Bibliometric Analysis of Female Authorship Trends and Collaboration Dynamics Over JBMR's 30-Year History.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wininger AE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5732055 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Bibliometric Analysis of Female Authorship Trends and Collaboration Dynamics Over JBMR's 30-Year History.
Wininger Austin E AE Fischer James P JP Likine Elive F EF Gudeman Andrew S AS Brinker Alexander R AR Ryu Jonathan J Maupin Kevin A KA Lunsford Shatoria S Whipple Elizabeth C EC Loder Randall T RT Kacena Melissa A MA
Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 20170906 12
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 throughou ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In academia, manuscripts serve as an important component of career development. The past several years have seen heightened evaluation of the role of the gender gap in career advancement, as well as other bibliometric changes in publications. We therefore analyzed authorship and publication trends in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering over the past three decades (one complete year of manuscripts for each decade; 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016). The variables analyzed were number of authors per manuscript, numerical position of the corresponding author, number of collaborating institutions and countries, number of references, and number of citations per manuscript. The gender of both the first and corresponding authors was identified and analyzed over time and by region. Globally, the percentage of female first and corresponding authors significantly increased from 0% in 1986 to 28.6% (p = 0.003) and 20.4% (p = 0.0009), respectively, in 2016. Although there were significant differences regarding female first and corresponding author over time, they did not vary by region of origin (p = 0.5 and 0.2, respectively). Overall, these findings highlight the improvements made and the challenges that still exist related to publishing within the bioengineering field.
| S-EPMC6456387 | 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:PurposeStudies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals.MethodsUsing MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined.ResultsFor the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P=.49).ConclusionsRepresentation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship.
| S-EPMC7708287 | 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:Preprints are becoming well established in the life sciences, but relatively little is known about the demographics of the researchers who post preprints and those who do not, or about the collaborations between preprint authors. Here, based on an analysis of 67,885 preprints posted on bioRxiv, we find that some countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are overrepresented on bioRxiv relative to their overall scientific output, while other countries (including China, Russia, and Turkey) show lower levels of bioRxiv adoption. We also describe a set of 'contributor countries' (including Uganda, Croatia and Thailand): researchers from these countries appear almost exclusively as non-senior authors on international collaborations. Lastly, we find multiple journals that publish a disproportionate number of preprints from some countries, a dynamic that almost always benefits manuscripts from the US.
| S-EPMC7384855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a serious public health problem that has become a global threat. Special attention should be given to polymyxins (polymyxin B and colistin) which, since their reintroduction into clinical practice, are considered "last resort" drugs. The objective of this study is to perform a bibliometric analysis of scientific research on polymyxin resistance. Methods: Scopus was used to retrieve documents relevant to polymyxin resistance from 2010 to 2019. Data was exported to Microsoft Excel for table presentation. SciVal was used for volume and citation analysis as well as collaboration patterns. Also, we extracted data regarding the top documents, authors, countries, institutions, and the metrics of journals. VantagePoint and VOSviewer were used for geographical distribution of worldwide research and keyword co-occurrence analysis, respectively. Results: A total of 1,409 documents were retrieved. The retrieved documents received 25.0 citations per document. Articles (73.88%) and letters (18.09%) were the most frequent types of documents. During 2010-2019, there was a significant growth in publications (p-value < 0.001). The received citations were 35,209 with a peak in 2016 (11,250 citations). China and the United States led the scientific production with 299 (21.2%) and 238 (16.9%) publications, respectively. Little or no contribution came from central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. Chinese institutions have caused the greatest impact, with University of Zhejiang (China) being the most prolific institution on the subject (88 documents). In terms of the most productive journals, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy ranked first with 196 (13.9%) documents. Most of the documents were published in quartile one journals and only had national collaboration (43.2%). Analysis of keyword co-occurrence revealed that research on polymyxin resistance during the last decade has focused on its relationship with public health, pharmacology, and genetics. Conclusion: The number of documents on polymyxin resistance has increased significantly in the recent years, with a steep growth from 2016 onwards. China and the United States led the scientific production. Most of the documents were published in high-quality journals. Greater joint efforts and more contribution from central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America are still needed to tackle this global problem.
| S-EPMC8569321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The topic of exercise-induced oxidative stress has received considerable attention in recent years, with close to 300 original investigations published since the early work of Dillard and colleagues in 1978. Single bouts of aerobic and anaerobic exercise can induce an acute state of oxidative stress. This is indicated by an increased presence of oxidized molecules in a variety of tissues. Exercise mode, intensity, and duration, as well as the subject population tested, all can impact the extent of oxidation. Moreover, the use of antioxidant supplements can impact the findings. Although a single bout of exercise often leads to an acute oxidative stress, in accordance with the principle of hormesis, such an increase appears necessary to allow for an up-regulation in endogenous antioxidant defenses. This review presents a comprehensive summary of original investigations focused on exercise-induced oxidative stress. This should provide the reader with a well-documented account of the research done within this area of science over the past 30 years.
| S-EPMC2642810 | biostudies-other
Project description:Publication and authorship are important in academia for career advancement, obtaining grants, and improved patient care. There has been a recent interest in bibliometric changes over time, especially regarding the gender gap. The purpose of this study was to explore bibliometric changes in the musculoskeletal literature. Bibliometric variables (number of authors, institutions, countries, pages, references, corresponding author position, author gender, geographic region of origin, and editorial board makeup) were analyzed for 5 basic science and 12 clinically oriented musculoskeletal journals from 1985 through 2016. Statistical analyses comprised bivariate analyses, multifactorial ANOVAs, and logistic regression analyses. A p < 0.005 was considered significant. Nearly, all variables increased over time. Asia had the highest number of authors and corresponding author positions, Australia/New Zealand the highest number of institutions and references, North America the highest number of pages, and Europe the highest number of countries. Those with a female first author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Likewise, those with a female corresponding author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Single-authored manuscripts decreased over time. The percentage of female first authors rose from 10.8% in 1985-1987 to 23.7% in 2015-2016. There were more female 1st authors in the basic science journals compared to the clinical journals (33.2% vs. 12.7%). Single-authored manuscripts were more likely to be written by males (5.1 vs. 2.4%) and decreased over time. The many differences by geographic region of origin likely reflect different socio/cultural attitudes regarding academia and research, as well as the gender composition of the disciplines by geographic region. Overall, there has been an increase in the number of female 1st and corresponding authors, editorial board members, and chief editors, indicating a slow but progressive narrowing of the gender gap.
| S-EPMC8096573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt has been established that lung cancer is the leading cause of all cancer deaths. This study sought to analyze the epidemiological trends of lung cancer over the past 30 years worldwide.MethodsEstimates, including the global, regional, national prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) of lung cancer from 1990 to 2019, were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 to assess the spatiotemporal dynamics in cases and age-standardized rates (ASR). The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) was calculated to evaluate the variation in ASR. Besides, estimates of age-sex specific prevalence, decomposition analysis for incident cases, and correlation analysis of the EAPC were conducted in our study.ResultsGlobally, the ASR of lung cancer prevalence, incidence and YLDs in 2019 were 38.84/100,000 persons, 27.66/100,000 persons, and 6.62/100,000 persons, respectively. Over the past 30 years, the ASR of incidence (EAPC = -0.09) decreased, although that of prevalence (EAPC = 0.51) and YLDs (EAPC = 0.03) increased. The global prevalence counts was greater in males than females at all age groups and increased with age, peaking in the 65-69 age group for both sexes. The increase in incidence was mainly attributed to population aging. For YLDs, EAPC was negatively correlated with the human development index (p = 0.0008) and ASR (p < 0.0001) in 1990 across nation-level units.ConclusionsLung cancer remains a major public health issue globally, warranting the implementation of scientific and effective measures in different countries and territories to control it.
| S-EPMC9109351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interdisciplinary research collaboration is needed to perform transformative science and accelerate innovation. The Science of Team Science strives to investigate, evaluate, and foster team science, including institutional policies that may promote or hinder collaborative interdisciplinary research and the resources and infrastructure needed to promote team science within and across institutions. Social network analysis (SNA) has emerged as a useful method to measure interdisciplinary science through the evaluation of several types of collaboration networks, including co-authorship networks. Likewise, research administrators are responsible for conducting rigorous evaluation of policies and initiatives. Within this paper, we present a case study using SNA to evaluate inter-programmatic collaboration (evidenced by co-authoring scientific papers) from 2007-2014 among scientists who are members of four formal research programs at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, the Markey Cancer Center (MCC) at the University of Kentucky. We evaluate change in network descriptives over time and implement separable temporal exponential-family random graph models (STERGMs) to estimate the effect of author and network variables on the tendency to form a co-authorship tie. We measure the diversity of the articles published over time (Blau's Index) to understand whether the changes in the co-authorship network are reflected in the diversity of articles published by research members. Over the 8-year period, we found increased inter-programmatic collaboration among research members as evidenced by co-authorship of published scientific papers. Over time, MCC Members collaborated more with others outside of their research program and outside their initial dense co-authorship groups, however tie formation continues to be driven by co-authoring with individuals of the same research program and academic department. Papers increased in diversity over time on all measures with the exception of author gender. This inter-programmatic research was fostered by policy changes in cancer center administration encouraging interdisciplinary research through both informal (e.g., annual retreats, seminar series) and formal (e.g., requiring investigators from more than two research programs on applications for pilot funding) means. Within this cancer center, interdisciplinary co-authorship increased over time as policies encouraging this collaboration were implemented. Yet, there is room for improvement in creating more interdisciplinary and diverse ties between research program members.
| S-EPMC6703830 | biostudies-literature