PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.General MedicineSubject: search.filters.subject.Epidemiology

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in gender of authors of original research in oncology among major medical journals: A retrospective bibliometric study Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Lee, S.F.
    ;
    Redondo Sánchez, D.
    ;
    Sánchez, M.
    ;
    Gelaye, B.
    ;
    Chiang, C.L.
    Objective We evaluated the temporal trend in gender ratios of first and last authors in the field of oncological research published in major general medical and oncology journals and examined the gender pattern in coauthorship. Design We conducted a retrospective study in PubMed using the R package RISmed. We retrieved original research articles published in four general medical journals and six oncology specialty journals. These journals were selected based on their impact factors and popularity among oncologists. We identified the names of first and last authors from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2019. The gender of the authors was identified and validated using the Gender API database (https://gender-api.com/). Primary and secondary outcome measures The percentages of first and last authors by gender and the gender ratios (male to female) and temporal trends in gender ratios of first and last authors were determined. Results We identified 34 624 research articles, in which 32 452 had the gender of both first and last authors identified. Among these 11 650 (33.6%) had women as the first author and 7908 (22.8%) as the last author, respectively. The proportion of female first and last authors increased from 26.6% and 16.2% in 2002, to 32.9% and 27.5% in 2019, respectively. However, the gender ratio (male to female) of first and last authors decreased by 1.5% and 2.6% per year, respectively, which were statistically significant (first author: Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.00; last author: IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). Male first and last authorship was the most common combination. Male-female and female-female pairs increased by 2.0% and 5.0%, respectively (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 and IRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06, respectively). Conclusions The continued under-representation of women means that more efforts to address parity for advancement of women in academic oncology are needed. © 2021 Author(s). Published by BMJ.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women's reproductive physiology Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kalidasan, Dharani
    ;
    Goshtasebi, Azita
    ;
    Chrisler, Joan
    ;
    Brown, Helen L.
    ;
    Prior, Jerilynn C.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women's physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women's reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment. DESIGN: A prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women's reproductive physiology results. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status. RESULTS: Women were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women's health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors. CONCLUSION: Sex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women's health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in double-blind peer review.