Association between women's authorship and women's editorship in infectious diseases journals: a cross-sectional study

Last, Katharina; Hübsch, Lilith; Çevik, Müge; Wolkewitz, Martin; Müller, Sophie Elisabeth; Huttner, Angela; Papan, Cihan

doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00367-x

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, currently, there does not exist a resource that provides gender information for individual authors. Moreover, multiple publications with similar goals to this current study have utilised Genderize.io as a gender prediction tool 33–36 . Therefore, we relied on the Genderize.io tool, in keeping with work done previously by authors using bibliometric methods 4,17,33–37 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, multiple publications with similar goals to this current study have utilised Genderize.io as a gender prediction tool. 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 Therefore, we relied on the Genderize.io tool, in keeping with work done previously by authors using bibliometric methods. 4 , 17 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 Genderize.io bases its predictions on a database of over 100 million names and for each name provides the “percent confidence” that the gender prediction is correct.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 Therefore, we relied on the Genderize.io tool, in keeping with work done previously by authors using bibliometric methods. 4 , 17 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 Genderize.io bases its predictions on a database of over 100 million names and for each name provides the “percent confidence” that the gender prediction is correct. We accepted the tool's gender prediction if and when it was over 70% confident of the gender prediction.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The voices of authors who publish medical education literature have a powerful impact on the field's discourses. Researchers have identified a lack of author diversity, which suggests potential epistemic injustice. This study investigates author characteristics to provide an evidence-based starting point for communal discussion with the intent to move medical education towards a future that holds space for, and values, diverse ways of knowing. Method:The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published in 24 medical education journals published between 2000 and 2020 to identify author characteristics, with an emphasis on author gender and geographic location and their intersection. Article metadata was downloaded from Web of Science. Genderize.io was used to predict author gender. Results: The journals published 37 263 articles authored by 62 708 unique authors. Males were more prevalent across all authorship positions (n = 62 828; 55.7%) than females (n = 49 975; 44.3%). Authors listed affiliations in 146 countries of which 95 were classified as Global South. Few articles were written by multinational teams (n = 3765; 16.2%). Global South authors accounted for 12 007 (11.4%) author positions of which 3594 (3.8%) were female. Discussion: This study provides an evidence-based starting point to discuss the imbalance of author voices in medical education, especially when considering the intersection of gender and geographical location, which further suggests epistemic injustice in medical education. If the field values a diversity of perspectives, there is considerable opportunity for improvement by engaging the community in discussions about what knowledge matters in medical education, the role of journals in promoting diversity, how to best use this baseline data and how to continue studying epistemic injustice in medical education.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although neuroscience has a significantly higher percentage of female PhD graduates (53%) than drug delivery disciplines reported domestically above (38%), the percentage of women in tenure track faculty is less in neuroscience with the percentage of females reported for 2017–2018 being only 30.8% with 13.8% of tenured professors at the rank of full professor . In addition to Shen et al’s work, the percentages of women first authors and last authors for 40 infectious disease journals were evaluated and there was no observed correlation between gender and JIF, but the range of JIFs (4.46 ± 4.13) evaluated was lower than we evaluated in this study (16.06 ± 11.29) . Overall, this data would indicate that females in drug delivery have a decreased frequency of publication in high impact journals over other scientific fields, including those like neuroscience that have fewer female professors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor

McLaughlin,

Bachelder,

Ainslie

2023

Mol. Pharmaceutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First and last authorship are important metrics of productivity and scholarly success for trainees and professors. For 11 drug delivery-related journals in 2021, the percentage of female first (39.5%) and last (25.7%) authorship was reported. A strong negative correlation, with female first (r p = −0.73) and female last authorship (r p = −0.66), was observed with respect to journal impact factor. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation with male first and last authorship (r p = 0.71). Papers were ∼1.5 times more likely to have a male first author, and ∼3 times more likely to have a male last author, than females. A female was 22% more likely to have first authorship if the last author was female, although there is an ∼1% increase per year in female authorship with male last authorship, which equates to equality in first authorship by 2044. Considering that drug delivery is composed of engineering, chemistry, and pharmaceutical science disciplines, the observed 25.7% female last authorship does not represent the approximately 35.5% to 50% of professors that are female in these disciplines, internationally. Overall, female authorship in drug delivery-related journals should improve to better represent the work of female senior authors.

show abstract

“…Gender inequity is pervasive in academic medicine and journal publishing, although this inequity is improving in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 1 . Researchers looked at gender equity, in terms of the proportion of women first and last authors and editors, in infectious disease papers published in 40 infectious disease journals, 20 obstetrics and gynaecology journals and 20 cardiology journals in 2018 and 2019 2 . Women constituted 5350 (49.3%) of 10 853 first authors and 3788 (34.9%) of 10 865 last authors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender inequity in academic medicine

2022

J Paediatrics Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Association between women's authorship and women's editorship in infectious diseases journals: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 28 publications

References 31 publications

The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor

Gender inequity in academic medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About