Gender differences in scholarly productivity within academic gynecologic oncology departments
Publication type
journal article
Publication date
2015
Author(s)
Source
Language
English
Geographical area
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the academic rank and gender of gynecologic oncology faculty in the United States were determined from online residency and fellowship directories and departmental web sites. Each individual's h-index and years of publication were determined from Scopus (a citation database of peer-reviewed literature). The h-index is a quantification of an author's scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited. We generated descriptive statistics and compared rank, gender, and productivity scores. RESULTS: Five hundred seven academic faculty within 137 U.S. Teaching programs were identified. Of these, 215 (42%) were female and 292 (58%) were male. Men had significantly higher median h-indices than women, 16 compared with 8, respectively (P<.001). Women were more likely to be of junior academic rank with 63% of assistant professors being female compared with 20% of full professors. When stratifying h-indices by gender and academic rank, men had significantly higher h-indices at the assistant professor level (7 compared with 5, P<.001); however, this difference disappeared at the higher ranks. Stratifying by the years of active publication, there was no significant difference between genders. CONCLUSION: Female gynecologic oncologists at the assistant professor level had lower scholarly productivity than men; however, at higher academic ranks, they equaled their male counterparts. Women were more junior in rank, had published for fewer years, and were underrepresented in leadership positions. © 2015 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Journal
Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN
0029-7844
Volume
126
Issue
6
Pagination
1279-1284