Gender Disparities in Prosthodontics: Authorship and Leadership, 13 Years of Observation

Kongkiatkamon, Suchada; Yuan, Judy Chia Chun; Lee, Damian J.; Knoernschild, Kent L.; Campbell, Stephen D.; Sukotjo, Cortino

doi:10.1111/j.1532-849x.2010.00620.x

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 There are a handful of articles that examine gender trends in the fields of general surgery, otolaryngology, orthopedic surgery, anesthesiology, dermatology, and dentistry, showing that there was often, but not always, an increase in women authors publishing during the past decade. 7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] These studies also found that gender trends in authorship varied between subspecialties. For example, orthopedic surgery did not have the same increase in women authors compared with other fields.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Decadelong Profile of Women in Ophthalmic Publications

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

istorically, all surgical subspecialties, including ophthalmology, have been male-dominated fields. 1,2 Potential reasons for this occurrence include lack of opportunity, lack of role models, lack of exposure to surgical fields, and considerations of work-life balance. 1,2 During the past decade, there has been an increase in the number of women surgical residents in the United States commensurate with the increase in women graduating from medical schools. 3,4 At the same time, it is evident that women in ophthalmology and all fields of academic medicine may not be advancing to senior ranks compared with their male counterparts, even though women are more likely than men to enter academics. 3,4 In addition, there is still a gender difference in the salaries of physician researchers. 5 Other investigators have validated the use of authors' gender in academic medical literature as a surrogate marker of gender imbalance. 6,7 An important component of academia is publications, as they are the main venue for communicating and encouraging diffusion of scientific innovation. Progress in ophthalmology, or any medical specialty, comes from reporting new investigations and clinical findings. The process of authorship, submission to a journal, peer review, acceptance, and publication are the fundamental steps for the introduction of new knowledge into our practices. 8 IMPORTANCE In recent decades, there has been an increase in the number of women practicing medicine. We believe this shift may be reaching academic publications in ophthalmology and changing gender trends.OBJECTIVE To determine whether there has been an increase in women publishing academic articles and editorials in ophthalmology during the past decade. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this observational retrospective study, 3 ophthalmology journals were sampled from 2000 and 2010 for at least 100 articles per journal, per year, and all editorials published in both years. Data reviewed included the authors' gender, number of authors, number of references, subspecialty, and country of origin.EXPOSURE Publication by women authors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was an increase in women publishing in ophthalmology. The hypothesis was formulated before data collection.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Decadelong Profile of Women in Ophthalmic Publications

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Women were particularly underrepresented in the last author position, relative to their representation in the community and their representation at other author positions, in both of our datasets (22% and 23%). That women are especially poorly represented among last authors is typical for analyses of authorship in biology and medical journals (e.g., Dotson, 2011;Erren, Groß, Shaw, & Selle, 2014;Feramisco et al, 2009;Jagsi et al, 2006;Holman, Stuart-Fox, & Hauser, 2018;Kongkiatkamon et al, 2010;West et al, 2013;Wininger et al, 2017). This is likely due to demographic differences between individuals in the various author positions; for example, first authors are commonly students and postdocs, populations for which female representation is quite high in the sciences (Shaw & Stanton, 2012), whereas the last author is commonly the senior scientist for the project, such as the laboratory supervising professor or grant primary investigator (Duffy, 2017;Jagsi et al, 2006), populations in which women remain underrepresented.…”

Section: Patterns Of Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography

Fox

Ritchey

Paine

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., “senior”) authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years, and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year‐on‐year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all‐male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non‐English‐speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English‐speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role.

show abstract

“…Women are better represented as first authors on submissions to Functional Ecology than in the global scientific literature (Larivi ere et al 2013) and better represented in submissions to Functional Ecology during the time period of our study than they were in the broader literature in ecology and evolution between 1990 and 2011 (women rep-resent~24% of first authors in ecology and evolution for papers archived in JSTOR; West et al 2013; http:// www.eigenfactor.org/gender/#). That women are more commonly first author than last author is a typical result for analyses of authorship in biology and medical journals (e.g., Jagsi et al 2006;Feramisco et al 2009;Kongkiatkamon et al 2010;Dotson 2011;West et al 2013;Erren et al 2014). This is likely due to demographic differences between individuals who occupy the first vs. last author positions on papers.…”

Section: P a T T E R N S O F A U T H O R S H I Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Globally, women comprise <30% of authorships on scientific publications (Larivi ere et al 2013;Burns 2015) and publish less frequently than do men (Symonds et al 2006;Ledin et al 2007;Long et al 2015). The proportion of authors that are women has been increasing (Jagsi et al 2006;Baethge 2008;Dotson 2011), but the degree of change varies substantially among journals and disciplines (Sidhu et al 2009;Kongkiatkamon et al 2010;Oertelt-Prigione 2012;Maule on et al 2013;West et al 2013). In particular, men have historically been over-represented as first and last authors while women have been over-represented as middle authors (Martin 2012), though the under-representation of women at the first and last positions, especially first authors, has improved over the past couple of decades (West et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014. Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi‐authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female. Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender‐neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender.

show abstract

Gender Disparities in Prosthodontics: Authorship and Leadership, 13 Years of Observation

Abstract: Over the past 13 years, female dentists' participation in prosthodontics literature authorship has not increased significantly in the United States. Furthermore, female involvement in prosthodontics leadership has been limited over the past decades.

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Decadelong Profile of Women in Ophthalmic Publications

Decadelong Profile of Women in Ophthalmic Publications

Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography

Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About