Gender Differences in Authorship of Critical Care Literature

Vranas, Kelly C.; Ouyang, David; Lin, Amber; Slatore, Christopher G.; Kerlin, Meeta Prasad; Liu, K.; Baron, R.M.; Calfee, CS; Ware, L.B.; Halpern, Scott D.; Matthay, Michael A.; Herridge, Margaret S.; Mehta, Samira K.; Rogers, Austin F.

doi:10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2019.199.1_meetingabstracts.a4168

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to others, we find that first and senior authorship positions in original research publications in critical care medicine is far from gender parity [16]. With the development of the FFA-index, we demonstrate that in critical care, only female senior authors have achieved gender parity in first authorship.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index

Chary

Amrein

Soeteman³

et al. 2021

Ann. Intensive Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bibliometric analyses show gender bias against women in scientific publications and citations. We hypothesized that a metric of an individual senior author’s inclusivity of women as first authors in critical care publications would predict gender inequality. Methods Using PubMed and Web of Science, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of original research publications in critical care from 2008 to 2018 in 11 specialty and general journals. Gender for first and senior authors was assigned by a gender determination application, and manually if needed. For all senior authors we defined the novel Female First Author Index (FFA-index) = #Female first authors in publications by an individual senior author/Total # publications by that senior author. We produced a novel interactive web-based application using the R package Shiny to increase potential utilization of the FFA-index. Results Of 7370 publications, 30.4% had female first authors and 15.5% had female senior authors. After adjustment for impact factor, journal, year of publication, number of authors, country, and gender determination accuracy, female senior authorship was associated with a 1.9-fold increase in female first authorship [OR = 1.85 (95% CI 1.62, 2.11); p < 0.001] compared with male senior authorship. The mean (SD) FFA-index for all individual senior authors was 30.5 (42.9); with a significant difference in FFA-index between male and female senior authors (27.6 versus 42.5, respectively; p < 0.001). The interactive web-based application (FFA-index App) produces the same FFA-index output as our study results. Conclusions Female representation at prominent authorship positions in critical care publications is still far from achieving gender parity. By creating an authorship index score, we propose a frame of reference for the advancement of female first authorship.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…As in other male-dominated fields, the rate of increase in female senior authorship in critical care is nearly stagnant [9]. Research publications in the field of critical care medicine show overwhelming authorship gender disparity and our analysis over the last decade shows that we are far from bridging this gap [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index

Chary

Amrein

Soeteman³

et al. 2021

Ann. Intensive Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, gender parity among authorship teams has been achieved in recent years, which aligns with Madden’s recent analysis of four medical education journals across a variety of publication types. 21 Furthermore, similar to the findings from Madden et al examining other medical specialities, 44-46 we identified significantly more males in the last author position. In biomedicine, the last position is traditionally occupied by the senior author who takes on a leadership role in the study 47 or is often the principal investigator of the research laboratory conducting the work.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation

Maggio

Ninkov

Costello

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. Therefore, to better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution. Method In 2020, the authors conducted a case study of authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals using a publicly accessible dataset. Results The authors of the present study identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD=2.51, Median=4, Range=1-22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M=1.80 in 1999; M=5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n=2047; 50.5%) than males (n=2005; 49.5%) across all author positions (Pearson Χ2=22.02, p<.001). Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries (LMIC). Authors from the United States (n=366; 38%), Canada (n=233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n=180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from the University of Toronto (n=55, 6%) and the Mayo Clinic (n=31, 3%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n=753; 78%) included authors at top 200 ranked institutions. Conclusions Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses in medical education.

show abstract

“…Our findings are consistent with other studies, both within family medicine and other specialties. 6,7,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]8,[26][27][28][29][33][34][35][36][37][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] This raises the question of why there are not comparable increases in the percentage of women in leadership. 40 There are signs of a narrowing gap between the genders within academic family medicine: this study shows better representation in senior authorship, which echoes the AAMC data on academic rank (Figure 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Authorship of Family Medicine Publications, 2002-2017

Keller

Wilson

Chung

et al. 2021

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Representation of women in medicine is increasing, including in academic family medicine. Despite this, women continue to hold a minority of senior faculty and leadership roles. This study examines the trends of women first and senior authorship between 2002 and 2017 in five family medicine journals: Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, and American Family Physician. The study also examines gender congruence between first and senior authors and women’s membership on editorial boards. Methods: We collected and analyzed data on a total of 1,671 original articles published in the five family medicine journals in 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. We also examined the gender composition of the journals’ editorial boards. Results: Overall, women first authorship increased significantly from 32.6% in 2002 to 47.7% in 2017. There was no significant difference in women senior authorship or editorial board representation from 2002 to 2017. Both men and women senior authors partnered with women first authors significantly more over the 15 years. Conclusions: While there was a statistically significant increase in women first authors between 2002 and 2017, there is still a gap between women’s authorship and editorial board representation and their representation within academic family medicine. These gaps could help to explain the continued lack of women represented within senior faculty positions.

show abstract

Gender Differences in Authorship of Critical Care Literature

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index

Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation

Gender Differences in Authorship of Family Medicine Publications, 2002-2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About