scispace - formally typeset
Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.019005

Gender Differences in Publication Authorship During COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis of High-Impact Cardiology Journals.

02 Mar 2021-Journal of the American Heart Association (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health))-Vol. 10, Iss: 5, pp 1-6
Abstract: Background The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in authorship of manuscripts in select high-impact cardiology journals during the early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods and Results All manuscripts published between March 1, 2019 to June 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 in 4 high-impact cardiology journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, JAMA Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) were identified using bibliometric data. Authors' genders were determined by matching first name with predicted gender using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io) and manual adjudication. Proportions of women and men first, co-first, senior, and co-senior authors, manuscript types, and whether the manuscript was COVID-19 related were recorded. In 2019, women were first authors of 176 (22.3%) manuscripts and senior authors of 99 (15.0%) manuscripts. In 2020, women first authored 230 (27.4%) manuscripts and senior authored 138 (19.3%) manuscripts. Proportions of woman first and senior authors were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019. Women were more likely to be first authors if the manuscript's senior author was a woman (33.8% for woman first/woman senior versus 23.4% for woman first/man senior; P<0.001). Women were less likely to be first authors of COVID-19-related original research manuscripts (P=0.04). Conclusions Representation of women as key authors of manuscripts published in major cardiovascular journals increased during the early COVID-19 pandemic compared with similar months in 2019. However, women were significantly less likely to be first authors of COVID-19-related original research manuscripts. Future investigation into the gender-disparate impacts of COVID-19 on academic careers is critical.

... read more

Citations
  More

9 results found


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0257919
20 Oct 2021-PLOS ONE
Abstract: During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.

... read more

6 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1136/BMJ.N2288
06 Oct 2021-BMJ
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 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.

... read more

Topics: Population (51%)

3 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.36660/IJCS.20210165
Abstract: SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, created a pandemic that not only overwhelmed the world in December 2019, but also challenged humanity in every way. While a significant portion of the global population remained in a standstill, waiting for an end and adapting to limits of all sorts, including working from home, a new workforce category emerged: the “frontline” workers. Doctors, nurses, and all allied professions employed by the healthcare system were joined by a long line of diverse service providers. The [...]

... read more

Topics: Workforce (51%)

1 Citations


Open accessPosted Content
Giovanni Colavizza1Institutions (1)
Abstract: COVID-19 is having a dramatic impact on research and researchers. The pandemic has underlined the severity of known challenges in research and surfaced new ones, but also accelerated the adoption of innovations and manifested new opportunities. This review considers early trends emerging from meta-research on COVID-19. In particular, it focuses on the following topics: i) mapping COVID-19 research; ii) data and machine learning; iii) research practices including open access and open data, reviewing, publishing and funding; iv) communicating research to the public; v) the impact of COVID-19 on researchers, in particular with respect to gender and career trajectories. This overview finds that most early meta-research on COVID-19 has been reactive and focused on short-term questions, while more recently a shift to consider the long-term consequences of COVID-19 is taking place. Based on these findings, the author speculates that some aspects of doing research during COVID-19 are more likely to persist than others. These include: the shift to virtual for academic events such as conferences; the use of openly accessible pre-prints; the `datafication' of scholarly literature and consequent broader adoption of machine learning in science communication; the public visibility of research and researchers on social and online media.

... read more

Topics: Science communication (54%), Open data (53%), Digital media (50%)

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2021.20642
02 Aug 2021-
Abstract: Importance As medical faculty have central roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study the pandemic’s association with the vitality and careers of medical school faculty. Objective To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected midcareer research faculty in academic medicine. Design, Setting, and Participants This qualitative study included medical school faculty who participated in the C-Change Mentoring and Leadership Institute. All US medical school faculty recipients of recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1, RO1-equivalent, and K awards were invited to apply to the institute. The 99 applicants who met inclusion criteria were stratified by degree (MD or MD/PhD vs PhD), gender, and race/ethnicity. Enrollment was offered to applicants randomly selected for 40 spots, demographically balanced by sex, underrepresented in medicine minority (URMM) status, and degree. In April 2020, an inquiry was emailed to faculty enrolled in the institute requesting responses to questions about meaning in work, career choice, and values. A qualitative analysis of narrative data responses, using grounded theory, was undertaken to determine key themes. This study is part of a NIH-funded randomized trial to test the efficacy of a group peer mentoring course for midcareer faculty and study the course’s mechanisms of action. Main Outcomes and Measures Key themes in data. Results Of 40 enrolled participants, 39 responded to the inquiry, for a response rate of 97%. The analytic sample included 39 faculty members; 19 (47%) were women, 20 (53%) identified as URMM, and 20 (53%) had an MD or MD with PhD vs 19 (47%) with PhD degrees. Key themes in the data that emerged describing faculty lived experience of the pandemic included increased meaningfulness of work; professionalism and moral responsibility; enhanced relationships with colleagues; reassertion of career choice; disrupted research; impact on clinical work; attention to health disparities, social justice and advocacy; increased family responsibilities; psychological stress; and focus on leadership. Conclusions and Relevance During the pandemic, diverse PhD and physician investigators reported increased meaningfulness in work and professionalism and enhanced relationships, all intrinsic motivators associated with vitality. Working during the pandemic appears to have produced intrinsic rewards positively associated with vitality, in addition to adverse mental health effects. These findings have implications for combatting burnout and retaining investigators in the future.

... read more

Topics: Peer mentoring (52%), Health equity (51%), Qualitative research (50%)

References
  More

9 results found


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1136/BMJ.I847
02 Mar 2016-BMJ
Abstract: Objective To examine changes in representation of women among first authors of original research published in high impact general medical journals from 1994 to 2014 and investigate differences between journals. Design Observational study. Study sample All original research articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine , Archives of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for one issue every alternate month from February 1994 to June 2014. Main exposures Time and journal of publication. Main outcome measures Prevalence of female first authorship and its adjusted association with time of publication and journal, assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model that accounted for number of authors, study type and specialty/topic, continent where the study was conducted, and the interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent. Estimates from this model were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios against the mean across the six journals, with 95% confidence intervals and P values to describe the associations of interest. Results The gender of the first author was determined for 3758 of the 3860 articles considered; 1273 (34%) were women. After adjustment, female first authorship increased significantly from 27% in 1994 to 37% in 2014 (P NEJM seemed to follow a different pattern, with female first authorship decreasing; it also seemed to decline in recent years in The BMJ but started substantially higher (approximately 40%), and The BMJ had the highest total proportion of female first authors. Compared with the mean across all six journals, first authors were significantly less likely to be female in the NEJM (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.89) and significantly more likely to be female in The BMJ (1.30, 1.01 to 1.66) over the study period. Conclusions The representation of women among first authors of original research in high impact general medical journals was significantly higher in 2014 than 20 years ago, but it has plateaued in recent years and has declined in some journals. These results, along with the significant differences seen between journals, suggest that underrepresentation of research by women in high impact journals is still an important concern. The underlying causes need to be investigated to help to identify practices and strategies to increase women’s influence on and contributions to the evidence that will determine future healthcare policies and standards of clinical practice.

... read more

261 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31412-4
18 Jun 2020-The Lancet
Topics: Betacoronavirus (57%), Pandemic (53%), Pneumonia (51%) ... read more

120 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1136/BMJGH-2020-002922
01 Jun 2020-BMJ Global Health
Abstract: ### Summary box Despite some progress over the last decade, gender inequalities persist in academic and research settings. Previous studies have shown that women have a lesser share of authorship positions overall and are less likely than men to be first or last author, the most relevant positions to career progression.1 The gap between total authorships for women and men has been stable in recent years, but has grown for senior authorships.2 With lockdowns enforced across the globe due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many researchers are now working from home and face competing demands from parenting, homeschooling and other caring duties. These roles are predominantly assumed by women, especially in countries with high gender inequality. Women’s representation in research generally, and specifically in the study of COVID-19, may be disproportionately affected by lockdown measures. Under-representation of female researchers tends to create under-representation of issues that are relevant to women in research — in our current situation this may create important gaps in our understanding of COVID-19. Therefore, we investigated whether gender differences existed in authorship of COVID-19 research since the onset of the pandemic. …

... read more

78 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1038/S41562-017-0235-X
Abstract: Gender and sex analysis is increasingly recognized as a key factor in creating better medical research and health care 1–7 . Using a sample of more than 1.5 million medical research papers, our study examined the potential link between women’s participation in medical science and attention to gender-related and sex-related factors in disease-specific research. Adjusting for variations across countries, disease topics and medical research areas, we compared the participation of women authors in studies that do and do not involve gender and sex analysis. Overall, our results show a robust positive correlation between women’s authorship and the likelihood of a study including gender and sex analysis. These findings corroborate discussions of how women’s participation in medical science links to research outcomes, and show the mutual benefits of promoting both the scientific advancement of women and the integration of gender and sex analysis into medical research. Nielsen and colleagues’ analysis of a large database of medical research papers shows a correlation between women’s authorship and the likelihood of a study including gender and sex analysis.

... read more

Topics: Gender diversity (60%), Women in science (51%)

77 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1001/JAMAINTERNMED.2019.0907
Kamber L. Hart1, Roy H. Perlis1Institutions (1)
Abstract: This study reviews all articles from 9 specialty and 4 cross-specialty medical journals across a 10-year period to assess trends in authorship, first authorship, and last authorship among women.

... read more

Topics: Specialty (51%), MEDLINE (50%)

30 Citations