Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McLaughlin JE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10410662 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor.
McLaughlin Jacqueline E JE Bachelder Jacob M JM Ainslie Kristy M KM
Molecular pharmaceutics 20230623 8
First and last authorship are important metrics of productivity and scholarly success for trainees and professors. For 11 drug delivery-related journals in 2021, the percentage of female first (39.5%) and last (25.7%) authorship was reported. A strong negative correlation, with female first (<i>r</i><sub>p</sub> = -0.73) and female last authorship (<i>r</i><sub>p</sub> = -0.66), was observed with respect to journal impact factor. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation with male fir ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceIndividuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.ObjectiveTo determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresProportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.ResultsOf 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.
| S-EPMC8529415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvolution of surgical practice is influenced by publications in the leading journals of that field. If the authorship of a publication lacks geographical diversity, this could create bias and limit generalizability of the evidence. Accordingly, we conducted a geographical analysis of the leading Cardiothoracic Surgery journals worldwide.MethodsUsing 2020 Impact Factor, we searched the leading Cardiothoracic Surgery journals over the past decade. Only original articles were included. Data regarding first, second and last authors were extracted from every article. From this, we analysed country of affiliation, highest academic degree obtained and author location by metropolitan or rural setting.ResultsA total of 12,706 original articles were published in the top 5 ranked Cardiothoracic journals between 2011 and 2020. Authors originated from 69 countries, with the majority being from North America and Western Europe. The United States was the most common country of affiliation (42.8%) in all five journals, with New York City the most prominent city. A total of 63.7% of the authorship originated from large metropolitan areas (estimated as population greater than 500,000 residents), and the most common degrees obtained by authors were MD and PhD.ConclusionThe prominent Cardiothoracic authorship is predominantly located in Western countries, most commonly large metropolitan centers in the United States. This raises questions as to whether the literature adequately reflects populations in other geographical areas such as the continents of South America and Africa and rural settings. Leading journals should consider policies which encourage publication by authors from geographical locations that are underrepresented globally.
| S-EPMC10092000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGender disparity exists among authors of the oncology literature.ObjectiveTo quantify trends in authorship by gender within a comprehensive data set of Medline-indexed oncology articles in medical journals with high impact factors.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Medline citations to examine archives of research journals from 3 disciplines in the oncology literature. Authors from all oncology-related articles with Medical Subject Headings terms assigned from 2002 to 2018 from 13 general oncology/medicine, radiation oncology, and surgical journals were included for analysis, encompassing clinical trials, observational studies (excluding case reports), reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and all other published articles. Data were analyzed between April and May 2020.ExposuresAuthors were assigned genders based on societal naming norms via third-party gender identification service Gender-API.com. This assignment was internally validated based on manually obtained publicly available data on the internet.Main outcomes and measuresTrend in female authorship over time while considering journal type, authorship position, and article type.ResultsA total of 420 526 authors from 58 368 articles were found, of which 400 945 were assigned a gender based on their name. In total, 29.5% (95% CI, 29.4%-29.6%) of authors were identified as female, rising from 25.5% (95% CI, 24.7%-26.3%) in 2002 to 31.7% (95% CI, 31.2%-32.3%) in 2018. Each subgroup of primary article type by journal type saw a rise in female authorship over the studied period. For primary articles, last authors were less likely to be women than first authors, regardless of journal type, year, and primary article type (eg, general oncology: odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.69). For general oncology articles, women were less likely to be authors of clinical trials at each authorship position than authors at that respective position for observational studies (first, second, and last authors: OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.67; other authors: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89). This difference was not seen for radiation oncology or surgical oncology journals.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that female authorship in oncology research literature has increased. However, there remains a dearth of female senior authors, and the overall rise in female authorship has not kept up with the rise in female oncology faculty.
| S-EPMC8025110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years.DesignCross sectional study.SettingNine specialist and two large general medical journals.PopulationAuthors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome: first author's gender.Secondary outcomeslast and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic.ResultsA total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts.ConclusionsWomen have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8493599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gender authorship trends have been explored in varied medical specialties, and no study had observed in the field of gastric cancer. Therefore, we aimed to access whether the "gender gap" in authorship existed in gastric cancer in the leading gastroenterological journals over the last 2 decades. All original articles published from 2000 to 2020 in 9 leading gastroenterological journals were collected. Information on the first and senior author's gender, country of author's institution, and impact factor of journals were collected. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression were used for data analysis. A total of 5785 original articles were included and analyzed, of which 440 (7.61%) were articles on gastric cancer and 5345 (92.39%) covered other topics. Fewer female authors published original articles as first (19.32%, 85/440) and senior authors (14.32%, 63/440) compared with males. Remarkably, a significant increase in female authorship was discovered. The proportion of female first authors grown from 12.99% to 30.89% during the last 20 years (P < .001), but not in senior authors (P = .175). Multivariable logistic analysis showed that female first authors demonstrated a higher percentage when senior authors were female (odds ratio, 2.040; 95% confidence interval, 1.105-3.769). Although a statistically ascending tendency in female first authors on gastric cancer has been going on over the last 20 years, the exorbitant gender gap still exists. This gap may help explain the continued underrepresentation of women within both clinical work and academic research, and prompt us to look further for the underlying causes.
| S-EPMC10637474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of our study was to investigate authorship trends in radiology journals, and whether International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations have had an impact on these trends. A secondary objective was to explore other variables associated with authorship trends.MethodsA retrospective, bibliometric analysis of 49 clinical radiology journals published from 1946-2013 was conducted. The following data was exported from MEDLINE (1946 to May 2014) for each article: authors' full name, year of publication, primary author institution information, language of publication and publication type. Microsoft Excel Visual Basics for Applications scripts were programmed to categorize extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the overall mean number of authors per article over time, impact of ICMJE guidelines, authorship frequency per journal, country of origin, article type and language of publication.Results216,271 articles from 1946-2013 were included. A univariate analysis of the mean authorship frequency per year of all articles yielded a linear relationship between time and authorship frequency. The mean number of authors per article in 1946 (1.42) was found to have increased consistently by 0.07 authors/ article per year (R² = 0.9728, P<0.001) to 5.79 authors/article in 2013. ICMJE guideline dissemination did not have an impact on this rise in authorship frequency. There was considerable variability in mean authors per article and change over time between journals, country of origin, language of publication and article type.ConclusionOverall authorship for 49 radiology journals across 68 years has increased markedly with no demonstrated impact from ICMJE guidelines. A higher number of authors per article was seen in articles from: higher impact journals, European and Asian countries, original research type, and those journals who explicitly endorse the ICMJE guidelines.
| S-EPMC4583466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Authorship is intended to convey information regarding credit and responsibility for manuscripts. However, while there is general agreement within ecology that the first author is the person who contributed the most to a particular project, there is less agreement regarding whether being last author is a position of significance and regarding what is indicated by someone being the corresponding author on a manuscript. Using an analysis of papers published in American Naturalist, Ecology, Evolution, and Oikos, I found that: (1) the number of authors on papers is increasing over time; (2) the proportion of first authors as corresponding author has increased over time, as has the proportion of last authors as corresponding author; (3) 84% of papers published in 2016 had the first author as corresponding author; and (4) geographic regions differed in the likelihood of having the first (or last) author as corresponding author. I also carried out an online survey to better understand views on last and corresponding authorship. This survey revealed that most ecologists view the last author as the "senior" author on a paper (i.e., the person who runs the research group in which most of the work was carried out), and most ecologists view the corresponding author as the person taking full responsibility for a paper. However, there was substantial variation in views on authorship, especially corresponding authorship. Given these results, I suggest that discussions of authorship have as their starting point that the first author will be corresponding author and the senior author will be last author. I also suggest ways of deciding author order in cases where two senior authors contributed equally.
| S-EPMC5677469 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimsTo analyse the bibliometric data of nursing journals covering general fields, specializations, skills and practices and investigate the influence of selection factors on the one-year improved SCImago journal rank (SJR).DesignA bibliometric analysis.MethodsThe study sample included academic journals in the field of nursing indexed in the Scopus and SJR database using data from 2020 to 2022. Quantile regression were performed that investigated the influence factors over the one-year improved SJR when variables were found to be non-normally distributed, characterized by extremely high kurtosis.ResultsResults from 539 nursing journals retrieved from the Scopus and SCImago databases revealed that citation index remains the main factor that positively affects differences in SJR, while citable articles only affect the early stages of quantile regression. In addition, an excessively high number of research articles may negatively affect SJR, and the influence of self-citations can initially be positive but become negative the following year. Citations continue to be the dominant factor, while the rapid growth in the number of articles and self-citations must be addressed with caution.No patient or public contributionNo patient or public contribution.
| S-EPMC11347613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In academia, authorship is considered a currency and is important for career advancement. As the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) is the highest-ranked journal in the field of bone, muscle, and mineral metabolism and is the official publication of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, we sought to examine authorship changes over JBMR's 30-year history. Two bibliometric methods were used to collect the data. The "decade method" included all published manuscripts throughout 1 year in each decade over the past 30 years starting with the inaugural year, yielding 746 manuscripts for analysis. The "random method" examined 10% of published manuscripts from each of the 30 years, yielding 652 manuscripts for analysis. Using both methods, the average number of authors per manuscript, numerical location of the corresponding author, number of collaborating institutions, number of collaborating countries, number of printed manuscript pages, and the number of times each manuscript was cited all significantly increased between 1986 and 2015 (p < 10-4 ). Using the decade method, there was a significant increase in the percentage of female first authors over time from 35.8% in 1986 to 47.7% in 2015 (p = 0.02), and this trend was confirmed using the random method. The highest percentage of female first authors in 2015 was in Europe (60.0%), and Europe also had the most dramatic increase in female first authors over time (more than double in 2015 compared with 1986). Likewise, the overall number of female corresponding authors significantly increased during the past 30 years. With the increasing demands of publishing in academic medicine, understanding changes in publishing characteristics over time and by geographical region is important. These findings highlight JBMR's authorship trends over the past 30 years and demonstrate those countries having the most changes and where challenges still exist. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
| S-EPMC5732055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a method for investigating co-authorship patterns and author team characteristics associated with the publications in high-impact journals through the integration of public MEDLINE data and institutional scientific profile data.MethodsFor all current researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, we extracted their publications from MEDLINE authored between years 2007 and 2011 and associated journal impact factors, along with author academic ranks and departmental affiliations obtained from Columbia University Scientific Profiles (CUSP). Chi-square tests were performed on co-authorship patterns, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, to identify team composition characteristics associated with publication impact factors. We also developed co-authorship networks for the 25 most prolific departments between years 2002 and 2011 and counted the internal and external authors, inter-connectivity, and centrality of each department.ResultsPapers with at least one author from a basic science department are significantly more likely to appear in high-impact journals than papers authored by those from clinical departments alone. Inclusion of at least one professor on the author list is strongly associated with publication in high-impact journals, as is inclusion of at least one research scientist. Departmental and disciplinary differences in the ratios of within- to outside-department collaboration and overall network cohesion are also observed.ConclusionsEnrichment of co-authorship patterns with author scientific profiles helps uncover associations between author team characteristics and appearance in high-impact journals. These results may offer implications for mentoring junior biomedical researchers to publish on high-impact journals, as well as for evaluating academic progress across disciplines in modern academic medical centers.
| S-EPMC4260991 | biostudies-literature