EP.TU.169Gender Representation in the Authorship of Surgical Journals

Aims Despite the increase in female doctors graduating from medical schools internationally, gender disparity in surgery remains. This disparity is also evident in academic surgery. This study aims to quantify the extent of gender disparity in the authorship of articles in major surgical journals. Methods The Top 10 Surgical Journals were identified using SCImago Journal Rank indicator. Authorship details for papers published in 2019 were collected. Authors were assigned as female, male or unknown using Gender API software (Gender API, Germany). For each journal, the percentage of first author, last author, corresponding author and all authors split by gender was interrogated. Gender differences by publication type were also identified. Results 9 of the 10 journals had full names publicly available. Overall, 2414 manuscripts were interrogated which included 16,277 number of authors. Respectively, females and males accounted for 29.8% [22.9-34.9%] (N = 655) and 62.4% [56.3-70.2%] (N = 1419) of first authors, 20.6% [11.8-27.1%] (N = 453) and 74.2% [65.6-84.1%] (N = 1706) of last authors, 23.9% [14.9-29.6%] (N = 510) and 69.9% [60.5-79.3%] (N = 2341) of corresponding authors and in total 27% [19.4-31.6%] (N = 4298) and 65.5% [58.6-73.4%] (N = 9982) of all authors. The wide range in these results could be due to various factors. Conclusion This study has identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions, with the greatest difference observed in the most senior author position. Whether this is reflective of the current disparity observed in senior academic surgery positions or due to gender discrimination is unclear.

To the recognition and treatment of sigmoid inclusions intestines

In recent years, the issue of volvulus of the sigmoid colon has received a lot of attention at surgical congresses, at meetings of surgical societies, and on the pages of surgical journals. In defense of this or that method of treating this suffering, statistical data, immediate and long-term results, pathological and anatomical justifications are given. However, there seems to be no complete agreement on this issue among surgeons. We do not think on the basis of our small material to draw any generalizing conclusions, but nevertheless several cases operated on and under our supervision over the last 4 years (1926-1930) give us a small right to share our results.

1289 Gender Representation in The Authorship of Surgical Journals

Introduction Despite the increase in female doctors graduating from medical schools internationally, gender disparity in surgery remains. This disparity is also evident in academic surgery. This study aims to quantify the extent of gender disparity in the authorship of articles in major surgical journals. Method The Top 10 Surgical Journals were identified using SCImago Journal Rank indicator. Authorship details for papers published in 2019 were collected. Authors were assigned as female, male or unknown using Gender API software (Gender API, Germany). For each journal, the percentage of first author, last author, corresponding author and all authors split by gender was interrogated. Gender differences by publication type were also identified. Results 9 of the 10 journals had full names publicly available. Overall, 2414 manuscripts were interrogated which included 16,277 number of authors. Respectively, females and males accounted for 29.8% [22.9-34.9%] (N = 655) and 62.4% [56.3-70.2%] (N = 1419) of first authors, 20.6% [11.8-27.1%] (N = 453) and 74.2% [65.6-84.1%] (N = 1706) of last authors, 23.9% [14.9-29.6%] (N = 510) and 69.9% [60.5-79.3%] (N = 2341) of corresponding authors and in total 27% [19.4-31.6%] (N = 4298) and 65.5% [58.6-73.4%] (N = 9982) of all authors. The wide range in these results could be a result of various factors. Conclusions This study has identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions, with the greatest difference observed in the most senior author position. Whether this is reflective of the current disparity observed in senior academic surgery positions or due to gender discrimination is unclear.

O45 Gender representation in the authorship of surgical journals

Introduction Despite the increase in female doctors graduating from medical schools internationally, gender disparity in surgery remains. This disparity is also evident in academic surgery. This study aims to quantify the extent of gender disparity in the authorship of articles in major surgical journals. Method The Top 10 Surgical Journals were identified using SCImago Journal Rank indicator. Authorship details for papers published in 2019 were collected. Authors were assigned as female, male or unknown using Gender API software (Gender API, Germany). For each journal, the percentage of first author, last author, corresponding author and all authors split by gender was interrogated. Gender differences by publication type were also identified. Result 9 of the 10 journals had full names publicly available. Overall, 2414 manuscripts were interrogated which included 16,277 number of authors. Respectively, females and males accounted for 29.8% [22.9–34.9%] (N = 655) and 62.4% [56.3–70.2%] (N = 1419) of first authors, 20.6% [11.8–27.1%] (N = 453) and 74.2% [65.6–84.1%] (N = 1706) of last authors, 23.9% [14.9–29.6%] (N = 510) and 69.9% [60.5–79.3%] (N = 2341) of corresponding authors and in total 27% [19.4–31.6%] (N = 4298) and 65.5% [58.6–73.4%] (N = 9982) of all authors. The wide range in these results could be a result of various factors. Conclusion This study has identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions, with the greatest difference observed in the most senior author position. Whether this is reflective of the current disparity observed in senior academic surgery positions or due to gender discrimination is unclear. Take-home Message This study identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions of major surgical journals, which has implications for women who choose to pursue a career in academic surgery.

O56: THE TREND OF SURGICAL PUBLICATIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS

Introduction Research plays an important role in the surgical field. It has been deemed to be the keystone on the progression of surgical care and the introduction of new directions in surgery. We aimed to evaluate the output of UK surgeons in ten high impact factor surgical journals over the last three decades. Method Ten surgical journals were selected and investigated, based on 1997,2007, and 2017 journal impact factors. All articles that have contributed academically were examined, these included: original research articles, meta-analysis, debate articles, case reports and studies. Result The number of total publications from the ten journals has increased by 35.4% (from 2403 papers in 2007 to 3722 papers in 2017). The number of papers from these journals from the UK has increased by 19.5% (63 papers), however, the percentage output when compared to other regions, has decreased by 2.1% from 10.8% in 2007 to 8.7% in 2017. The USA remains to have the greatest contribution. Conclusion The result shows a decline in the percentage output of the UK when compared to other countries. This result aligns with other studies published. Focus should be made on improving the current situation of academic medicine in the UK. Take-home message There is a decline in the percentage output of the UK when compared to other countries. Focus should be made on improving the current situation of academic medicine in the UK.