Dataset Information

A study of the number of female editors-in-chief of dermatology journals.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Over the past 50 years the proportion of women entering medical school has vastly increased, however there still exists a gender gap in top leadership positions, including within academic medicine. It is important to investigate the influence of women in this area, and assess change over time. The aim of the study was to assess the number of women who have acted as editors-in-chief of prominent dermatology journals over the 20th and 21st centuries. Methods:A list of 25 journals was collated based on their impact factors and prominence. Information regarding previous and current editors was obtained, compiled and analysed. Results:Overall there have been 26 female editors and at least 128 male editors in the 25 dermatology journals, which means that less than 19% of editors-in-chief have been female. 45.8% of journals have not yet had a female editor. The percentage of female editors ranged from 0% to 100%, with only one journal having had all female editors (International Journal of Women's Dermatology). On average, the journals had female editorship for 27.2% of the total number of years in publication. Of the 13 journals that have had a female editor, 61.5% had their first female editor after the year 2000. Discussion and Conclusion:There are various factors that influence these numbers including age of the journals and length of each editorship. It is clear that over time there has been an increase in the number of women holding these prestigious positions however gender equity has not yet been reached.

SUBMITTER: Gollins CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5715225 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A study of the number of female editors-in-chief of dermatology journals.

Gollins C E CE Shipman A R AR Murrell D F DF

International journal of women's dermatology 20170603 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Over the past 50 years the proportion of women entering medical school has vastly increased, however there still exists a gender gap in top leadership positions, including within academic medicine. It is important to investigate the influence of women in this area, and assess change over time. The aim of the study was to assess the number of women who have acted as editors-in-chief of prominent dermatology journals over the 20<sup>th</sup> and 21<sup>st</sup> centuries.<h4>M ...[more]

PMID: 29234711

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPredatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.MethodsPotential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.ResultsA total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.ConclusionsAuthors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

Dataset Information

A study of the number of female editors-in-chief of dermatology journals.

Publications

A study of the number of female editors-in-chief of dermatology journals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets