Background Despite women constituting over half of new doctors, gender disparity remains an issue. Surgery has shown particularly slow progress towards gender parity. This study aimed to quantify gender representation within editorial boards of the highest ranking international general surgery journals. Methods Surgical journals were collated using two indices: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Non-general surgery journals were excluded. Journals were contacted, requesting gender editorial team demographics. Editorial board data were collected via journal websites on 28 November 2019. Results The top 25 general surgery journals according to SJR and JIF ranking methods were determined, identifying 28 unique journals. Editorial board data were publicly available for 27 of these 28 surgical journals, and were examined. Women accounted for 20.2 per cent (568 of 2816) of total editorial board positions. Women constituted 11 per cent (4 of 36) of editor-in-chief positions, 32 per cent (29 of 92) of deputy editors, and 19.1 per cent (369 of 1935) of general editorial board positions. Conclusion The findings demonstrate gender disparity within editorial boards of the most prominent general surgery journals.

Introduction Despite women constituting over half of new UK doctors, and a similar proportion worldwide, gender disparity remains an issue throughout academic medicine. Surgery has shown particularly slow progress towards gender parity. This study aims to quantify gender representation within editorial boards of the top 25 general surgical journals. Method All surgical journals were collated using the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Non general surgery journals were excluded. Journals were contacted requesting gender editorial team demographics. Editorial board data was collected via journal websites on 20th November 2019. Result The top 25 surgical journals were determined through SJR and JIF ranking methods. Editorial board data was publicly available for 31 of these 32 different surgical journals. This data was then examined. Women accounted for 18.4% (576/3135) of total editorial board positions. Women constituted 12.5% (5/40) of Editors-in-Chief positions, 31.6% (31/98) of Deputy Editors and 17.2% (416/2415) of general editorial board positions. Conclusion For the first time, gender disparity has been demonstrated within editorial boards of the most prominent general surgery journals. The implications of such significant gender disparity are wide reaching. Action should be taken to champion fair female representation, eliminate risk of bias and provide more visible female role models in academic surgery. Take-home message For the first time, this study demonstrates gender disparity in Editorial boards of major general surgery journals. Action should be taken to champion fair female representation, eliminate risk of bias and provide more visible female role models in academic surgery.

Introduction Bibliometrics enable the objective assessment of a journals quality and prestige, making them vital to academic surgical integrity. This paper systematically reviews the evidence for current journal-ranking platforms. Method An initial systematic search identified published journal bibliometrics on 5th November 2019. Studies assessing journal bibliometrics were identified through a second systematic search through OVID Medline database (PROSPERO:159689) on 18th November 2019. Non-English papers and those solely referring to author and institutional ranking methods were excluded. A coding framework was developed to assess strengths and limitations of journal bibliometrics. Result The systematic search returned 2480 articles. All abstracts were reviewed leaving 474 for full assessment. 306 papers were included in the final synthesis. 12 journal bibliometrics were identified. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) was deemed the most robust journal ranking method. Impact Factor (IF) is the most commonly used but has clear limitations. Altmetrics are likely to become more important. Ranking the Top 25 general surgical journals using SJR and IF results in clear discordance. Conclusion Impact Factor is susceptible to manipulation by journals putting its reliability into question. This has huge implications for academic surgery, the appraisal of evidence and its downstream assessment for inclusion into clinical guidelines and practice. SJR is more robust and it is recommended that this ranking method is adopted by the academic surgical community going forward. Take-home message The widely used Impact Factor can be manipulated by journals, which has implications for academic surgery and evidence-based medicine. SCImago Journal Rank is more robust and should be adopted by the academic surgical community.