Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel Female First Author Index.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Bibliometric analyses show gender bias against women in scientific publications and citations. We hypothesized that a metric of an individual senior author's inclusivity of women as first authors in critical care publications would predict gender inequality.Methods
Using PubMed and Web of Science, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of original research publications in critical care from 2008 to 2018 in 11 specialty and general journals. Gender for first and senior authors was assigned by a gender determination application, and manually if needed. For all senior authors we defined the novel Female First Author Index (FFA-index) = #Female first authors in publications by an individual senior author/Total # publications by that senior author. We produced a novel interactive web-based application using the R package Shiny to increase potential utilization of the FFA-index.Results
Of 7370 publications, 30.4% had female first authors and 15.5% had female senior authors. After adjustment for impact factor, journal, year of publication, number of authors, country, and gender determination accuracy, female senior authorship was associated with a 1.9-fold increase in female first authorship [OR = 1.85 (95% CI 1.62, 2.11); p < 0.001] compared with male senior authorship. The mean (SD) FFA-index for all individual senior authors was 30.5 (42.9); with a significant difference in FFA-index between male and female senior authors (27.6 versus 42.5, respectively; p < 0.001). The interactive web-based application (FFA-index App) produces the same FFA-index output as our study results.Conclusions
Female representation at prominent authorship positions in critical care publications is still far from achieving gender parity. By creating an authorship index score, we propose a frame of reference for the advancement of female first authorship.
SUBMITTER: Chary S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8253865 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGender imbalances in academia have been evident historically and persist today. For the past 60 years, we have witnessed the increase of participation of women in biomedical disciplines, showing that the gender gap is shrinking. However, preliminary evidence suggests that women, including female researchers, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of unequal distribution of childcare, elderly care, and other kinds of domestic and emotional labor. Sudden lockdowns and abrupt shifts in daily routines have had disproportionate consequences on their productivity, which is reflected by a sudden drop in research output in biomedical research, consequently affecting the number of female authors of scientific publications.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate adverse effect on the productivity of female researchers in the biomedical field in terms of authorship of scientific publications.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational bibliometric study. We investigated the proportion of male and female researchers who published scientific papers during the COVID-19 pandemic, using bibliometric data from biomedical preprint servers and selected Springer-Nature journals. We used the ordinary least squares regression model to estimate the expected proportions over time by correcting for temporal trends. We also used a set of statistical methods, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and regression discontinuity design, to test the validity of the results.ResultsA total of 78,950 papers from the bioRxiv and medRxiv repositories and from 62 selected Springer-Nature journals by 346,354 unique authors were analyzed. The acquired data set consisted of papers that were published between January 1, 2019, and August 2, 2020. The proportion of female first authors publishing in the biomedical field during the pandemic dropped by 9.1%, on average, across disciplines (expected arithmetic mean yest=0.39; observed arithmetic mean y=0.35; standard error of the estimate, Sest=0.007; standard error of the observation, σx=0.004). The impact was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19 research, where the proportion of female scientists in the first author position dropped by 28% (yest=0.39; y=0.28; Sest=0.007; σx=0.007). When looking at the last authors, the proportion of women dropped by 7.9%, on average (yest=0.25; y=0.23; Sest=0.005; σx=0.003), while the proportion of women writing about COVID-19 as the last author decreased by 18.8% (yest=0.25; y=0.21; Sest=0.005; σx=0.007). Further, by geocoding authors' affiliations, we showed that the gender disparities became even more apparent when disaggregated by country, up to 35% in some cases.ConclusionsOur findings document a decrease in the number of publications by female authors in the biomedical field during the global pandemic. This effect was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19, indicating that women are producing fewer publications related to COVID-19 research. This sudden increase in the gender gap was persistent across the 10 countries with the highest number of researchers. These results should be used to inform the scientific community of this worrying trend in COVID-19 research and the disproportionate effect that the pandemic has had on female academics.
| S-EPMC8043146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesA number of trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy were published in 2022. We aimed to summarize the most influential publications related to the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients in 2022.Data sourcesPubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials, prospective studies, or systematic review/meta-analyses of adult critically ill patients assessing a pharmacotherapeutic intervention and reporting clinical endpoints published between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, were included in this article.Data extractionArticles from a systematic search and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update were included and stratified into clinical domains based upon consistent themes. Consensus was obtained on the most influential publication within each clinical domain utilizing an a priori defined three-round modified Delphi process with the following considerations: 1) overall contribution to scientific knowledge and 2) novelty to the literature.Data synthesisThe systematic search and Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update yielded a total of 704 articles, of which 660 were excluded. The remaining 44 articles were stratified into the following clinical domains: emergency/neurology, cardiovascular, gastroenterology/fluids/nutrition, hematology, infectious diseases/immunomodulation, and endocrine/metabolic. The final article selected from each clinical domain was summarized following a three-round modified Delphi process and included three randomized controlled trials and three systematic review/meta-analyses. Article topics summarized included dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives during mechanical ventilation, beta-blocker treatment in the critically ill, restriction of IV fluids in septic shock, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in critically ill adults, duration of antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia, and low-dose methylprednisolone treatment in severe community-acquired pneumonia.ConclusionsThis concise review provides a perspective on articles published in 2022 that are relevant to the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients and their potential impact on clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10519466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveConcerns have been raised that the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted research productivity to the disadvantage of women in academia, particularly in early career stages. In this study, we aimed to assess the pandemic's effect on women's COVID-19-related publishing over the first year of the pandemic.Methods and resultsWe compared the gender distribution of first authorships for 42 898 publications on COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2021 to 483 232 publications appearing in the same journals during the same period the year prior. We found that the gender gap-the percentage of articles on which men versus women were first authors-widened by 14 percentage points during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite many pertinent research fields showing near equal proportions of men and women first authors publishing in the same fields before the pandemic. Longitudinal analyses revealed that the significant initial expansions of the gender gap began to trend backwards to expected values over time in many fields. As women may have been differentially affected depending on their geography, we also assessed the gender distribution of first authorships grouped by countries and geographical areas. While we observed a significant reduction of the shares of women first authors in almost all countries, longitudinal analyses confirmed a resolving trend over time.ConclusionThe reduction in women's COVID-19-related research output appears particularly concerning as many disciplines informing the response to the pandemic had near equal gender shares of first authorship in the year prior to the pandemic. The acute productivity drain with the onset of the pandemic magnifies deep-rooted obstacles on the way to gender equity in scientific contribution.
| S-EPMC8025238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSocial media is increasingly used in the dissemination of medical research. Traditional measures of the impact of a paper do not account for this. Altmetrics are a measure of the dissemination of a publication via social media websites. The purpose of this study is to ascertain if the altmetric attention score of an article is a reliable measure of the impact it has in the field of critical care medicine. To this end, we investigated if a correlation exists between future citation count and altmetric attention score.MethodsThe top nine journals by impact factor in the field of critical care medicine were identified for 2014 and 2015. The 100 most cited articles from these journals were recorded to form the Scientific Impact Group, i.e. those with the greatest impact on the scientific community. The altmetric attention score was recorded for each article. The top 100 articles by altmetric attention score were also identified to form the Media Impact Group, i.e. those that generated the most online attention. Their citation counts' were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed on each group to identify a correlation between altmetric attention score and citation count.ResultsThere was a moderately positive correlation in the Scientific Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.4336 (P = 0.0001). A weakly positive correlation was found in the Media Impact Group, with a Spearman r score of 0.3033 (P = 0.002).ConclusionsThere is a positive correlation between traditional bibliographic metrics and altmetrics in the field of critical care medicine. Highly cited papers are more likely to generate online attention. However, papers that generate a lot of online attention are less likely to have a high citation count. Therefore, altmetric attention score is not a reliable predictor of future citation count in critical care medicine.
| S-EPMC7890758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough publications have been increasing rapidly, the research quality has yet to improve in the field of critical care medicine (CCM) in China. This study aimed at investigating the current status of and the influential factors for impactful publications in CCM research by Chinese authors.MethodsPublications by authors with the affiliation of critical care medicine department or intensive care unit (CCM/ICU) in Chinese as well as American hospitals from 2001 to 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database for this bibliometric analysis. Moreover, statistical analyses to test factors affecting impactful publications by Chinese authors were performed.ResultsOf 13,487 articles retrieved by this search strategy, 6,622 were published by Chinese authors as first or corresponding authors. The annual publications by Chinese authors have been rapidly increasing from 2001 to 2020, and so did the citations to these articles. However, the proportion in the world of publications by Chinese authors was much less than that by American authors each year [M (IQR): 1.85 (9.592) vs. 27.77 (7.3), p < 0.001]. In addition, impactful articles were significantly less published by Chinese than by American authors, including articles either in journals with a high impact factor (p < 0.001) or in the top 10 journals in the field of CCM (5.4 vs 13.4%, p < 0.001), and articles with high citation frequency as well (p < 0.001). Moreover, the percentage of impactful publications by Chinese authors was likely associated with academic background and regions of the author's affiliations, funds support, public health events of COVID-19, and collaboration between authors.ConclusionOur results demonstrated that CCM research in China grew rapidly in the recent 20 years. However, the impactful publications remained limited, largely owing to the shortage of comprehensive research training, inactive collaboration, and underfunded CCM research.
| S-EPMC9622943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Authorship is a central element of scientific research carrying a variety of rewards and responsibilities, and while various guidelines exist, actual author contributions are often ambiguous. Inconsistent or limited contributions threaten to devalue authorship as intellectual currency and diminish authors' responsibility for published content. Researchers have assessed author contributions in the medical literature and other research fields, but similar data for the field of ecological research are lacking. Authorship practices in ecological research are broadly representative of a variety of fields due to the cross-disciplinary nature of collaborations in ecological studies. To better understand author contributions to current research, we distributed a survey regarding co-author contributions to a random selection of 996 lead authors of manuscripts published in ecological journals in 2010. We obtained useable responses from 45% of surveyed authors. Reported lead author contributions in ecological research studies consistently included conception of the project idea, data collection, analysis, and writing. Middle and last author contributions instead showed a high level of individual variability. Lead authorship in ecology is well defined while secondary authorship is more ambiguous. Nearly half (48%) of all studies included in our survey had some level of non-compliance with Ecological Society of America (ESA) authorship guidelines and the majority of studies (78%) contained at least one co-author that did not meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements. Incidence of non-compliance varied with lead author occupation and author position. The probability of a study including an author that was non-compliant with ESA guidelines was lowest for professor-led studies and highest for graduate student and post doctoral researcher-led studies. Among studies with > two co-authors, all lead authors met ESA guidelines and only 2% failed to meet ICMJE requirements. Middle (24% ESA, 63% ICMJE) and last (37% ESA, 60% ICMJE) authors had higher rates of non-compliance. The probability of a study containing a co-author that did not meet ESA or ICMJE requirements increased significantly with the number of co-authors per study although even studies with only two co-authors had a high probability of non-compliance of approximately 60% (ICMJE) and 15 to 40% (ESA). Given the variable and often limited contributions of authors in our survey and past studies of other research disciplines, institutions, journals, and scientific societies need to implement new approaches to instill meaning in authorship status. A byline approach may not alter author contributions but would better define individual contributions and reduce existing ambiguity regarding the meaning of authorship in modern ecological research.
| S-EPMC5484501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Gender gaps exist in academic leadership positions in critical care. Peer-reviewed publications are crucial to career advancement, and yet little is known regarding gender differences in authorship of critical care research.Objectives: To evaluate gender differences in authorship of critical care literature.Methods: We used a validated database of author gender to analyze authorship of critical care articles indexed in PubMed between 2008 and 2018 in 40 frequently cited journals. High-impact journals were defined as those in the top 5% of all journals. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate the association of senior author gender with first and middle author gender, as well as association of first author gender with journal impact factor.Measurements and Main Results: Among 18,483 studies, 30.8% had female first authors, and 19.5% had female senior authors. Female authorship rose slightly over the last decade (average annual increases of 0.44% [P < 0.01] and 0.51% [P < 0.01] for female first and senior authors, respectively). When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially (first author adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.17; middle author aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.29-1.69). Female first authors had higher odds than men of publishing in lower-impact journals (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45).Conclusions: Women comprise less than one-third of first authors and one-fourth of senior authors of critical care research, with minimal increase over the past decade. When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially. However, female first authors tend to publish in lower-impact journals. These findings may help explain the underrepresentation of women in critical care academic leadership positions and identify targets for improvement.
| S-EPMC7124723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aims of this bibliometric study were to determine author self-citation trends in high-impact orthodontic literature and to investigate possible association between self-citation and publication characteristics.MethodsSix orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor as ranked by 2017 Journal Citation Reports were screened for a full publication year (2018) for original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles were scrutinized for article and author characteristics and citation metrics. Univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between self-citation incidence and publication characteristics.ResultsMedians for author self-citation rate of the most self-citing authors and self-citations were 3.03% (range 0-50) and 1 (range 0-19), respectively. In the univariable analysis, there was no association between self-citation counts and study type (P = 0.41), article topic (P = 0.61), number of authors (P = 0.62), and rank of authors (P = 0.56). Author origin (P = 0.001), gender (P = 0.001) and journal (P = 0.05) were associated with self-citation counts and in the multivariable analysis only origin and gender remained strong self-citation predictors. Asian authors and females self-cited significantly less often than all other regions and male authors.ConclusionsAuthors in orthodontics do not self-cite at a frequency that suggests potential citation manipulation. Author origin and gender were the only variables associated with citations counts. More bibliometric research is necessary to draw solid conclusions about author self-citation trends in orthodontic literature.
| S-EPMC7788150 | biostudies-literature