Authorship Gender Composition in the Ophthalmology Literature from 2015 to 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kalavar M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8005250 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Authorship Gender Composition in the Ophthalmology Literature from 2015 to 2019.
Kalavar Meghana M Watane Arjun A Balaji Navin N Cavuoto Kara M KM Vanner Elizabeth A EA Kuriyan Ajay A Haller Julia J Sridhar Jayanth J
Ophthalmology 20200902 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic increased the gender gap in academic publishing. This study assesses COVID-19's impact on ophthalmology gender authorship distribution and compares the gender authorship proportion of COVID-19 ophthalmology-related articles to previous ophthalmology articles.MethodsThis cohort study includes authors listed in all publications related to ophthalmology in the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset and CDC COVID-19 research database. Articles from 65 ophthalmology journals from January to July 2020 were selected. All previous articles published in the same journals were extracted from PubMed. Gender-API determined authors' gender.ResultsOut of 119,457 COVID-19-related articles, we analyzed 528 ophthalmology-related articles written by 2518 authors. Women did not exceed 40% in any authorship positions and were most likely to be middle, first, and finally, last authors. The proportions of women in all authorship positions from the 2020 COVID-19 group (29.6% first, 31.5% middle, 22.1% last) are significantly lower compared to the predicted 2020 data points (37.4% first, 37.0% middle, 27.6% last) (p < .01). The gap between the proportion of female authors in COVID-19 ophthalmology research and the 2020 ophthalmology-predicted proportion (based on 2002-2019 data) is 6.1% for overall authors, 7.8% for first authors, and 5.5% for last and middle authors. The 2020 COVID-19 authorship group (1925 authors) was also compared to the 2019 group (33,049 authors) based on journal category (clinical/basic science research, general/subspecialty ophthalmology, journal impact factor).ConclusionsCOVID-19 amplified the authorship gender gap in ophthalmology. When compared to previous years, there was a greater decrease in women's than men's academic productivity.
| S-EPMC7857347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Gender gaps exist in academic leadership positions in critical care. Peer-reviewed publications are crucial to career advancement, and yet little is known regarding gender differences in authorship of critical care research.Objectives: To evaluate gender differences in authorship of critical care literature.Methods: We used a validated database of author gender to analyze authorship of critical care articles indexed in PubMed between 2008 and 2018 in 40 frequently cited journals. High-impact journals were defined as those in the top 5% of all journals. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate the association of senior author gender with first and middle author gender, as well as association of first author gender with journal impact factor.Measurements and Main Results: Among 18,483 studies, 30.8% had female first authors, and 19.5% had female senior authors. Female authorship rose slightly over the last decade (average annual increases of 0.44% [P < 0.01] and 0.51% [P < 0.01] for female first and senior authors, respectively). When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially (first author adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.17; middle author aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.29-1.69). Female first authors had higher odds than men of publishing in lower-impact journals (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45).Conclusions: Women comprise less than one-third of first authors and one-fourth of senior authors of critical care research, with minimal increase over the past decade. When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially. However, female first authors tend to publish in lower-impact journals. These findings may help explain the underrepresentation of women in critical care academic leadership positions and identify targets for improvement.
| S-EPMC7124723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the severity and causes of gender imbalance in the counts of ophthalmology citations.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched to identify cited papers that were published in four journals (Prog Retin Eye Res, Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmol, and Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci) between August 2015 and July 2020, and those that referenced these cited papers by 2021 July (i.e., citing papers). The gender category of a given paper is defined by the gender of the first and last author (MM, FM, MF, and FF; M means male and F means female). A generalized additive model to predict the expected proportion was fitted. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of citations of a paper's gender category was the primary outcome.ResultsThe proportion of female-led (MF and FF) papers slightly increased from 27% in 2015 to 30% in 2020. MM, FM, MF, and FF papers were cited as -9.3, -1.5, 13.0, and 23.9% more than expected, respectively. MM papers cited 13.9% more male-led (MM and FM) papers than female-led papers, and FF papers cited 33.5% fewer male-led papers than female-led papers. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of MM citing papers within male-led and female-led cited papers grew at a rate of 0.13 and 0.67% per year.ConclusionThe high frequency of citations of female-led papers might narrow the gender gap in the citation count within ophthalmology. These findings show that papers by female-led are less common, so the gender gap might still exist even with their high citation count.
| S-EPMC9159794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe description of racial and ethnic data in human trials is relatively unregulated, leading to potential confusion with and inconsistent reporting of these data.ObjectiveTo determine the frequency and use of racial and ethnic data in the ophthalmology literature in 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included all full-length human studies published between January and December 2019 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology.Main outcomes and measuresWhether race or ethnicity was included in the data or analysis, how the categorization was described in the methods and results, specific racial and ethnic categories used, and whether and how the categories were determined.ResultsA total of 547 articles were identified during the study period, 484 (88% ± 2.7%) of which reported background demographic information, including patient age and sex. Only 233 (43% ± 4.1%) reported race and/or ethnicity. Of those articles, 72 (31% ± 5.9%) categorized it as race, 51 (22% ± 5.3%) ethnicity, 56 (24% ± 5.4%) race/ethnicity, 21 (9% ± 3.7%) race and ethnicity, 12 (5% ± 3.0%) descent, 12 (5% ± 2.9%) population, and 5 (2% ± 2.0%) ancestry; in 21 (9% ± 3.8%) it was not defined. Only 30 studies (13% ± 4.4%) described how it was determined in the methods or results, most frequently by self-report (77% ± 3.9%). A total of 78 races and/or ethnicities were defined.Conclusions and relevanceWhile most articles during the study period reported background demographic information, few included race and ethnicity and only a fraction of those described how these data were determined. The categories used were heterogeneous and often inconsistent. These findings suggest the need for increased and more standardized reporting of ethnic and racial demographic data in the ophthalmology literature.
| S-EPMC7303899 | biostudies-literature
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:Authors of clinical reasoning exercises analyze diagnostic dilemmas and serve as role models of clinical excellence. We investigated the percentage of women authors in the clinical problem-solving series of three general medicine journals from the inaugural article in each series until July 2019. Women were underrepresented among first, last, and all authors. While the percentage of women among first and all authors has increased, women still constituted <40% of all authors and ≤25% of last authors, and there have been no significant increases in women last authors in any of the three journals. Including more women in clinical reasoning exercises is an opportunity to amplify the voices of women as master clinicians.
| S-EPMC7518139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., "senior") authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years, and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year-on-year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all-male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non-English-speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English-speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role.
| S-EPMC6303722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on authorship gender in articles submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics.Study designUsing gender-labeling algorithms and human inspection, we inferred the gender of corresponding authors of original articles submitted in January-February and April-May of 2019 and 2020 noting those articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Pearson χ2 tests to determine differences in gender proportions during the selected periods in the US and internationally.ResultsWe analyzed 1521 original articles. Submissions increased 10.9% from January-February 2019 to January-February 2020 and 61.6% from April-May 2019 to April-May 2020. Women accounted for 56.0% of original articles in April-May 2019 but only 49.8% of original articles in April-May 2020. Original articles focused on COVID-19 represented a small percentage of additional articles submitted in January-February 2020 (1/33 or 3.0%) and (53/199 or 26.6%) in April-May 2020 compared with the number of submissions in the same months in 2019. International male corresponding authors submitted a significantly larger proportion of original articles compared with international female corresponding authors in April-May 2020 compared to April-May 2019 (P = .043). There was no difference in corresponding author gender proportion in the US (US in April-May of 2020 vs April-May of 2019; P = .95). There was no significant difference in final dispositions based on corresponding author gender for original articles from 2019 and 2020 (P = .17).ConclusionsOriginal article submissions to The Journal increased in April-May 2020, with the greatest increase by international male corresponding authors. The majority of the submission growth was not related to COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9750181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess the gender distribution of major ophthalmology society award recipients DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study METHODS: The study population included award recipients from 9 ophthalmologic societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Glaucoma Society, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Society of Retina Specialists, American Uveitis Society, Cornea Society, and North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society. A gender-specific pronoun and a photograph of each award recipient were extracted from professional websites to assign their gender. Main outcome measures were gender distribution by award society, year (1970-2020), type (lectureship or not), category (achievement, education, research contribution, research item, international member achievement, public service-global health, service to society), and training level.ResultsOut of 2,150 recipients for 78 awards, 1,606 (74.7%) were men and 544 (25.3%) were women. The proportion of women recipients increased from 0% in 1970 to 33.2% in 2020 (P < .001). Women representation varied within each society (P < .01), with ASCRS having the highest percentage (40.8%). Women received 11.0% of awards accompanied by a lecture. Women received a significantly greater proportion of research-related awards than achievement or service awards. Awards for trainees and early-career ophthalmologists had a greater proportion of women (39.8%) than the rest of the awards (21.5%) (P < .001).ConclusionsOverall, women received awards (25.3%) at a higher rate than the average 1970-2020 American gender distributions of ophthalmologists. However, women are still under-represented in many award categories and subspecialties.
| S-EPMC8608693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough almost equal numbers of male and female medical students enter into ophthalmology residency programs, whether they have similar surgical experiences during training is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine differences for cataract surgery and total procedural volume between male and female residents during ophthalmology residency.Design, setting, participantsThis retrospective, longitudinal analysis of resident case logs from 24 US ophthalmology residency programs spanned July 2005 to June 2017. A total of 1271 residents were included. Data were analyzed from August 12, 2017, through April 4, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresVariables analyzed included mean volumes of cataract surgery and total procedures, resident gender, and maternity or paternity leave status.ResultsAmong the 1271 residents included in the analysis (815 men [64.1%]), being female was associated with performing fewer cataract operations and total procedures. Male residents performed a mean (SD) of 176.7 (66.2) cataract operations, and female residents performed a mean (SD) of 161.7 (56.2) (mean difference, -15.0 [95% CI, -22.2 to -7.8]; P < .001); men performed a mean (SD) of 509.4 (208.6) total procedures and women performed a mean (SD) of 451.3 (158.8) (mean difference, -58.1 [95% CI, -80.2 to -36.0]; P < .001). Eighty-five of 815 male residents (10.4%) and 71 of 456 female residents (15.6%) took parental leave. Male residents who took paternity leave performed a mean of 27.5 (95% CI, 13.3 to 41.6; P < .001) more cataract operations compared with men who did not take leave, but female residents who took maternity leave performed similar numbers of operations as women who did not take leave (mean difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -18.0 to 14.0]; P = .81). From 2005 to 2017, each additional year was associated with a 5.5 (95% CI, 4.4 to 6.7; P < .001) increase in cataract volume and 24.4 (95% CI, 20.9 to 27.8; P < .001) increase in total procedural volume. This increase was not different between genders for cataract procedure volume (β = -1.6 [95% CI, -3.7 to 0.4]; P = .11) but was different for total procedural volume such that the increase in total procedural volume over time for men was greater than that for women (β = -8.0 [95% CI, -14.0 to -2.1]; P = .008).Conclusions and relevanceFemale residents performed 7.8 to 22.2 fewer cataract operations and 36.0 to 80.2 fewer total procedures compared with their male counterparts from 2005 to 2017, a finding that warrants further exploration to ensure that residents have equivalent surgical training experiences during residency regardless of gender. However, this study included a limited number of programs (24 of 119 [20.2%]). Future research including all ophthalmology residency programs may minimize the selection bias issues present in this study.
| S-EPMC6646997 | biostudies-literature