic Inbreeding and Research Productivity in South Korea

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between academic inbreeding and publication rates in domestic journals and international journals among South Korean academics. Design/Methodology/Approach - This paper uses a comprehensive data set on South Korean academics and negative binomial regressions. The endogeneity of academic inbreeding status is mitigated by taking advantage of data on publications in international journals prior to employment. This serves as a proxy for ability and motivation to publish. Findings - The results show that alumni appointees publish fewer international journal articles but more domestic journal articles than their non-alumni counterparts. The results support the suspicion that academic inbreeding status is confounded with ability and motivation to publish. In addition, factors such as discipline, time trends, university rank and gender are shown to interact with academic inbreeding and its impact on international and domestic publication rates. Research Implications - This paper highlights circumstances in which alumni appointees’ research productivity differs with their non-alumni counterparts. In addition, it provides evidence of the endogeneity of academic inbreeding in the research productivity function. Thus, studies that fail to account for this endogeneity are likely to estimate biased effects.

Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015–2017 period

ObjectiveTo know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019. DesignRetrospective observational study. SettingBiomedical journals publication. ParticipantsRejected manuscripts in MI journal. InterventionsNone. Main variables of interestTime of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication. ResultsThe 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29–3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03–2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41–4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10–2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database. ConclusionsThe rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.

Do senior faculty members produce fewer research publications than their younger colleagues? Evidence from Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States

The aging of the professoriate throughout the end of the twentieth century and the early years of the 2000′s (both before and after the end of mandatory retirement in the United States, ca. 1994) has become a source of concern for some scholars and research administrators, who posit that the “greying” of the academy results in lower research activity and a decline in scientific advancement. Some published opinions concur that senior scholars’ research programs do not keep pace with those of their younger colleagues, but little quantitative evidence has been presented to evaluate that claim. In this study, we quantify senior faculty publication activity in six broad fields, comparing their publication rates to their younger colleagues across four modes of knowledge dissemination: journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and book chapters. Career publication activity does not follow the “peak and decline” pattern described in earlier studies. In most fields, journal article publication rates do not decline substantively with age (and in some cases article publication rates are higher among senior scholars), conference proceeding publication rates tend to decline with age, while book and chapter publication rates increase markedly with age. Overall, senior scholars maintain publishing activity levels and tend to shift their focus to the development and evolution of ideas through the publication of longer-format works as books and book chapters.

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings.

Background Scientific meetings provide a forum to disseminate new research and advance patient care. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS), and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meetings are examples of such gatherings in the field of musculoskeletal oncology. After a review of select MSTS abstracts from 1991 to 1999 revealed a 41% publication rate in scientific journals, previous authors cautioned meeting attendees that the majority of abstracts may not survive rigorous peer review and may not be scientifically valid. Since two decades have passed, this study reexamined publication rates and characteristics in a contemporary and expanded cohort of oncology abstracts presented at the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings. Methods 1408 podium and poster abstracts from the AAOS (oncology-focused from 2013 to 2015), CTOS (2012 to 2014), and MSTS (2012 to 2014) annual meetings were reviewed to allow for a four-year publication window. Searches were performed with PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify full-text publications using abstract keywords. Characteristics of each abstract and resulting publication were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests for time-independent comparisons, and the log-rank test after reverse Kaplan-Meier analysis for time-dependent comparisons. Results publication rates overall were higher for podium presentations (67%, 280 of 415) compared to poster presentations (53%, 530 of 993; p < 0.001). When both abstract types were combined, differences between meetings did not meet statistical significance (AAOS: 65%, 106 of 162; CTOS: 57%, 521 of 909; MSTS: 54%, 183 of 337, p=0.06). s from AAOS meetings were more often published prior to the first day of the meeting (AAOS: 24%, 25 of 106; CTOS: 10%, 52 of 521; MSTS: 14%, 25 of 183; p < 0.01). After excluding previously published abstracts, AAOS abstracts had the shortest time to publication (median: 10.8 months, interquartile range (IQR): 4.4 to 18.8 months), compared to those from CTOS (16.0 months, 8.4 to 25.9 months, p < 0.01) and MSTS (15 months, 7.9 to 25.0 months, p < 0.01) meetings. CTOS abstracts were published in higher impact journals (median: 3.7, IQR: 2.9 to 5.9), compared to those from AAOS (2.9, 1.9 to 3.2, p < 0.01) and MSTS (3.1, 2.3 to 3.1, p < 0.01) meetings. Finally, 7.7% (62 of 810) of published abstracts were presented at more than one meeting. Conclusions Publication rates in this study were higher than previous reports in musculoskeletal oncology and comparable or better than recent reports for other orthopedic meetings. Comparisons across the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings highlight notable differences but suggest similarity overall in the quality of evidence presented with little overlap between meetings. Taken together, this study points to progress in the review processes used by the program committees, reaffirms the importance of critical appraisal when considering abstract findings, and supports the continued organization of multiple scientific meetings in musculoskeletal oncology.

Glaucoma Publication Trends in Leading General Ophthalmology Journals During the Past Quarter Century: Where Are the Clinical Trials?

During the past quarter century, the rate of glaucoma-related publication in general ophthalmology journals increased due to higher representation in "experimentally oriented" journals. The rate of glaucoma randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) articles decreased during the same time period. To evaluate trends in rate of glaucoma publications in leading general ophthalmology journals over the past quarter century. Q1 ophthalmology journals Web sites were reviewed. Only journals not limited to certain subspecialty were considered "general" and included in the analysis. In addition we categorized journals orientation as either "clinical" or "experimental." The PubMed search engine was used to collect publications from the selected journals between January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2019. Publications captured by "glaucoma" or "ocular hypertension" filters were considered glaucoma related. The fraction of glaucoma articles out of total number of articles within each year for each journal was calculated. A linear mixed effects model was applied to detect trends in glaucoma publication rates during the study period. Eight journals were included: 4 "clinically oriented" and 4 "experimentally oriented." The PubMed search yielded 72,750 publications, of which 9329 (12.8%) considered "glaucoma related." Percentage of glaucoma publications remained stable within "clinically oriented" journals, and significantly increased within "experimentally oriented" journals (annual change of 0.3%, P<0.001). The number of glaucoma-related RCTs decreased significantly in each (annual change of -0.21% and -0.13%, respectively, P<0.05). There has been a significant rise in the rates of glaucoma publications in "experimentally oriented" journals, while their representation in "clinically oriented" journals remained stable over the past quarter century. This change might be due to the increasing efforts to develop more advanced methods for evaluation and treatment in glaucoma, although still unable to address clinical demands. The decrease in glaucoma-related RCT articles might indicate reduced funding for such research.

Black on Black: The Vilification of “Me-Search,” Tenure, and the Economic Position of Black Sociologists

In 2019, Black sociologists are still less likely to get published in discipline-specific peer-reviewed journals, less likely to hold tenured or tenure-track positions at predominately white institutions, and less likely to be awarded tenure than white sociologists. This is, in part, because the traditional positivist approach to sociology favors an epistemology rooted in world building from a white perspective and subsequently prefers white sociologists to do that work. Overvaluing empirical research emphasizing objectivity through marked distance between researcher and participants, in the tradition of the natural sciences, also undervalues the importance of investigators’ perceived connections to marginalized communities in the reliability of collected data, and the use of qualitative methods to scientific study. This conceptual paper connects public discourse on the devaluing of “me-search” done by Black sociologists, research studying communities of which the principal investigator is also a member, to professional advancement data to explore the economic penalties for Black sociologists whose “me-search” expands the limits of what is useful and noteworthy in the production of sociological knowledge while simultaneously impacting their professional advancement in the discipline. Patricia Hill Collins’ (Soc Probl. 33: S14–32, 1986) epistemological stance laments the positivist approach and attempts to move sociological research of the oppressed away from the gaze of the oppressors. The academy’s colonial focus on “objectivity,” and subsequent third person research writing, maintains a white normative framework for the entire discipline. But in the twenty-first century, a disciplinary focus on research about marginalized identities by white sociologists inherently devalues the scientific validity of research on Black communities by Black researchers, aiding in racialized gatekeeping in sociology. Low numbers of tenured Black faculty, promotion policies focused on the number of peer-reviewed publications, and low journal publication rates for Black researchers highlight the negative impact on professional outcomes for Black sociologists and illustrates a perpetual devaluation of the perspectives of Black researchers.

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals. Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined. For the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P=.49). Representation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship.