Gender Authorship Trends in the Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Literature

Abstract

Purpose: Despite increasing numbers of women oculoplastic surgeons, they remain underrepresented within the subspecialty. The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in gender authorship within the field of ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery. Methods: This retrospective observational study sampled articles published in Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (OPRS) and Orbit during the years 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015, and 2020. Data reviewed included article type, total number of authors, and the gender of each article’s first and senior author. Results: Nine hundred ninety-nine articles were analyzed, including 701 in OPRS and 298 in Orbit. Of 3,716 total authors, 1,151 (31%) were women, including 297 (29.7%) first authors, and 191 (21.5%) senior authors. Women authorship in OPRS in 1985 (first, 3.9%; senior, 3.3%; all, 3.2%) significantly increased by 2020 (first, 44.6%; senior, 27.9%; all, 42%). Women authorship in Orbit in 1985 (first, 0%; senior, 4.5%; all, 7.4%) also significantly increased by 2020 (first, 43.3%; senior, 34%; all, 42.9%). In a subanalysis of OPRS original investigations alone, women first authorship increased from 3.1% in 1985 to 35.8% in 2020 (p < 0.001) and women senior authorship increased from 4.3% in 1985 to 25% in 2020 (p = 0.001). In a subanalysis of Orbit original investigations alone, women first authorship increased from 0% in 1985 to 65.4% in 2020 (p < 0.001) and women senior authorship increased from 5.3% in 1985 to 42.3% in 2020 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite a significant increase in women authorship over the past several decades, women remain underrepresented within the oculoplastic literature, particularly in regard to senior authorship. When considering original investigations alone, there has been a significant increase in women first and senior authorship in both OPRS and Orbit.

An Analysis of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowship Program Directors in the United States

“…Interestingly, our study further revealed that female PDs had significantly higher five-year h-indexes compared to their male counterparts, suggesting a trend toward greater research productivity among the former group in more recent years. This is consistent with broader findings from other investigations that have noted a greater number of female authors among OPRS-specific journals and presenters at ASOPRS meetings [12,13].…”

Gender Distribution & Rank of Authorship in Surgical Literature

“…Elkbuli et al reported that among medical school deans, men held significantly higher lifetime peer-reviewed publications and h-indices compared to women. 11 The lack of representation of women within 16 Aslan et al 17 Silvestre et al 18 Sela et al 19 Xiao et al 20 Brown et al 21 Pastor-Cabeza et al 22 Hiller et al 23 Farhan et al 24 Arrighi-Allisan et al 25 Gervasio et al 26 surgical research found by this review may impact advancement of women surgeons to positions of leadership, further highlighting the interplay between research productivity and academic leadership. 12,[30][31][32] Interestingly, one study found that women were significantly less likely to hold senior leadership positions in academic medicine than men after controlling for research productivity, indicating that additional factors may play a role in the underrepresentation of women within academic surgery.…”

“…A total of 15 studies met our eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis (eTable 1). 1,12,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Three studies investigated orthopedic surgery research, 15,21,23 three studies investigated neurosurgery research, 17,22,24 two studies investigated plastic surgery research, 18,26 and two studies investigated research from multiple surgical specialties. 16,20 The remaining five studies investigated research from surgical subspecialties and are reported in eTable 1.…”

“…The risk of bias of all studies included in this review was rated low according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies (eTable 4). 1,12,[15][16][17][18][19][20][22][23][24][25][26][27]…”

“…Some studies identified author gender by manually investigating institutional or social media websites, 16,17,21 while some identified gender based on names, 12,15,20 and others used a combination of methods. 1,18,19,[22][23][24][25][26][27] The different methods used to identify author gender may have contributed to some variations in the reported outcomes between studies included in this review. Finally, we were limited to investigating only binary genders categorized as male female due the lack of inclusion of non-binary genders within the studies published on this topic.…”