Gender equality in academic research on epilepsy—a study on scientific authorships

Bendels, M. H. K.; Wanke, Eileen M.; Schöffel, Norman; Bauer, Jan; Quarcoo, David; Groneberg, David A.

doi:10.1111/epi.13873

Cited by 24 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirdly, the analysis highlights gender inequity with female underrepresentation in prestigious authorship positions compared to male in biomedical research. This is consistent with other fields including: epilepsy, lung cancer, dermatology, eating disorders and in medicine in general[17,19,41–43].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The main outcome measures were: (1) Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising, either male or female categories, (2) Six categories of scientific authorship: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors (Figure 1). These categories are conventionally associated with the highest amount of contribution, credit and prestige[10,17].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Last author was defined as the last-named author of a publication. The last author was considered to be a group leader or principal investigator who may have provided significant intellectual contribution or supervision of the research work as well as acquisition of research funding[17,35]. Joint last authors were defined as two or more authors who were named as equal contributors in the publication and their names were mentioned as joint last authors in the publication.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a biomedical research centre

Dam

Shah

Milano

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignA retrospective descriptive study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.Data2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017.Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised clinical research (39%, n=939), basic research (27%, n=643), and other types of research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) (χ 2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) (χ2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) (χ 2 91.291, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAlthough there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in biomedical research. Further research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis is the first study to investigate gender parity in six categories of scientific authorship: first authors, first corresponding authors, last authors and three joint authorship categories i.e. joint first authors, joint corresponding authors and joint last authors in biomedical research.This study provides an important benchmark on gender equity in scientific authorship for other NIHR funded centres and organisations in England.The generalisability of the findings of this study may be limited due to differences in medical specialities, research areas, institutional cultures, and levels of support to individual researchers.Using secondary sources for determining the gender of authors may have limitations, which could be avoided by seeking relevant information from original authors and institution affiliation at the time of submission.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a biomedical research centre

Dam

Shah

Milano

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methodically, we used the Gendermetrics Platform [ 20 ] to analyze the representation of 121,407 male and female authorships from 19,724 English original articles related to lung cancer, published between January 1, 2008 and September 20, 2016. By considering the different prestige of first, co- and last authorships, we draw conclusions about the distribution of prestigious authorships between the two genders, as previously shown in Bendels et al [ 18 , 21 ]. The analysis evaluates global status, temporal development and future perspectives, differences across continents and countries, scholarly productivity, citation rates and finally, the role women tend to have in articles with many authors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…With regard to this bibliometric study, we here assess the integration of women in the field of lung cancer research by analyzing their representation in scientific authorships. Conceptually, we exploit the fact that the prestige of authorships follows, by convention, a ranked order with a higher reputation of first and last authorships and a lower reputation of co-authorships [ 17 , 18 ]. Moreover, authorships also reflect the hierarchical structures of the underlying research community, as early-career researches usually publish as first or co-authors and senior researches preferably as last authors [ 17 , 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gendermetrics of cancer research: results from a global analysis on lung cancer

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCancer research is critically dependent on a continuous recruitment of junior research staff that devotes its academic life not only to clinical duties but also to basic and translational research. The present study aims to elucidate the success concerning gender equality in cancer research in the last decade (from 2008 to 2016) with lung cancer as the target parameter.Materials and MethodsOn the basis of the Gendermetrics Platform, a total of 19,724 articles related to lung cancer research were analyzed. The key method was the combined analysis of the proportion of female authorships and the female-to-male odds ratio for first, co- and last authorships. The distribution of prestigious authorships was measured by the Prestige Index.Results31.3% of all authorships and 35.2% of the first, 32.2% of the co- and 22.1% of the last authorships were held by women. The corresponding female-to-male odds ratio is 1.22 (CI: 1.18–1.27) for first, 1.19 (CI: 1.16–1.23) for co- and 0.59 (CI: 0.57–0.61) for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorships compared to men (Prestige Index = −0.22). The female underrepresentation accentuates in articles with many authors that attract the highest citation rates.ConclusionsWhile the current system promotes early career promotion of women, men still outnumber women in leadership positions. However, this male-female career dichotomy has been narrowed in the last decade and will likely be further reduced in the next decade.

show abstract

Sex Disparities in Ophthalmic Research

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Previous studies examined sex distributions in different medical faculties, especially because increasingly more women entered the medical field in recent decades.Little is known at present about the female representation in ophthalmic research.OBJECTIVE To clarify sex equalities in ophthalmic research by evaluating the representation of female authorships.DESIGN AND SETTING This bibliometric analysis included original English-language articles published in ophthalmologic journals indexed in the Web of Science from January 2008 to August 2018. Authorships were assigned by sex according to first name. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESOutcomes included the proportion of female authorships, odds ratios of women holding prestigious first and last authorships compared with men (measured by the prestige index), citation rates, a productivity analysis, and cross-journal and transnational female representation within ophthalmic research. The hypothesis was formulated during data collection. RESULTS Bibliometric data were abstracted from 87 640 original articles published in 248 ophthalmologic journals. Of 344 433 total authorships, female scholars held 34.9% (120 305 of 344 433) of all authorships, 37.1% (24 924 of 67 226) of first authorships, 36.7% (77 295 of 210 372) of coauthorships, and 27.1% (18 086 of 66 835) of last authorships.The female-to-male odds ratio was 1.12 (95% CI, 1.10-1.14) for first authorships, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.18-1.22) for coauthorships, and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.62-0.64) for last authorships, with annual growth rates of 1.6% overall, 1.6% for first authorships, 1.3% for coauthorships, and 2.5% for last authorships. Women were underrepresented in prestigious authorships (prestige index = −0.22). The underrepresentation remains almost stable for articles with many authors (prestige index = −0.17 for articles with >9 authors per article). Articles with female key authors were cited slightly less frequently (95% CI for female vs male authors, 10.8-11.0 vs 11.5-11.7 citations/articles). Women published fewer papers than men (42.5% [n = 41 383]; women held 34.9% [n = 120 207] of the authorships), show cross-journal uniformity and differences among single countries (change in prestige index = 0.66 vs 1.96). Overall, 44.1% of female authorships and a sex-neutral distribution of prestigious authorships are prognosticated for 2028.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This algorithm analysis suggests the integration of women into ophthalmic research is average compared with other disciplines. A sex-specific gap exists for last authorship, suggesting career inequalities. With a growing number of female researchers in ophthalmology, the number of women in senior ranks may increase in the future.

show abstract

Gender equality in academic research on epilepsy—a study on scientific authorships

Cited by 24 publications

References 29 publications

A retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a biomedical research centre

A retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a biomedical research centre

Gendermetrics of cancer research: results from a global analysis on lung cancer

Sex Disparities in Ophthalmic Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About