Gender representation in editorial boards of international general surgery journals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gallivan E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8036998 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This paper analyses the Editorial Board (EB) distribution of Occupational Therapy journals from a gender perspective. The "Occupational Therapy" field in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) and the "Occupational Therapy" term in the title search of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) were used to find the Occupational Therapy-specific journals. The following indicators were calculated: Editorial Board Member (EBM) gender distribution by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, and journal quartile. Thirty-seven journals were located, including 667 individuals, 206 males (31%) and 461 females (69%). Referring to the EB positions, most members (557) were EB members, 70 were listed as Associate Editors, and 20 as Editorial Leaders. The results show that the proportion of women in the EB's of Occupational Therapy journals represents a majority. Regarding the distribution by gender of the EBMs, six journals had a female proportion below the cut-off point revealed in this study (69%). Four did not reach parity, with female representation below 50%. Additionally, the balance among the EBMs is significantly underrepresented compared to the percentage of female Occupational Therapy practitioners.
| S-EPMC9966705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Women are underrepresented in professional spaces, particularly at leadership positions. In science, the participation in editorial boards of journals is evidence of a high reputation within a specialty or field. Therefore, female presence in editorial boards can be used as a proxy for female presence and leadership in academic spaces. Here, we assessed the gender composition in editorial boards of 31 biodiversity conservation (BC) journals included in the Web of Science and obtained information on current and past editorial boards of these journals. We found pervasive gender bias in the editorial boards of the main scientific BC journals. Current editorial boards were composed of 1251 editors, of which only 28.7% were women. Nevertheless, gender biases are becoming smaller over time. Our projections indicate that BC journals may achieve gender balance in their editorial boards by the year 2038. We argue that a diverse and inclusive editorial board has greater chances to propose innovative solutions to conservation problems. Thus, the academic community, editors and journals must take proactive measures to achieve gender balance. Given that most editors are men, hiring women still depends on them; and these men need urgently to take their share of responsibility and be actors of change. More broadly, journals and science decision-makers must commit to their importance in the movement and start, for example, to hire and support women's work.
| S-EPMC7486622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The scholars comprising journal editorial boards play a critical role in defining the trajectory of knowledge in their field. Nevertheless, studies of editorial board composition remain rare, especially those focusing on journals publishing research in the increasingly globalized fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Using metrics for quantifying the diversity of ecological communities, we quantified international representation on the 1985-2014 editorial boards of 24 environmental biology journals. Over the course of 3 decades, there were 3,827 unique scientists based in 70 countries who served as editors. The size of the editorial community increased over time-the number of editors serving in 2014 was 4-fold greater than in 1985-as did the number of countries in which editors were based. Nevertheless, editors based outside the "Global North" (the group of economically developed countries with high per capita gross domestic product [GDP] that collectively concentrate most global wealth) were extremely rare. Furthermore, 67.18% of all editors were based in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Consequently, geographic diversity-already low in 1985-remained unchanged through 2014. We argue that this limited geographic diversity can detrimentally affect the creativity of scholarship published in journals, the progress and direction of research, the composition of the STEM workforce, and the development of science in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia (i.e., the "Global South").
| S-EPMC5726619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is a notable under-representation of women in leadership positions in ophthalmology despite the increasing number of women as ophthalmologists. Gender inequality in editorial boards of ophthalmology journals has not been investigated on a global scale. This study will aim to evaluate the representation of women as editorial board members in ophthalmology journals across different regions, journal subspecialties and impact factors.Methods and analysisThis will be a cross-sectional study describing the gender composition of editorial boards in ophthalmology journals globally. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory and SCImago Journal & Country Rank will be used to comprehensively identify journals indexed with the keyword, 'ophthalmology'. All journals with active websites and lists of editorial boards will be included. Journals will be categorised according to the World Bank's 2021 classification of countries by income and region, and classified into ophthalmology subspecialties based on publication scope. Impact factors will be obtained from Journal Citation Reports. The gender and academic degrees of each editorial board member will be determined based on journal profiles, institutional websites or name query feature on an online interface. The research impact of each editorial board member will be ascertained from the author records on Web of Science. The gender proportion will be presented for all journals combined, and then for journals grouped by regions, subspecialties and impact factors. Editorial board member characteristics including academic degrees and research productivity measures will be compared between men and women. These comparisons will be made using the χ2 test for categorical variables and the independent samples t-test for continuous variables.Ethics and disseminationThis study did not require research ethics approval given the use of publicly available data and lack of human subjects. The results will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.
| S-EPMC9045046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gender equality, with an emphasis on female education, has been designated by the United Nations as one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be completed by 2030, since gender disparity is a major impediment to scientific and economic progress. This study was carried out in an effort to address the gender gaps that can be seen in academic and scientific publications. The purpose of this study is to describe the gender distribution of editorial board members and editors-in-chief across geriatrics journals with high impact factors. Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 were used to guide the selection of geriatric and gerontology journals utilizing Scopus All Science Journal Classification Codes. The genders of the editors-in-chief and editorial board members were determined and analyzed using publicly accessible data. A total of 47 geriatric journals with an average impact factor of 4.27 were examined. Of the 65 editors-in-chief, 21 (32%) were women, whereas 876 female editorial members were found out of a total of 2414, which constitutes 36% in total. Despite making up 60% of the geriatric medical workforce, women are still underrepresented on editorial boards and as chief editors in well-known geriatric periodicals.
| S-EPMC9498408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution, and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.
| S-EPMC6953666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The editorial materials in top medical and public health journals are opportunities for experts to offer thoughts that might influence the trajectory of the field. To date, while some studies have examined gender bias in the publication of editorial materials in medical journals, none have studied public health journals. In this perspective, we studied the gender ratio of the editorial materials published in the top health and medical sciences journals between 2008 and early 2018 to test whether gender bias exists. We studied a total of 59 top journals in health and medical sciences. Overall, while there is a trend of increasing proportion of female first authors, there is still a greater proportion of male than female first authors. The average male-to-female first author ratio during the study period across all journals was 2.08. Ensuring equal access and exposure through journal editorials is a critical step, albeit only one step of a longer journey, towards gender balance in health and medical sciences research. Editors of top journals have a key role to play in pushing the fields towards more balanced gender equality, and we strongly urge editors to rethink the strategies for inviting authors for editorial materials.
| S-EPMC7444434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose We examined the gender distribution and academic productivity of North American ophthalmology societies' board members. Methods Cross-sectional and retrospective study of board members on American and Canadian ophthalmology societies. In December 2022, data was gathered from society webpages, online archives, and the Scopus database for publication information. Results Of the identified 73 board presidents and 876 other board members, 49 (67.1%) board presidents were men and 24 (32.9%) were women, while 554 (63.2%) other board members were men and 322 (36.8%) were women ( p = 0.53). Overall, board members who were men had significantly higher median h-indexes (men vs. women: 10 [interquartile range [IQR] = 22] vs. 7 [IQR = 12], p = 0.03) and median publication numbers (men vs. women: 23 [IQR = 84] vs. 14 [IQR = 52.3], p = 0.01). However, m-quotients (h-index divided by length of academic career) were not significantly different (men vs. women: 0.46 [IQR = 0.74] vs. 0.50 [IQR = 0.55], p = 0.67). Overall, a significant increase in the proportion of women board presidents comparing periods 1942 to 1961 and 2002 to 2021 was observed for all societies combined (3.1% [2/65] to 23.6% [210/888], p < 0.001). Conclusion The fraction of women on the academic boards in North American ophthalmology societies has increased sevenfold over the past 83 years. The gender composition of ophthalmology society boards is consistent with the gender composition of practicing ophthalmologists in the United States. Women in board or society positions have comparable academic output to men. Existing and new efforts to sustain progress in promoting women's representation and leadership opportunities must continue.
| S-EPMC10719047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite women earning similar numbers of graduate degrees as men in STEM disciplines, they are underrepresented in upper level positions in both academia and industry. Editorial board memberships are an important example of such positions; membership is both a professional honor in recognition of achievement and an opportunity for professional advancement. We surveyed 10 highly regarded journals in environmental biology, natural resource management, and plant sciences to quantify the number of women on their editorial boards and in positions of editorial leadership (i.e., Associate Editors and Editors-in-Chief) from 1985 to 2013. We found that during this time period only 16% of subject editors were women, with more pronounced disparities in positions of editorial leadership. Although the trend was towards improvement over time, there was surprising variation between journals, including those with similar disciplinary foci. While demographic changes in academia may reduce these disparities over time, we argue journals should proactively strive for gender parity on their editorial boards. This will both increase the number of women afforded the opportunities and benefits that accompany board membership and increase the number of role models and potential mentors for early-career scientists and students.
| S-EPMC4145067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignA 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.SettingTertiary academic medical centre.Main outcome measuresAll 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.ResultsWomen 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.ConclusionSex/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.
| S-EPMC8883282 | biostudies-literature