The influence of first author sex on acceptance rates of submissions to Anaesthesia Cases

Women Authorship Trends in the Highest-Impact Anesthesiology Journals from 2005 to 2021

Background: Although women and men have matriculated into medical schools in similar proportions since the 1980s, recent data indicate that anesthesiology is lagging in gender equity, especially in academic leadership roles.^1,2 As promotion in academic medicine is strongly influenced by publications, understanding whether a lack of women authorship is contributing to this gender gap is crucial.^3,4 This article aims to assess how woman authorship trends have changed in the last 16 years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The five highest impact journals in anesthesia were identified as Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, PAIN, and Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. Number of total authors, including women, men, and unknown gender authors as well as incidence of woman first and/or last author, was documented from articles published in 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2021. Results: This analysis shows that women are gaining representation in anesthesia publications. Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in the total number of women authors and women first and last authorship. However, as of 2021, women still only represented ∼40% of total and first authors and ∼24% of last authors. In addition, increase in first/last woman authorship was not present in all journals when stratified. Conclusion: These journal differences may suggest the editorial evaluation process as a potential source of gender bias. There was a statistically significant relationship between women senior authors and articles with 50% or more women authors, indicating that woman mentorship is contributing to closing equity gap. These data present a starting point for further investigations into gender disparities within anesthesia to continue the forward progression for women in academic medicine.

Evaluating scientific research barriers by gender and other characteristics from the perspective of ophthalmologists in Turkey: A multicenter survey study

BACKGROUND/AIM

The ever-increasing population and life expectancy worldwide increase the prevalence of ophthalmic diseases, and the need for ophthalmic research expands accordingly. In our study, we aimed to evaluate many aspects of the barriers, especially gender disparities, confronting ophthalmologists who aspire to conduct scientific research (SR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this descriptive quantitative study, we distributed an online questionnaire to ophthalmologists in Turkey with 21 questions presented on a five-point Likert scale and two open-ended questions. The survey was prepared with Google forms. Participants were recruited via e-mail and social networks. A multicenter survey was conducted between January 29 and February 20, 2021, and a total of 210 valid responses were recorded.

RESULTS

Participants' responses were grouped into four types of barriers: motivation, time constraints, research support, and competence. Participants' motivation to conduct research was above average (3.54±0.96), but most stated that they have time constraints (3.74±0.97). Participants did not agree that there is adequate support for research (2.35±0.76), and they self assessed their level of the required competence to be average (2.87±1.08). Women were more motivated to do SR than men (p = 0.008), but there were no statistically significant differences between women and men in terms of time constraints, research support, and level of competence (p = 0.853, p = 0.482, and p = 0.558, respectively). Although there is no statistically significant difference between men and women regarding time constraints, female physicians mentioned more about the barriers arising from their personal responsibilities (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed that ophthalmologists are enthusiastic about doing SR but encounter obstacles with regard to time availability and research support. In addition, there is a need to reinforce competence in SR. Although female physicians are more motivated than men, they must deal with competing domestic responsibilities.

Analysis of Gender-Based Authorship Trends in Leading Pain-Medicine Journals Over 10 Years

Authorship of peer-reviewed publications is important for academic rank, promotion, and national reputation. In pain medicine, limited information is available for authorship trends for women as compared with men. The objective of this study was to describe trends of female authorship data in the 5 pain journals with the highest impact factors over a 10-year period. We analyzed data for January, April, and October in 2009, 2014, and 2019. For each article, the following information was recorded: journal name, journal month, journal year, article title or article PMCID, total authors, total female authors, total male authors, total authors of unknown gender, presence or absence of a female first author, and presence or absence of a female last/senior author. Authorship for 924 articles was reviewed. When a man was senior author, women were first author on only 27.9% of articles (P<.001). A woman was 2 times as likely (57.2%) to be first author when a woman was the senior author (P<.001), pointing to the potential impact of female senior authors. An article with 50% or more female authors was 76.4% more likely to have a female senior author (P<.001). The results demonstrate the influence of a senior female author on the likelihood of an article’s having a female first author. When men were the senior authors, women were half as likely to be first authors. The total number of female authors changed very little between 2009 and 2019.

The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers

The peer-reviewing process has long been regarded as an indispensable tool in ensuring the quality of a scientific publication. While previous studies have tried to understand the process as a whole, not much effort has been devoted to investigating the determinants and impacts of the content of the peer review itself. This study leverages open data from nearly 5,000 PeerJ publications that were eventually accepted. Using sentiment analysis, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling, mixed linear regression models, and logit regression models, we examine how the peer-reviewing process influences the acceptance timeline and contribution potential of manuscripts, and what modifications were typically made to manuscripts prior to publication. In an open review paradigm, our findings indicate that peer reviewers’ choice to reveal their names in lieu of remaining anonymous may be associated with more positive sentiment in their review, implying possible social pressure from name association. We also conduct a taxonomy of the manuscript modifications during a revision, studying the words added in response to peer reviewer feedback. This study provides insights into the content of peer reviews and the subsequent modifications authors make to their manuscripts.

Women Representation as First and Corresponding Authors in Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care Journals: A Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is limited literature on the representation of women in leading roles in neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care academia. We aimed to determine the representation of women as first and corresponding authors in articles published in 3 dedicated journals of neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care during last 5 years.

METHODS

Articles published in the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, Neurocritical Care, and Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020 were included in this study. The primary outcome was the proportion of women first authors, and secondary outcomes were the percentage of women corresponding authors, and representation of women as first and corresponding author by article type and country of affiliation.

RESULTS

Of the 1164 articles included in the study, 403 (34.6%) had a woman first author. Women first authorship was highest for Special Articles (5/11; 45.5%), Clinical Reports (44/113; 38.9%) and Narrative Review Articles (58/151; 38.4%) and lowest for Original Research Articles (198/597; 33.2%). Women accounted for 29.6% (344/1164) of corresponding authors across all article types. Overall, the United States and India had the highest representation of women first authors (159/403; 39.0% and 107/344; 31.0%, respectively), and India also had highest proportion of women corresponding authors (107/272; 39.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women were underrepresented compared with men as first author of articles published in 3 dedicated neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care journals over the last 5 years. Women had the lowest representation as authors of Original Research Articles.