Predictors of Academic Career Trajectory Among Fellowship-Trained Neurosurgical Oncologists

Neuro-oncology authorship trends in gender since 1944: a systematic review of 14,020 articles from five top-tier academic journals

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to compare authorship trends, by gender, in the neurosurgical oncology literature.

METHODS

Complete author listings for neurosurgical oncology articles published between 1944 and 2021 in five top neuro-oncology journals were extracted from the PubMed database and journal websites on December 2, 2021. Author gender was characterized with the web application programming interface (API) genderize.io. The statistical significance (p < 0.05) of time-, journal-, and gender-based differences was determined by independent-samples t-test, chi-square test, and/or Fisher’s exact test.

RESULTS

A total of 14,020 articles were written by 67,115 unique authors occupying 97,418 authorship spots. The gender for 80,030 authorship positions (82.2%) was successfully characterized. Male authors were significantly more likely than the female authors to have a first-author publication, have a last-author publication, and have authored multiple articles within the data set. Among authors who published in multiple different years (n = 11,532), women had a shorter time window of publishing (5.46 vs 6.75 years between first and last publication: mean difference [MD] 1.28 [95% CI 1.06–1.50] years, p < 0.001). During this window, however, they were slightly more productive than the men, based on the mean number of publications per year (1.06 vs 1.01 articles: MD 0.05 [95% CI 0.02–0.09] articles, p = 0.002). The percentage of female authors on each neuro-oncology research team has increased by 3.3% (95% CI 2.6%–3.9%) per decade to a mean of 26.5% in the 2020s. Having a female last author was positively associated with having a female first author (OR 2.57 [95% CI 2.29–2.89]) and a higher proportion of women on the research team overall. The percentages of female first and last authors increased at significantly higher rates in medically oriented journals than in surgically oriented journals (first authors: 0.72% [95% CI 0.58%–0.87%] vs 0.36% [95% CI 0.30%–0.42%] per year, p < 0.001; and last authors: 0.50% [95% CI 0.38%–0.62%] vs −0.03% [95% CI −0.10% to 0.05%] per year, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Female authorship in top neuro-oncology journals has increased since the 1940s, with female-led teams showing greater gender diversity. However, female researchers lag behind their male counterparts in quantity of published research and are less likely to hold first or last authorship positions. This difference is more pronounced in the three neurosurgical oncology journals than in the two medical neuro-oncology journals, which may reflect the relatively low female representation in neurosurgery relative to medical oncology. Collectively, these trends have meaningful implications for career advancement, which is often dependent on academic productivity.

Analyzing international medical graduate research productivity for application to US neurosurgery residency and beyond: A survey of applicants, program directors, and institutional experience

Background

The authors investigated perceived discrepancies between the neurosurgical research productivity of international medical graduates (IMGs) and US medical graduates (USMGs) through the perspective of program directors (PDs) and successfully matched IMGs.

Methods

Responses to 2 separate surveys on neurosurgical applicant research productivity in 115 neurosurgical programs and their PDs were analyzed. Neurosurgical research participation was analyzed using an IMG survey of residents who matched into neurosurgical residency within the previous 8 years. Productivity of IMGs conducting dedicated research at the study institution was also analyzed.

Results

Thirty-two of 115 (28%) PDs responded to the first research productivity survey and 43 (37%) to the second IMG research survey. PDs expected neurosurgery residency applicants to spend a median of 12–24 months on research (Q₁-Q₃: 0–12 to 12–24; minimum time: 0–24; maximum time: 0–48) and publish a median of 5 articles (Q₁-Q3: 2–5 to 5–10; minimum number: 0–10; maximum number: 4–20). Among 43 PDs, 34 (79%) ranked “research institution or associated personnel” as the most important factor when evaluating IMGs' research. Forty-two of 79 (53%) IMGs responding to the IMG-directed survey reported a median of 30 months (Q₁-Q₃: 18–48; range: 4–72) of neurosurgical research and 12 published articles (Q₁-Q₃: 6–24; range: 1–80) before beginning neurosurgical residency. Twenty-two PDs (69%) believed IMGs complete more research than USMGs before residency. Of 20 IMGs conducting dedicated neuroscience/neurosurgery research at the study institution, 16 of 18 who applied matched or entered a US neurosurgical training program; 2 applied and entered a US neurosurgical clinical fellowship.

Conclusion

The research work of IMGs compared to USMGs who apply to neurosurgery residency exceeds PDs' expectations regarding scientific output and research time. Many PDs perceive IMG research productivity before residency application as superior to USMGs. Although IMGs comprise a small percentage of trainees, they are responsible for a significant amount of US-published neurosurgical literature. Preresidency IMG research periods may be improved with dedicated mentoring and advising beginning before the research period, during the period, and within a neurosurgery research department, providing a formal structure such as a research fellowship or graduate program for IMGs aspiring to train in the US.