Authors wanted

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent advances, we hypothesized that women remain underrepresented as authors in neurosurgical literature–a key indicator of success in academic medicine. METHODS: We queried Web of Science for all contents published in the top 15 neurosurgical journals by h5-index. Articles and metadata were exported. Analyses were performed using Python packages (Gender-Guesser and Wiki-Gendersort for gender identification). RESULTS: 143,713 articles from 112,932 unique authors with full names were identified (62.0% (69,985/112,932) male, 24.0% (27,148/112,932) female, 14.0% (15,799/112,932) unknown). Female co-authorship was limited before 1980, with an increase in the 2000’s (7.0% in 2000 to 60.7% in 2023). However, female first and last authorship have yet to exceed 17.6% (2023) and 11.2% (2022), respectively. This is consistent across the top 3 neurosurgical journals. Compared to male last authors, female last authors are 3.45 times more likely to publish with female first authors (95% CI 3.27-3.64). Female first authors are also 3.73 times more likely than male first authors to publish with female last authors (95% CI 3.53-3.93). Of the 10,000 most productive authors, male authors have a higher h-index than female authors (p<0.001). However, female authors have a higher m-index (p<0.03), which is normalized to impact over time in the field, suggesting an emerging contingent of female authors who are academically productive and authoring impactful works. CONCLUSIONS: While progress has been made in female co-authorship, female first and last authorship remain below 20%. Female last authors are more likely to be associated with female first authors and vice versa. This finding suggests that women are paving the way towards a more equitable future of neurosurgery by mentoring other women, and that efforts to support female senior authors can also benefit female trainees.

To provide information for targeted support of female scientists, the objective of this study was to evaluate how female authors are represented in journals of five medical disciplines with varying rates of female physicians from the United States of America (USA), Europe, and Asia. For this retrospective bibliometric study 15 representative gynecologic, pediatric, radiologic, urologic, and surgical journals from the USA, Europe, and Asia were selected from the Web of Science database. From these, all n = 24182 publications of the years 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 were included. Gender and affiliations were assigned to first and senior authors using a software (Gender API, Passau, Germany), native speakers, and a web-based search. For statistics mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression were applied. In pediatrics, radiology, and urology, highest female first and senior author shares were consistently found in journals from the USA. In European journals proportions across all disciplines tripled (odds ratio 2.96 [95% CI 2.60–3.37], P < .0001). Asian journals showed three-times fewer female authorships than journals from the USA or Europe and the smallest increase (1.36 [1.11–1.66], P = .0026). Compared to the proportion of female physicians within each specialty, female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals and female senior authors in journals of all regions. In journals from the USA most female authors originated from institutes within the USA (36.2%), in European journals from the USA (21.1%) or Europe (21.7%). Women from Asian institutes were worst represented in journals of all regions with lowest rates in Asian journals (9.4%). In conclusion female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals, female senior authors and women from Asian institutes in journals from all regions. Programs for gender equality in science are thus particularly necessary to support female senior authors, for Asian journals, and women from Asian institutes.

Introduction: This study explores gender disparities in authorship within gastroenterology, focusing on trends over the past decade in female representation among first and last authors in leading journals. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted on 7,394 articles published between January 2013 and December 2023 in 5 high-impact gastroenterology journals, Gastroenterology, Gastroenterology Insights, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, BMJ Open Gastroenterology, and Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Gender identification of first and last authors was determined using name-based prediction tools and manual verification. Trends in female representation were analyzed using descriptive statistics and graphical visualization. Results: Female first authorship increased from 24.4% in 2013 to 37.1% in 2023, representing a 52% rise. Female last authorship demonstrated a slower increase, from 16.2% to 20.5%, representing a 26.5% rise. Female first authors accounted for 30.6% of publications, while female last authors represented 20.3%. Variability in female authorship trends was observed across journals, with some demonstrating significant improvements and others displaying limited increases. The peak in publication numbers in 2020 coincided with a noticeable increase in female authorship. Conclusion: The rise in female authors between 2013 and 2023 likely reflects the increase in female gastroenterologists. Increase in female first authors likely suggests the growing recruitment of female gastroenterology (GI) fellows. The slower growth in female last authorship may reflect the limited number of current female attendings and principal investigators. Variations among journals indicates a potential influence of editorial policies and institutional practices on gender equity. However, we expect to see an increase in female last authorship as fellows complete their training and move into leadership roles. Advances in female authorship have been observed in the past 10 years from 2013 to 2023. To maintain this progress, we must continue to foster gender equity in GI through women in GI mentorship and networking programs, inclusive editorial policies, and institutional support. Addressing these disparities is vital to ensuring diverse contributions that enhance scientific innovation and patient care.

The objective of this study was to examine the trends in female authorship in high-impact spine journals and identify barriers present for female authors in spine surgery. A bibliometric analysis of seven spine surgery journals was conducted, covering publications from 2016 to 2021. First and senior author genders were determined using Genderize.io, supplemented by manual verification for ambiguous cases. Geographic and specialty-specific trends were analyzed, focusing on neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery. Among 11,757 identified first authors and 11,231 identified senior authors, 13.4% of first authors and 9.3% of senior authors were female. Gender concordance analysis showed that with a female senior author, 26.7% of first authors were female compared with 12.5% with male senior authors (p < 0.00001). In 2021, there was no significant difference in the proportion of female senior authors between orthopedic (2.7%) and neurosurgery (1.2%) specialties. Papers with female authors were published in higher-impact factor journals, with the average impact factor for female first authors being 3.08 compared with the male average of 3.02, and for female senior authors, the average impact factor was 3.10 compared with their male counterparts' average of 3.02 (female first authors: p < 0.05, female senior authors: p < 0.001). US publications had fewer female first authors compared with international publications (p < 0.001). This study underscores the need for targeted strategies to overcome barriers to female participation and advancement in spine surgery. Enhancing mentorship and addressing implicit biases are essential to attract and retain more women in this field, ultimately benefiting the specialty and patient care.

There is a significant gender gap in research conducted by women in plastic surgery. Previous work has not explored female authorship trends in cosmetic plastic surgery. We asked how authorship trends in cosmetic plastic surgery compare with those in plastic surgery overall, over the last 10 years. All the articles published in Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JPRAS), Facial Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine (JAMA facial plastics), and Aesthetic Surgery Journal. (ASJ) in 2009, 2014, and 2019 were retrieved. The gender of the first and last author was determined. In addition, article type and total number of authors were extracted. Chi-square or Fisher exact test were performed to determine differences between groups Linear regression models were used to investigate whether total number of authors, or female last authorship predicted female first authorship. A total of 4358 articles were reviewed. Of these, 16.6% (n = 723) were published by a female first and/or last author. Percent of female first and/or last author increased with time, from only 12.2% in 2008, to 15.9% in 2014, reaching 21.7% in 2019. A total of 25% (n = 181) of randomized controlled trials were published by a female first and/or last author compared with only 14% (n = 440) of case studies. Female first and last authorship both increased across the 10-year study period, but there were consistently more female first authors than female last authors in all 3 surveyed years ( P &lt; .001). There was an 86% increased chance of female first authorship if the last author was also female ( P &lt; .001), and a 7% increased likelihood of female first authorship ( P = .002). Women have a lower representation in the cosmetic plastic surgery literature than men. This gender disparity gap, however, is decreasing. While encouraging, opportunities for improvement remain.

Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research. To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research. For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017. Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article. Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P = .01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P = .001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P = .001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P = .001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P = .001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P = .001) increase in percentage of sex matching. Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.

The Proportion of Female Authors in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Literature Has not Changed in 20 Years

Mind the Gap: Gendered Publication Trends in Academic Oncology

Gender trends in authorship of spine-related academic literature—a 39-year perspective

Authors: O'BRIEN, ROBERT, GOERTZ; ANNE MARIE; SCHOLTE, JAN AART and WILLIAMS, MARC; Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements; Reviewer: Graham Smith; Author: NEWELL, PETER; Non-State Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse; Reviewer: Emily Boyd; Author, RÜDIG, WOLFGANG; Environmental Policy, Volumes 1 and 2; Reviewer: Elizabeth Bomberg; Editors: KNILL, CHRISTOPH and LENSCHOW, ANDREA; Implementing EU Environmental Policy: New Directions and Old Problems; Reviewer: Geoffrey K. Roberts; Authors: REDCLIFT, MICHAEL; SHOVE, ELIZABETH; VAN DER MEULEN, BAREND and RAMAN, SUJATHA; Social environmental Research in the European Union: Research Networks and New Agendas; Reviewer: Hein-Anton van der Heijden; Editor: MAY, PETER H.; Natural Resource Valuation and Policy in Brazil: Methods and Case; Reviewer: Emma L. Tompkins; Author: HUAN, QINGZHI; Ouzhou LuDang Yanjiu (Green Parties in Europe); Reviewer: Suiming Zhou; Author: TOKE, DAVID; Green Parties and Neo-Liberalism; Reviewer: Angel Valencia Saiz; Author: HUBER, PETER; Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists: A Conservative Manifesto; Reviewer: Alfred Moore; Author: SANDILANDS, CATRIONA; The Good-Natured Feminist, Ecofeminism and the Quest for Democracy; Reviewer: Mattias Ask; Author: CLARK, STEPHEN R.L.; The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics; Reviewer: James Connelly; Author: ROWLANDS, MARK; The Environmental Crisis: Understanding the Value of Nature; Reviewer: Piers H.G. Stephens; Author: WOOD, PAUL M.; Biodiversity and Democracy: Rethinking Society and Nature; Reviewer: Piers H.G. Stephens; Author: HUGHES, JONATHAN; Ecology and Historical Materialism; Reviewer: Andrew Dobson; Author: FOSTER, JOHN BELLAMY; Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature; Reviewer: Manuel Arias-Maldonado; Author: GRAHAM, EDWARD M.; Fighting the Wrong Enemy: Antiglobal Activists and Multinational Enterprises; Reviewer: Peter Newell; Author: TUCKER, RICHARD P.; Insatiable Appetite: The United States and the Ecological Degradation of the Tropical World; Reviewer: Norman Dandy; Author: SÖDERBAUM, PETER; Ecological Economics: A Political Economics Approach to Environment and Development; Reviewer: Emma L. Tompkins; Editors: MOL, ARTHUR P.J. and SONNENFELD, DAVID A.; Ecological Modernisation Around the World: Perspectives and Critical Debates; Reviewer: Hein-Anton van der Heijden

Are Female Radiation Oncologists Still Underrepresented in the Published Literature? An Analysis of Authorship Trends During the Past Decade

To examine trends in female author representation within original otolaryngology research between 2000 and 2015. Original research articles published in 11 otolaryngology journals were analyzed for 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015. The genders of the first and last authors for each article were recorded. Overall female authorship was calculated by summing the numbers of the first, last, and both first and last female-authored articles. Student t test and Cochran-Armitage trend test were utilized to determine significance between years and groups. Of the 9,623 research articles published during 5 representative years, 223 were excluded due to one or more gender-indeterminate authors. Female first authorship exhibited a significant upward trend from 2000 to 2015 (P < 0.0001), as did the proportion of literature with female first and last authors (P < 0.0001). Although female senior authorship in literature with an impact factor (IF) greater than 2 did not increase significantly (10.0% in 2000 to 10.1% in 2015; P = 0.738), this metric did increase significantly just within journals with an IF between 1 and 2 (9.7%-12.3%, P = 0.036). The proportion of articles with a female author in the first, last, or both positions increased from 28% to 39% (P < 0.0001). Increasing female representation in otolaryngology literature may reflect the rising proportion of women within otolaryngology as well as greater mentorship availability. Despite these auspicious strides, female-authored articles nonetheless represent a smaller proportion of the literature, and female senior authors remain a stark minority. Future studies should identify the barriers to female access and advancement within the field. III Laryngoscope, 130:2126-2132, 2020.

淚和祭獻：論巴里的喪事物、情能和原詞

Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology Authorship: A 13-Year Review

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had far-reaching consequences, occasionally amplifying preexisting disparities. This study examines the impact of COVID-19 on Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) manuscript submissions by female authors. All manuscripts submitted to PRS during the months of March and April of 2018 through 2021 were examined. Gender of the first, corresponding, and senior authors was confirmed using Gender API; the country of the author was abstracted; and appropriate statistical comparisons were made. There were 2512 submissions to PRS during the study period, with a statistically significant increase observed between 2019 and 2020 ( P = 0.008). Despite this significant increase, the proportion of publications by female corresponding and senior authors decreased significantly with the onset of the pandemic ( P < 0.001 for both). This decrease was mirrored by a significant increase in the proportion of male senior and corresponding author publications ( P < 0.001 for both) and female first author publications ( P = 0.002). Despite a significant increase in overall submissions to PRS during the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion submitted by senior and corresponding female authors declined. Although causality cannot be determined by the authors' methodology, their findings suggest a disproportionate burden on senior female authors during the pandemic with unclear academic repercussions.