Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Abstract

Importance : The inclusion of people from diverse backgrounds, and with different lived experiences is critical to ensuring the questions addressed in systematic reviews (SRs). The subsequent conclusions and recommendations made, are relevant and sensitive to the setting.Objective : To assess the gender and geographic diversity of authors among all Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision as compared with a random sample of non-Cochrane SRs of interventions in the field of eyes and vision.Design : The Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite maintains a database of SRs in the field of eyes and vision. We selected all (n = 313) Cochrane Library intervention SRs and a random sample of 313 non-Cochrane Library intervention SRs for this study. We extracted gender (‘woman,’ ‘man,’ or ‘unknown’) using a previously developed algorithm and location based on country and the World Health Organization region – of the first and corresponding authors using their full names and affiliations.Results : From the 626 reviews included in our sample, we identified 756 unique authors who comprised 887 author positions (i.e., first and/or corresponding authors). We were able to ascertain the gender of 652/756 (86%) authors: 279 women, and 373 men. Among Cochrane reviews, the proportions of women in first and/or corresponding author positions were consistent and approximately equal to men. Among non-Cochrane reviews, the representation of women was markedly lower as corresponding authors than other positions. We identified a location for each author and found most authors of Cochrane reviews were from the United Kingdom (31%) and United States of America (26%), whereas most authors of non-Cochrane reviews were from China (34%).Conclusions and relevance : Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision appear to have equal representation of women and men among the first and corresponding authors. Compared with non-Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision, Cochrane SRs appear to have a greater concentration of authors who are based in European and North American countries, possibly due to the locations of the Cochrane editorial teams. Cochrane Eyes and Vision should continue to recruit authors from around the world in locations that reflect the global burden of eye disease.

Lack of Gender Diversity Among Systematic Reviews Authors in the Urological Literature (1998-2021)

“…6,11 Thanks to a rigorous methodological approach that included pilot testing of the data abstraction form, the discordance in the abstracted data was low at 5%. 6…”

“…To determine the gender of the authors (in a binary fashion as woman or man), we utilized the algorithm previously described by Qureshi et al 2020. 6 In brief, we first assessed whether we knew the authors personally and thereby could attribute their gender. Second, we determined whether the first name was uniquely attributable to 1 gender (eg, for names like John or Jane).…”

“…The algorithm we employed to determine gender has been tested and found reliable in previous studies. 6,11 Thanks to a rigorous methodological approach that included pilot testing of the data abstraction form, the discordance in the abstracted data was low at 5%. 6 As with all studies, ours is not without limitations.…”

“…6,11 Thanks to a rigorous methodological approach that included pilot testing of the data abstraction form, the discordance in the abstracted data was low at 5%. 6 As with all studies, ours is not without limitations. First, there was a relatively high percentage of authors where the gender could not be determined (10.3%).…”

“…1,2 Gender disparities in authorship in the fields of science and medicine are well established, with gender gaps seen in authorship of submissions to high-impact journals, to systematic reviews, and to invited commentaries (26.6%-41.7%). [3][4][5][6] When categorizing by authorship positions such as first and senior (last) author, the percentage of women author contributions are even lower, ranging from 10% to 20%. 4,7 Despite an increasing number of women matching into the specialty of urology, it remains a maledominated field with men making up 89.1% of practicing urologists.…”