Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women’s physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women’s reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment.DesignA prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women’s reproductive physiology results.SettingTertiary academic medical centre.Main outcome measuresAll clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status.ResultsWomen were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women’s health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors.ConclusionSex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women’s health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in double-blind peer review.

Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors

“…Gender imbalance in the scientific publishing process is already evident when considering simple numerical disparities, starting with women’s representation in scientific editorial boards [ 67 – 73 ], number of invited articles [ 18 , 19 , 21 ], frequency of being asked to referee [ 75 – 77 ], published manuscripts’ topics [ 34 ], and number of publications [ 36 , 37 , 78 ]. Here we extend the scope of this disparity by reporting clear under-representation of women in the BRE of a prominent biomedical journal (eLife).…”

“…Scientific publishing is a central aspect of academia, with critical implications for hiring decisions and career advancement. Inequalities, based on an author’s gender, have been systematically documented along different stages of the scientific publishing process [ 4 , 20 , 32 – 34 ]. First, the proportion of women as first and senior authors in peer-reviewed publications is lower than expected given their prevalence in the field [ 4 , 20 , 35 – 43 ].…”

Equity in scientific publishing: 2022 results from Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis

“…As before, we continue to call on other journals to share their results on equity and diversity. We note that reports continue to be published demonstrating inequity in publishing and appear to be increasing in the years since we have been reporting RPTH data [ [7] , [8] , [9] ]. In one shocking example, considering Scopus-indexed medical journals published in Latin America, women comprised only 12.9% of those in editorial leadership positions [ 10 ].…”

Sexual dimorphism of circadian liver transcriptome

“… 1 , 2 At the same time, there is an increasing awareness of the predominantly male-favored sex-bias across the fields in biomedical research. 3 , 4 Substantial evidence suggests that sexual dimorphism exists in the liver transcriptome across species—from zebrafish to human. 5 , 6 , 7 Various studies reported sexual dimorphism in liver gene expression—ranging from 40 to 50 genes to more than a half of liver transcriptome, depending on statistical power and magnitude of the difference.…”