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: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: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: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:The composition of the editorial boards of leading general paediatric journals was assessed. The board members' country of current affiliation was classified according to the Human Development Index. The results showed that only a very small number of the board members are based in the developing world.
| S-EPMC1720537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, there has been an ongoing, worldwide debate about the representation of females in companies. Our study aimed to meta-analytically investigate the controversial relationship between female representation on corporate boards and firm financial performance. Following a systematic literature search, data from 20 studies on 3097 companies published in peer-reviewed academic journals were included in the meta-analysis. On average, the boards consisted of eight members and female participation was low (mean 14%) in all studies. Half of the 20 studies were based on data from developing countries and 62% from higher income countries. According to the random-effects model, the overall mean weighted correlation between percentage of females on corporate boards and firm performance was small and non-significant (r = .01, 95% confidence interval: -.04, .07). Similar small effect sizes were observed when comparing studies based on developing vs. developed countries and higher vs. lower income countries. The mean board size was not related to the effect sizes in studies. These results indicate that the mere representation of females on corporate boards is not related to firm financial performance if other factors are not considered. We conclude our study with a discussion of its implications and limitations.
| S-EPMC4473005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe global distribution of health professionals and associated training programmes is wide but prior study has demonstrated reported scholarship of teaching and learning arises from predominantly Western perspectives.DesignWe conducted a document analysis to examine authorship of recent publications to explore current international representation.Data sourcesThe table of contents of seven high-impact English-language health professional education journals between 2008 and 2018 was extracted from Embase.Eligibility criteriaThe journals were selected according to highest aggregate ranking across specific scientific impact indices and stating health professional education in scope; only original research and review articles from these publications were included for analysis.Data extraction and synthesisThe table of contents was extracted and eligible publications screened by independent reviewers who further characterised the geographic affiliations of the publishing research teams and study settings (if applicable).ResultsA total 12 018 titles were screened and 7793 (64.8%) articles included. Most were collaborations (7048, 90.4%) conducted by authors from single geographic regions (5851, 86%). Single-region teams were most often formed from countries in North America (56%), Northern Europe (14%) or Western Europe (10%). Overall lead authorship from Asian, African or South American regions was less than 15%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Geographic representation varied somewhat by journal, but not across time.ConclusionsDiversity in health professional education scholarship, as marked by nation of authors' professional affiliations, remains low. Under-representation of published research outside Global North regions limits dissemination of novel ideas resulting in unidirectional flow of experiences and a concentrated worldview of teaching and learning.
| S-EPMC7684802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Women are disproportionately underrecognized as award winners within medical societies. The presence of this disparity has not been investigated in training programs. To determine the presence of a gender disparity in award winners in general surgery residency programs. In this retrospective survey study, 32 geographically diverse academic and independent general surgery residency programs were solicited for participation. The 24 participating programs (75.0%) submitted deidentified data regarding the gender distribution of residents and trainee award recipients for the period from July 1, 1996, to June 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 11, 2017, to December 21, 2018. Time and the proportion of female trainees. The primary outcome was the percentage of female award winners. A multilevel logistic regression model accounting for the percentage of female residents in each program compared the odds of a female resident winning an award relative to a male resident. This analysis was repeated for the first and second decades of the study. Award winners were further analyzed by type of award (clinical excellence, nonclinical excellence, teaching, or research) and selection group (medical students, residents, or faculty members). A total of 5030 of 13 760 resident person-years (36.6%) and 455 of 1447 award winners (31.4%) were female. Overall, female residents were significantly less likely to receive an award compared with male residents (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.54; P < .001). During the first decade of the study, female residents were 70.8% less likely to receive an award compared with male residents (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.45; P < .001); this improved to 49.9% less likely in the second decade (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42-0.61; P < .001). Female residents were less likely to receive an award for teaching (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.42; P < .001), clinical excellence (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.61; P < .001), or nonclinical excellence (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98; P = .04). No statistical difference was observed for research award winners (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.42-1.12; P = .17). The largest discrepancies were observed when award recipients were chosen by residents (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14-0.39; P < .001) and students (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.42; P < .001) compared with faculty members (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P < .001). This study found that female residents were significantly underrepresented as award recipients. These findings suggest the presence of ongoing implicit bias in surgery departments and training programs.
| S-EPMC7489428 | biostudies-literature