Analysis of gender representation on transfusion medicine journal editorial boards: Comparison between 2019 and 2022

Gender differences in scholarly productivity of early-career transfusion medicine physicians

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Promotion in academic medicine requires evidence of the creation and dissemination of scholarly output, primarily through peer-reviewed publications. Studies demonstrate that scholarly activity and impact are lower for women physicians than for men physicians, especially during the early stages of their academic careers. This report reviewed physicians' academic productivity after passing their Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine (BBTM) subspecialty exam to determine if gender discrepancies exist.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was designed to determine trends in scholarly activity for women physicians versus men physicians in BBTM. Indexed publications were reviewed using iCite, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis tool, from 1 January 2017 to 1 December 2021, for BBTM examinees who passed the sub-speciality fellowship exam in the years 2016 through 2018.

RESULTS

Overall, women physicians had statistically significant fewer total career publications (median 6 vs. 9 cumulative papers, p = 0.03). Women published at a lower rate after passing BBTM boards, which was not statistically significant (0.7 vs. 1.3 publications per year). Other statistically significant findings include fewer early-career BBTM women physicians were first authors compared with men physicians (p = 0.03) and impact as assessed by relative citation ratio was higher for men (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that there are gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact on early-career BBTM physicians. Given that this cohort of BBTM physicians are early-career professionals, the significant difference in first authorship publications between women and men physicians is especially concerning. Publication metrics should be followed to ensure equitable research environments for early-career BBTM physicians.

Representation of Authors by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Pathology Clinical Practice Guidelines

CONTEXT.—

United States' clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often produced by professional societies and used worldwide in daily medical practice. However, studies in various medical specialties demonstrate underrepresentation of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in CPGs. The representation of authors by gender, race, and ethnicity of US pathology CPGs has not been previously evaluated.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess if women and individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented as authors of pathology CPGs.

DESIGN.—

The gender, race, ethnicity, and terminal degrees of authors of 18 CPGs from the College of American Pathologists were coded by using photographs and other available information online and compared to their representation in academic pathology per Association of American Medical Colleges benchmark data.

RESULTS.—

Two hundred seventy-five author positions (202 physician author positions) were analyzed. Women overall (119 of 275; 43.3%) and women physicians (65 of 202; 32.2%) held fewer positions than all men and men physicians. Women physicians were significantly underrepresented in physician author positions, while White men physicians were significantly overrepresented in all, first, senior, and corresponding authorship roles when compared to the proportion of women and White men physicians among pathology faculty, respectively. Asian men and women physicians were underrepresented as compared to their representation among pathology faculty.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Men, particularly White men physicians, are overrepresented among pathology CPG author positions, while women physicians and some physicians from racial and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these findings on the careers of underrepresented physicians and the content of guidelines.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.