scholarly journals Gender Differences in Publication Authorship During COVID‐19: A Bibliometric Analysis of High‐Impact Cardiology Journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ersilia M. DeFilippis ◽  
Lauren Sinnenberg ◽  
Nadim Mahmud ◽  
Malissa J. Wood ◽  
Sharonne N. Hayes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
European Heart Journal ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Academic Careers ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Bibliometric Data ◽  
Representation Of Women

Background The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in authorship of manuscripts in select high‐impact cardiology journals during the early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods and Results All manuscripts published between March 1, 2019 to June 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 in 4 high‐impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology , Circulation , JAMA Cardiology , and European Heart Journal ) were identified using bibliometric data. Authors' genders were determined by matching first name with predicted gender using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io) and manual adjudication. Proportions of women and men first, co‐first, senior, and co‐senior authors, manuscript types, and whether the manuscript was COVID‐19 related were recorded. In 2019, women were first authors of 176 (22.3%) manuscripts and senior authors of 99 (15.0%) manuscripts. In 2020, women first authored 230 (27.4%) manuscripts and senior authored 138 (19.3%) manuscripts. Proportions of woman first and senior authors were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019. Women were more likely to be first authors if the manuscript's senior author was a woman (33.8% for woman first/woman senior versus 23.4% for woman first/man senior; P <0.001). Women were less likely to be first authors of COVID‐19‐related original research manuscripts ( P =0.04). Conclusions Representation of women as key authors of manuscripts published in major cardiovascular journals increased during the early COVID‐19 pandemic compared with similar months in 2019. However, women were significantly less likely to be first authors of COVID‐19‐related original research manuscripts. Future investigation into the gender‐disparate impacts of COVID‐19 on academic careers is critical.

scholarly journals Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e047107
Author(s):  
Mallory K. Ellingson ◽  
Xiaoting Shi ◽  
Joshua J. Skydel ◽  
Kate Nyhan ◽  
Richard Lehman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Medical Researchers

ObjectiveTo estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Data sourcesScopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the ‘Medicine’ subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.Main outcome measuresMedian APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.ResultsThere were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1–5) and 1471 (4, 2–8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0–US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0–US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.ConclusionsMedical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

28330 Bibliometric analysis of original research in four high-impact dermatology journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. AB184
Author(s):  
Justine Seivright ◽  
Melodyanne Y. Cheng ◽  
Natalie M. Villa ◽  
Vivian Y. Shi ◽  
Jennifer L. Hsiao
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Original Research

Abstract 12: Gender Trends in Authorship of Cardiology Academic Literature - A 40-Year Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ouyang ◽  
David Sing ◽  
Sonia Shah ◽  
Robert Harrington ◽  
Fatima Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
European Heart Journal ◽  
Female Physician ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Female Representation ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Prolific Authors

Background: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and senior positions within academic medicine. This study seeks to determine the representation of female physician-investigators in cardiology through review of published literature in three prominent cardiology journals over time. Understanding disparities in research productivity can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology. Methods: Authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from three high impact cardiology journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal) were extracted from PubMed. Author sex were determined and the proportion of female first and senior authors were calculated for consecutive time cohorts. Results: We identified 78,558 unique authors of 55,085 primary research articles. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors, however they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors (p < 0.001 for both). Looking at the most prolific authors, female authors are also underrepresented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Conclusions: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in cardiology research has increased over the last four decades. However there is still disproportionate underrepresentation in first authorship, senior authorship and in authors with the most publications. In addition to recruiting more women into cardiology, further efforts should be made to identify and address barriers in advancement for female physician-scientists.

scholarly journals Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology—a 10-year perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Molwitz ◽  
Jin Yamamura ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Ozga ◽  
Ilka Wedekind ◽  
Thai-An Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Impact Factor Journal ◽  
European Radiology ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Female Authorship

Abstract Objectives To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals. Methods In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination. Results The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p < .0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p < .0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p < .0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p < .0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships. Conclusion The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals. Key Points • Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals. • Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals. • Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas.

Bibliometric analysis of original research in four high‐impact dermatology journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine R. Seivright ◽  
Melodyanne Y. Cheng ◽  
Natalie M. Villa ◽  
Vivian Y. Shi ◽  
Jennifer L. Hsiao
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Original Research

scholarly journals Gender issues in fundamental physics: A bibliometric analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-253
Author(s):  
Alessandro Strumia
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Gender Issues ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Confounding Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Data ◽  
Fundamental Physics ◽  
Productivity Gap

Abstract I analyze bibliometric data about fundamental physics worldwide from 1970 to now, extracting quantitative data about gender issues. I do not find significant gender differences in hiring rates, hiring timing, career gaps and slowdowns, abandonment rates, citation, and self-citation patterns. Furthermore, various bibliometric indicators (number of fractionally counted papers, citations, etc.) exhibit a productivity gap at hiring moments, at career level, and without integrating over careers. The gap persists after accounting for confounding factors and manifests as an increasing fraction of male authors going from average to top authors in terms of bibliometric indices, with a quantitative shape that can be fitted by higher male variability.

scholarly journals Representation of Women Among Physician Authors of Perspective-Type Articles in High-Impact Dermatology Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 155 (3) ◽  
pp. 386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison R. Larson ◽  
Julie A. Poorman ◽  
Julie K. Silver
Keyword(s):  
High Impact ◽  
Representation Of Women

scholarly journals Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e051224
Author(s):  
Vaidehi Misra ◽  
Frozan Safi ◽  
Kathryn A Brewerton ◽  
Wei Wu ◽  
Robin Mason ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Extraction ◽  
Gender Disparity ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Data Elements

ObjectivesEvaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.DesignCross-sectional review.Data sourcesMedline database.Eligibility criteriaArticles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries.Data extractionKey data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs).ResultsWe included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe.ConclusionsWomen were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women’s authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186702.

Careers in the Dutch civil service: a gender perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Groeneveld
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Psychological Contract ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Work Motivation ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
The Public ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
Career Opportunities ◽  
The Impact

This article focuses upon gender differences in the satisfaction with career opportunities of civil servants in the Netherlands. Women have become better represented at all levels in the Dutch civil service in recent years, but they are still underrepresented in the higher level positions. Nevertheless, women are slightly more satisfied with their career opportunities than men are and they seem to be increasingly so. Their relatively positive evaluation of extrinsic aspects of their work situation is one of the explanations of this finding, as is their higher intrinsic work motivation compared to that of men. It is suggested that the career orientations and aspirations of women better fit the changing context of career formation in the Dutch civil service and the accompanying new psychological contract. Points for practitioners The Dutch civil service has set ambitious targets with respect to the representation of women at all levels in the service, but insight into the determinants of women’s careers in the public sector is still very scarce. The findings in this article show that there are gender differences in the weighting of intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the work in evaluating one’s career opportunities. Besides, the article may assist human resource management practitioners in anticipating the impact of changing career trajectories on the career satisfaction of male and female civil servants.

scholarly journals The chaperone effect in scientific publishing

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (50) ◽  
pp. 12603-12607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vedran Sekara ◽  
Pierre Deville ◽  
Sebastian E. Ahnert ◽  
Albert-László Barabási ◽  
Roberta Sinatra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
New Principal ◽  
Average Impact ◽  
Quantitative Understanding ◽  
Shed Light

Experience plays a critical role in crafting high-impact scientific work. This is particularly evident in top multidisciplinary journals, where a scientist is unlikely to appear as senior author if he or she has not previously published within the same journal. Here, we develop a quantitative understanding of author order by quantifying this “chaperone effect,” capturing how scientists transition into senior status within a particular publication venue. We illustrate that the chaperone effect has a different magnitude for journals in different branches of science, being more pronounced in medical and biological sciences and weaker in natural sciences. Finally, we show that in the case of high-impact venues, the chaperone effect has significant implications, specifically resulting in a higher average impact relative to papers authored by new principal investigators (PIs). Our findings shed light on the role played by experience in publishing within specific scientific journals, on the paths toward acquiring the necessary experience and expertise, and on the skills required to publish in prestigious venues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document