Gender Differences in Scholarly Productivity Within Academic Gynecologic Oncology Departments

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To estimate whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, the academic rank and gender of gynecologic oncology faculty in the United States were determined from online residency and fellowship directories and departmental web sites. Each individual’s h-index and years of publication were determined from Scopus (a citation database of peer-reviewed literature). The h-index is a quantification of an author’s scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited. We generated descriptive statistics and compared rank, gender, and productivity scores. RESULTS Five hundred seven academic faculty within 137 U.S. teaching programs were identified. Of these, 215 (42%) were female and 292 (58%) were male. Men had significantly higher median h-indices than women, 16 compared with 8, respectively (P<.001). Women were more likely to be of junior academic rank with 63% of assistant professors being female compared with 20% of full professors. When stratifying h-indices by gender and academic rank, men had significantly higher h-indices at the assistant professor level (7 compared with 5, P<.001); however, this difference disappeared at the higher ranks. Stratifying by the years of active publication, there was no significant difference between genders. CONCLUSION Female gynecologic oncologists at the assistant professor level had lower scholarly productivity than men; however, at higher academic ranks, they equaled their male counterparts. Women were more junior in rank, had published for fewer years, and were underrepresented in leadership positions.

Analysis of h-index and other bibliometric markers of productivity and repercussion of a selected sample of worldwide emergency medicine researchers

“…Fifth, the relationship between scientific production and author gender has been poorly studied; our work only revealed 18 EP investigators as women, which shows a clear disproportion in favour of men. This is consistent with previous studies conducted worldwide 25 26. In the case of the present study, the inclusion of investigators with long careers likely resulted in the low participation of women, as their incorporation into the workforce of medicine in general, and in research in particular, has occurred more recently than for men.…”

Gender disparities are present in academic rank and leadership positions despite overall equivalence in research productivity indices among senior members of American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) Fellowship Faculty

“…This analysis demonstrates that the underrepresentation of women in positions of leadership cannot be attributed completely to academic productivity, because the indices were not significantly different for those women in departmental leadership positions or for the majority of senior faculty at the levels of professor and associate professor, although these calculations draw from a small sample size. It has been postulated that women demonstrate a different productivity curve than their male counterparts, with greater productivity later in their careers . Current promotion practices may be biased toward early productivity, possibly limiting career advancement to positions of leadership for women .…”

“…It has been postulated that women demonstrate a different productivity curve than their male counterparts, with greater productivity later in their careers. 24 Current promotion practices may be biased toward early productivity, possibly limiting career advancement to positions of leadership for women. 8 Additionally, there are likely fewer numbers of women than men at each academic rank with adequate years of experience required for promotion.…”

Disequilibrium in Gender Ratios among Authors who Contributed Equally

“…In particular, we were interested in trends involving the sharing of equal contributions among authors differing in gender, since inequities in distribution could translate into differences in gender recognition for scientific accomplishment. Numerous studies have documented underrepresentation of women in academic faculty and in scientific positions, especially at the more senior ranks [10; 11; 12; 13]. Although the mechanisms for these trends are complex one possibility is that they receive less credit for their scientific work [12].…”