Dataset Information

Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years.

Design

Cross sectional study.

Setting

Nine specialist and two large general medical journals.

Population

Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: first author's gender.

Secondary outcomes

last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic.

Results

A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts.

Conclusions

Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Gayet-Ageron A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8493599 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in six leading general medical journals in 2008 and compare this with the prevalence reported by authors of articles published in 1996.DesignCross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire.SettingInternational survey of journal authors.ParticipantsSample of corresponding authors of 896 research articles, review articles, and editorial/opinion articles published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008: Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine.Main outcome measuresSelf reported compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for all authors on the selected articles.ResultsA total of 630/896 (70.3%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The prevalence of articles with honorary authorship or ghost authorship, or both, was 21.0% (95% CI 18.0% to 24.3%), a decrease from 29.2% reported in 1996 (P = 0.004). Based on 545 responses on honorary authorship, 96 articles (17.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 21.0%)) had honorary authors (range by journal 12.2% to 29.3%), a non-significant change from 1996 (19.3%; P = 0.439). Based on 622 responses on ghost authorship, 49 articles (7.9% (6.0% to 10.3%)) had ghost authors (range by journal 2.1% to 11.0%), a significant decline from 1996 (11.5%; P = 0.023). The prevalence of honorary authorship was 25.0% in original research reports, 15.0% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials, whereas the prevalence of ghost authorship was 11.9% in research articles, 6.0% in reviews, and 5.3% in editorials.ConclusionsEvidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.

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.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts.DesignMasked randomised trial. Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication.InterventionControl groupconventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines. Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale.ResultsOf 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)).ConclusionsAdditional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903).

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between biomedical researchers' collaborative and authorship practices and scientific success.DesignLongitudinal quantitative analysis of individual researchers' careers over a nine-year period.SettingA leading biomedical research institution in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsFive hundred and twenty-five biomedical researchers who were in employment on 31 December 2009.Main outcome measuresWe constructed the co-authorship network in which nodes are the researchers, and links are established between any two researchers if they co-authored one or more articles. For each researcher, we recorded the position held in the co-authorship network and in the bylines of all articles published in each three-year interval and calculated the number of citations these articles accrued until January 2013. We estimated maximum likelihood negative binomial panel regression models.ResultsOur analysis suggests that collaboration sustained success, yet excessive co-authorship did not. Last positions in non-alphabetised bylines were beneficial for higher academic ranks but not for junior ones. A professor could witness a 20.57% increase in the expected citation count if last-listed non-alphabetically in one additional publication; yet, a lecturer suffered from a 13.04% reduction. First positions in alphabetised bylines were positively associated with performance for junior academics only. A lecturer could experience a 8.78% increase in the expected citation count if first-listed alphabetically in one additional publication. While junior researchers amplified success when brokering among otherwise disconnected collaborators, senior researchers prospered from socially cohesive networks, rich in third-party relationships.ConclusionsThese results help biomedical scientists shape successful careers and research institutions develop effective assessment and recruitment policies that will ultimately sustain the quality of biomedical research and patient care.

Project description:BackgroundRobust statistical designing, sound statistical analysis, and standardized presentation are important to enhance the quality and transparency of biomedical research. This systematic review was conducted to summarize the statistical reporting requirements introduced by biomedical research journals with an impact factor of 10 or above so that researchers are able to give statistical issues' serious considerations not only at the stage of data analysis but also at the stage of methodological design.MethodsDetailed statistical instructions for authors were downloaded from the homepage of each of the included journals or obtained from the editors directly via email. Then, we described the types and numbers of statistical guidelines introduced by different press groups. Items of statistical reporting guideline as well as particular requirements were summarized in frequency, which were grouped into design, method of analysis, and presentation, respectively. Finally, updated statistical guidelines and particular requirements for improvement were summed up.ResultsTotally, 21 of 23 press groups introduced at least one statistical guideline. More than half of press groups can update their statistical instruction for authors gradually relative to issues of new statistical reporting guidelines. In addition, 16 press groups, covering 44 journals, address particular statistical requirements. The most of the particular requirements focused on the performance of statistical analysis and transparency in statistical reporting, including "address issues relevant to research design, including participant flow diagram, eligibility criteria, and sample size estimation," and "statistical methods and the reasons."ConclusionsStatistical requirements for authors are becoming increasingly perfected. Statistical requirements for authors remind researchers that they should make sufficient consideration not only in regards to statistical methods during the research design, but also standardized statistical reporting, which would be beneficial in providing stronger evidence and making a greater critical appraisal of evidence more accessible.