Does Gender Matter in Academic Surgery? Author and Mentor Gender Impact Publication Citations in Surgical Research

Shukla, Devki; Simma‐Chiang, Vannita; Kyprianou, Natasha; Tewari, Ashutosh; Lundon, Dara

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.049

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been many reports on gender bias in citations (Borrego et al, 2010 ; Long, 1992 ; Symonds et al, 2006 ). For example, publications written by females are cited more than those written by males but are less likely to be cited (Shukla et al, 2021 ). Some studies have shown that if a woman publishes a paper as the first author, the female researcher is more likely to be a female senior researcher (Puri et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some research fields, publications by female first authors receive fewer citations than expected. For example, in the urology field, female authorship exhibited a significant citation advantage over male authors, but female authors were less likely to be cited (Shukla et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ). This situation also exists in astronomical publications (Caplar et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine

Zang

Liu

2023

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which basic medical research is translated into clinical practice is a topic of interest to all stakeholders. In this study, we assessed the clinical translation intensity of papers published by scientists who have made outstanding contributions to the field of basic medicine (Lasker Prize winners for Basic Medical Research). Approximate Potential for Translation (APT), Translational science scores (TS), and Citations by clinical research (Cited by Clin.) were analyzed as dependent variables. A traditional citation indicator was used as a reference (relative citation ratio, RCR). In order to examine the correlation between these different indicators and the characteristics of the paper, the author, and the institution. we used nonparametric tests, Spearman correlations, ordinal least squares regressions (OLS), quantile regressions, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression methods. We found that among the basic medical research papers published by Lasker Basic Medicine Award winners, (1) 20% are cited by clinical research; 11.6% of the papers were more valuable for clinical research than basic research; 12.8% have a probability of more than 50% to be cited in future clinical studies; (2) Spearman correlations were conducted among APT, TS, Cited by Clin., RCR, and all of the other continuous variables. There is a significant, positive, low to moderate correlation between APT, TS, and Cited by Clin (APT and TS: r = 0.549, p < 0.01; APT and Cited by Clin: r = 0.530, p < 0.01; TS and Cited by Clin: r = 0.383, p < 0.01). However, the relationship between RCR and the three indicators of clinical translation intensity was not consistent. APT was positively correlated with RCR ( r = 0.553, p < 0.01). Cited by Clin. is weakly positively correlated with RCR ( r = 0.381, p < 0.01). There is almost no correlation between TS and RCR ( r = 0.184, p < 0.01). (3) Publication age, primary research paper, multidisciplinary science, number of disciplines, authors, institutions, funded projects, references, length of the title, length of paper, physical age, gender, nationality, institutional type, Nobel Prize have a significant relationship with 1 to 3 types of clinical translation intensity measures. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine, we came to the following conclusions: the three indicators, APT, TS and Cited by Clin., measured the clinical translation intensity of the papers from different perspectives. They are both related to each other and have their own characteristics. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine, characteristics at the paper, winner, and institution level significantly correlated with ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine

Zang

Liu

2023

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although women scientists generate innovative research, their work is often devalued and receives fewer citations, leading to less recognition than men scientists . Similarly, in the field of surgery, despite publishing more papers, women surgeons are less likely to be cited than their men counterparts . Differential treatment and amplification of academic work by gender may also be reflected in NIH peer review .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“… 1 Similarly, in the field of surgery, despite publishing more papers, women surgeons are less likely to be cited than their men counterparts. 32 Differential treatment and amplification of academic work by gender may also be reflected in NIH peer review. 33 We found that women surgeon-scientists were 25% less likely than men surgeon-scientists to be an SPI, even after adjusting for academic degree and institutional NIH research ranking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Disparity in National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists From 1995 to 2020

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceSurgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery.ObjectiveTo examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDistribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022.ResultsBetween 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P &lt; .001) and were as likely to obtain large-dollar grants (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.03]) during the period 2016 to 2020. Despite this success, women surgeon-scientists remained significantly underrepresented among SPIs and were 25% less likely to be an SPI (aRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95] during the period 2016 to 2020).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.

show abstract

“…Velez et al found that there are institutional policies and pervasive biases that create such barriers for women [7]. Furthermore, researchers have found that there has been an increase in female representation in urological publications; however, their papers are less likely to be cited and still make up a smaller proportion of urological literature [8]. Women represented 33.61%, 35.61%, and 37.1% of applicants who matched successfully into all urology programs in the years 2021, 2022, and 2023 respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating PubMed-Indexed Publications of Applicants Successfully Matching into the Top 50 Urology Residency Programs in the 2021-2023 Cycles

Mirza¹,

Williamson²,

Mirza³

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectiveUrology residency match occurs through the American Urological Association (AUA), and hence information about the success of applicants in finding a match is not readily available. The average number of publications a successful urology applicant has when applying for residency is unknown. In light of this, we conducted this study to examine the number of PubMed-indexed research projects involving US senior medical students who successfully matched into the top 50 urology residency programs in the 2021, 2022, and 2023 match cycles. We also assessed these applicants based on their medical schools and gender. MethodsDoximity Residency Navigator was used to generate the top 50 residency programs as sorted by reputation. Newly matched residents were found using program Twitter accounts and residency program websites. PubMed was queried for peer-reviewed publications of incoming interns. ResultsThe average number of publications across all incoming interns in the three years was 3.65. The average number of urology-specific publications was 1.86 and that of first-author urology publications was 1.11. The median number of total publications for matched applicants was 2, and applicants with a total of five publications were in the 75th percentile for research productivity. ConclusionA successful applicant had two PubMed-indexed urology papers on average and also had a urology-specific first-author paper in the cycles we surveyed. There has been an increase in publications per applicant when comparing the results to previous application cycles, which can be attributed to post-pandemic changes.

show abstract

Does Gender Matter in Academic Surgery? Author and Mentor Gender Impact Publication Citations in Surgical Research

Cited by 8 publications

References 23 publications

Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine

Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine

Gender Disparity in National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists From 1995 to 2020

Evaluating PubMed-Indexed Publications of Applicants Successfully Matching into the Top 50 Urology Residency Programs in the 2021-2023 Cycles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About