Nobles et al. Respond to Commentaries on Representation by Gender and Affiliation in Key Presentation Formats at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research

Invited Commentary: The Society for Epidemiologic Research Annual Meeting-Room to Improve Gender Equity

The annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research is a prominent showcase for epidemiologists to present their research and share their expertise with peers. There are multiple paths to being on a podium at the meeting, and that role has implications for not only the speaker but also the audience. The article by Nobles et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1710-1720) represents an innovative investigation of representation among speakers at 3 recent SER annual meetings, with a primary focus on gender. Women were significantly under-represented as symposium speakers, which is an important role at the meeting. Symposium talks are invited talks and thus recognition of stature in the field. However, women were not under-represented as speakers in the concurrent contributed sessions, which are not invited talks and undergo blinded peer review. This gender contrast between the speakers at concurrent contributed sessions and the symposia is likely due to the different submission processes for the 2 types of presentations, but it could also reflect the review processes. Although the symposia are highly informative and enjoyable components of the meetings, some modifications in the submission and evaluation processes may be beneficial.

Invited Commentary: The Society for Epidemiologic Research-Striving for Equity in Our Own Backyard

Using a bibliometric approach, Nobles et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1710-1720) conducted a study to explore dimensions of participation at the annual meetings of the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER). Their findings suggested differences in representation by gender and affiliation in key presentation formats, which raises concerns about possible equity issues within the organization. In this commentary, I discuss the context, limitations, and strengths of the study, as well as reflections on interpretation and implications of the findings. Suggested next steps include: continuing the conversation; evaluating SER processes and making needed adjustments with equity in mind; and conducting ongoing surveillance and further research. Nobles et al. have provided a baseline for monitoring trends, as well as a starting point for future research efforts that should aim to refine methodologic aspects of the current study to obtain a more complete range of information. Although firm conclusions about possible determinants cannot be made at this time, the work of Nobles et al. can be expected to raise awareness of equity issues among SER members and the broader epidemiology community.