Gender representation in editorial boards of international general surgery journals

Gender Inequality in Leadership Positions in Neurology and Neurosurgery Journals and Societies

OBJECTIVE

Gender inequalities persist in several areas of medicine, despite the growing number of female doctors and medical students. In this study, we aimed to reveal the gender inequality in the top journals' editorial boards and national societies' leadership positions in the field of neurology and neurosurgery.

METHOD

This is a cross-sectional study that uses public information accessed through the internet via journals' and academic societies' public websites. The medical journals are selected and included according to their h5-index in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. We evaluated the gender composition of the editorial boards and academic societies' leadership positions.

RESULTS

The female editorial board member ratio was 44.0% in the top 10 neurology journals. However, this ratio was significantly decreased to 29.7% in the other journals(P < 0.001). The top 10 neurosurgery journals had a female editorial board member ratio of 13.7%. This ratio was significantly decreased to 5.3% in the other 10 journals with lower h5-index(P < 0.001). A significantly lower number of female individuals are present in the editorial boards of the neurosurgery journals than in neurology(P < 0.001). The female president or delegate ratio was 19.3% in the World Federation of Neurology-affiliated countries, and it was 4% in the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies-affiliated countries.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there is a significant gender inequality among editorial board members. The position of neurosurgical societies and journals is far different than the field of neurology. Furthermore, these findings should be evaluated as a continuum of the gender inequality in the professional societies' executive boards and delegates representing the national academical community.

Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors

The fairness of decisions made at various stages of the publication process is an important topic in meta-research. Here, based on an analysis of data on the gender of authors, editors and reviewers for 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions to the journal eLife, we report on five stages of the publication process. We find that the board of reviewing editors (BRE) is men-dominant (69%) and that authors disproportionately suggest male editors when making an initial submission. We do not find evidence for gender bias when Senior Editors consult Reviewing Editors about initial submissions, but women Reviewing Editors are less engaged in discussions about these submissions than expected by their proportion. We find evidence of gender homophily when Senior Editors assign full submissions to Reviewing Editors (i.e., men are more likely to assign full submissions to other men (77% compared to the base assignment rate to men RE of 70%), and likewise for women (41% compared to women RE base assignment rate of 30%))). This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. However, we do not find evidence for gender bias when authors appeal decisions made by editors to reject submissions. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias. Measures accounting for women's circumstances and needs (e.g., delaying discussions until all RE are engaged) and raising editorial awareness to women's needs may be essential to increasing gender equity and enhancing academic publication.

The History of Women Leaders in Colon and Rectal Surgery

Women started to enter the specialty of colon and rectal surgery in the early 1970s. However, it was rare for a woman to hold a leadership position in the specialty before 2000. Since then, considerable progress has been made, although the percentage of women leaders does not yet approach the percentage of women in the field. This article focuses on the history of women in leadership positions in the American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Research Foundation, and the Association of Program Directors in Colon and Rectal Surgery as well the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum and academic departments. Early women leaders shared some common attributes that have contributed to their success. This article reviews some barriers to increasing the number of women in leadership positions; most will be reviewed in other sections in this issue.

Women Representation on Editorial Boards in Latin America Journals: Promoting Gender Equity in Academic Surgery, Anesthesia, and Obstetrics

BACKGROUND

Inequitable representation in journal editorial boards may impact women's career progression across surgical, anesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) specialties. However, data from Latin America are lacking. We evaluated women's representation on editorial boards of Latin America SAO journals in 2021.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis, retrieving journals through Scimago Journal and Country Rank 2020. Journals were included if active, focused on SAO topics, and publicly provided information on editorial board staff. Editorial board member names and positions were extracted from journals' websites. Members were classified into senior (e.g., editor-in-chief), academic (e.g., reviewer), and non-academic roles (e.g., administrative office). Women's representation was predicted from first names using Genderize.io. The number of women SAO physicians per country was obtained from articles and governmental reports.

RESULTS

We included 19 of 25 identified journals and analyzed 1,318 names. Three anesthesiology, seven obstetric, and nine surgical journals represented five Latin American countries. Women held 17% (224/1,318) of board positions [p < 0.0001; 95% CI(0.14, 0.19)]. Women held fewer academic roles (14.3%, 155/1,084) compared to senior [28.9%, 64/221 (p < 0.001)] and non-academic roles [38.4%, 5/13 (p = 0.042)]. Surgical journals had fewer women (7.7%, 58/752) compared to anesthesia [25.5%, 52/204 (p = 0.006)] and obstetrics [31.5%, 114/362 (p < 0.001)]. Women's proportion on editorial boards increased according to the number of women SAO physicians per country (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study assessed the composition of editorial boards from Latin America SAO journals and demonstrated that women remain underrepresented. Our findings highlight the need for regional strategies to advance women's careers across SAO specialties.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Global Health Journals

Journals have been described as “duty bearers” of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored “excellent” on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards.

Gender Composition in Occupational Therapy Journals' Editorial Boards

This paper analyses the Editorial Board (EB) distribution of Occupational Therapy journals from a gender perspective. The "Occupational Therapy" field in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) and the "Occupational Therapy" term in the title search of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) were used to find the Occupational Therapy-specific journals. The following indicators were calculated: Editorial Board Member (EBM) gender distribution by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, and journal quartile. Thirty-seven journals were located, including 667 individuals, 206 males (31%) and 461 females (69%). Referring to the EB positions, most members (557) were EB members, 70 were listed as Associate Editors, and 20 as Editorial Leaders. The results show that the proportion of women in the EB's of Occupational Therapy journals represents a majority. Regarding the distribution by gender of the EBMs, six journals had a female proportion below the cut-off point revealed in this study (69%). Four did not reach parity, with female representation below 50%. Additionally, the balance among the EBMs is significantly underrepresented compared to the percentage of female Occupational Therapy practitioners.

The persistent publication glass ceiling: an analysis of gender authorship trends in ANZ Journal of Surgery

BACKGROUND

women historically have been underrepresented in the field of academic publishing. This study aims to analyse ANZJS gender authorship trends and compare this to the proportion of women in surgery in Australia/NZ using RACS demographic data to provide parity context.

METHODS

This is a bibliographic gender analysis of ANZJS publications from 2002 to 2021; articles were analysed using a web-based application classifying gender from names.

RESULTS

There were 7265 articles analysed. Gender was predicted for 87% (6303/7265) first-, 89% (5847/6439) last- and 98% (323/329) editorial first-authors. There were 1269/6303 (20%) women first-authors, this increased from 14% to 27% (p = 0.001) over time. Eleven percent (654/5847) of last-authors were women, this proportion remained unchanged (p = 0.09). Eleven (3%) editorials were first-authored by women, with 3/329 (1%) as solo-author.

CONCLUSION

Numbers of women authors remain low in ANZJS, although the percentage of women first-authors has increased over time. However, if being last-author serves as a measure of senior academic supervision, and, editorial authorship shows leadership in one's field, women authors in these positions, in ANZJS, represent a small minority.

Gender Disparities Among Editorial Boards of International Urology Journals

BACKGROUND

Gender composition among surgical academic leadership, including academic medical journals, disproportionately favors men and may inadvertently introduce a bias. An understanding of the factors associated with gender representation among urologic journals may aid in prioritizing an equitable balance.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate female representation on editorial boards of pre-eminent international urologic journals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The names and position descriptions of urologic journal leadership appointees were collected in October 2021. Gender was assessed using gender-api.com or through personal title, as available. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to describe associations between SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) quartile and geographic region with female gender representation. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 the bottom quartile concordant with journal impact factor.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 105 urology-focused journals were identified with 5989 total editorial board members, including 877 (14.6%) female, 5112 (85.4%) male, and two nonbinary persons. Female representation differed significantly by journal leadership position, SJR quartile, and geographic region. On the multivariate analysis of overall female representation, Q1 journals had higher odds of female representation than Q2 and Q3 journals, and had no significant difference from Q4 journals. Additionally, compared with Western Europe, North American journals had 78% higher odds while Asiatic journals had 50% lower odds of female representation. This study is limited by the inability to account for outside factors that lead to invitation or acceptance of journal leadership positions.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary female leadership at urology journals is about six times less common than male leadership across all journals, although trends in their proportion were noted when assessed by journal quartile and region. Addressing this gender imbalance represents an important step toward achieving gender equity in the field of urology.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we looked at the gender balance of academic journal leaders who serve as gatekeepers for sharing urologic research with the public. We found that the most prestigious journals and those in western countries tended to have the highest female representation. We hope that these findings help the academic community recognize and improve gender representation.

Recent Updates to CSE Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications: 7 Ways to Integrate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Into Scholarly Publishing

The Council of Science Editors' (CSE) Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications was first published in 2006, and the full document was updated in 2009 and again in 2012. In 2018, the CSE Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) began making updates on a rolling basis as new sections were added or existing sections updated to reflect new information or best practices. This updated method for amending the document allows for more rapid dissemination of its contents so that recommendations can be quickly put into practice in journal operations. In this column, the reader is advised of a recent update that provides guidance on the importance of advancing best practices in scholarly publishing. Content in this update, while condensed, was taken largely verbatim from the CSE's Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. However, readers are encouraged to visit the full set of Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications at https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/publication-ethics/.

Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

There are growing bodies of evidence demonstrating the benefits of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) on academic and organizational excellence. In turn, some editors have stated their desire to improve the EDI of their journals and of the wider scientific community. The Royal Society of Chemistry established a minimum set of requirements aimed at improving EDI in scholarly publishing. Additionally, several resources were reported to have the potential to improve EDI, but their effectiveness and feasibility are yet to be determined. In this commentary we suggest six approaches, based on the Royal Society of Chemistry set of requirements, that journals could implement to improve EDI. They are: (1) adopt a journal EDI statement with clear, actionable steps to achieve it; (2) promote the use of inclusive and bias-free language; (3) appoint a journal’s EDI director or lead; (4) establish a EDI mentoring approach; (5) monitor adherence to EDI principles; and (6) publish reports on EDI actions and achievements. We also provide examples of journals that have implemented some of these strategies, and discuss the roles of peer reviewers, authors, researchers, academic institutes, and funders in improving EDI.

Harassment in surgery: line in the sand

Over the last few years, the #MeToo movement has brought attention to the long-standing culture of abuse in hierarchical organisations, and surgery is no exception. Harassment and abuse of any form should cease to be tolerated. This moment needs to be a line in the sand, the stimulus for change in our community and wider society.

Gender Distribution of First and Senior Authorship Across Most Cited Studies Within the Top Ten Surgical Journals From 2015-2020: Cementing Women Academic Surgery Representation

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to investigate the gender distribution of first and senior authors in the most highly cited original research studies published in the top 10 surgical journals from 2015 to 2020 to identify disparities and changes over time.

METHODS

A retrospective study analyzing the gender distribution of first and senior authors in the top 10 most cited studies from the top 10 surgical journals from 2015 to 2020. The genders of the first and senior authors of each study were assessed using National Provider Identifier (NPI) numbers or pronouns from institutional biographies or news articles.

RESULTS

The genders of 1200 first and senior authors from 600 original research studies were assessed. First author gender distribution consisted of 71.8% men, 22.3% women, 0% non-binary, and 5.8% unknown. Senior author gender distribution was 82.3% men, 14.3% women, 0% non-binary, and 3.3% unknown. Studies published by first authors who are women received more citations than those published by first authors that are men in 2015 (169.1 versus 112.9, P = 0.002) and 2016 (144.2 versus 101.5, P = 0.011). There was an increase in first authorship among men from 2015 to 2020 (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Men represent a significantly higher proportion of both first and senior authorships in top surgical research and the gap has widened from 2015 to 2020. However, studies written by women first authors received significantly more citations than those written by men.

Representation of Women on Editorial Boards of Medline-Indexed Spine, Neurosurgery, and Orthopedic Journals

BACKGROUND

Both neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery are male-dominated specialties. However, the prevalence of women appears to be even lower in the spine surgery field. We intend to determine this prevalence on the editorial boards of spine, neurosurgery, and orthopedic journals.

METHODS

The gender of editorial board members of Medline-indexed spine, neurosurgery, and orthopedic journals was systematically analyzed in 2019, and female representation was compared among these fields.

RESULTS

In the 34 journals included (5 spine, 13 neurosurgery, and 16 orthopedic journals), women represented 8.84% (N = 185/2094) of editorial board members. Their representation was 5.53% (N = 30/542) in spine, 8.58% (N = 47/548) in neurosurgery, and 10.77 % (108/1003) in orthopedic journals. Only 5.4% (N = 2/37) of the editors-in-chief were women. The likelihood of having female members was higher in orthopedic than in spine journals (OR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.35-3.13; P = 0.001). Neurosurgery journals did not show a significant greater likelihood of having female editorial board members than spine journals (OR = 1.60; 95% CI = 0.99-2.57; P = 0.058).

CONCLUSIONS

The representation of women on editorial boards of spine, neurosurgery, and orthopedic journals is very low and appears to be even lower for spine surgery. However, it is still not understood whether or not women are barred from advancing in academics by gender bias within these specialties.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Representation of women in editorial boards of infectious disease and microbiology journals - Cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess whether there is an association between the proportion of women editors-in-chief and members of editorial boards in infectious disease (ID) and microbiology journals.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional observational study included ID or microbiology journals according to the 2019 Clarivate Journal Citation Reports. Journals' Q ranking, open-access status, number and gender of editors-in-chief and editorial board members were collected from the journals' official websites. We conducted binary gender assignment for each editor using names, pictures, and other online descriptors. Journals with over 100 editorial board members and those with over 25% of board members for which we could not determine the gender, were excluded. Editorial teams with > 50% women were considered women dominant. Univariate and multivariable analyses for women editor dominance were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 167 journals were included, with total 6057 editorial members, 1655 (28%) women. Of 214 editors-in-chief, 48 (22%) were women, and only 25% (40/162) of journals had women dominant editor-in-chief personnel. Factors associates with women editor-in-chief dominance in univariate analysis were higher quartile rank, higher impact factor, and open access. Open access journals remined significant in multivariable analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.521, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.140-5.576, p=0.022). Larger editorial boards were less likely to have women dominance. Women editor-in-chief dominance was significantly associated with women-dominant editorial board.

CONCLUSIONS

ID and microbiology journals have significantly few women editors-in-chief and editorial board members. Understanding the reasons for this inequality is required as an important step to confront and resolve it.

Where are female editors from low-income and middle-income countries? A comprehensive assessment of gender, geographical distribution and country’s income group of editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals

Objective

We aimed to examine the gender, geographical region and income group of the country of affiliation for editorial leadership (eg, editor-in-chief, section editor, associate editor) and advisors (eg, editorial board members) in top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals.

Methods

A list of Scopus indexed, Q1 (25% top) rehabilitation and sports science journals, available under four different journal categories, was prepared based on the data from the Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) website. The information for editorial leadership and advisors for these journals was obtained and their gender was determined through a multistep process. The country of affiliation of editorial leadership and advisors was used to categorise them to World Bank’s different geographical regions and income groups (for countries).

Results

There were 7248 editors (35.7% leadership and 64.3% advisors) across 113 rehabilitation and sports science journals. Of all editors, 1792 (24.7%) were women. Women represented 24.5% of editorial leadership positions, 24.8% of advisory roles and 10.4% of editors-in-chief. Editors from South Asia (0.5%) and sub-Saharan Africa (0.6%) had the least representation, while those affiliated with institutions from high-income countries represented 93.5% of leadership roles and 93.1% of advisory positions. Moreover, editors affiliated with institutions from North America occupied almost half of all editorial roles.

Conclusions

Women and researchers affiliated with institutions from low-income and middle-income countries are under-represented on the editorial boards of top-ranked rehabilitation and sports science journals indexed in the Scopus database. Editors are responsible for promoting research in their specific field, and therefore, the current leadership in rehabilitation and sports science journals should consider diversifying their editorial boards by providing equitable opportunities to women and researchers from a broader geographical distribution.