Gender Disparities in Invited Commentary Authorship in 2459 Medical Journals

JAMA Network Open

Volumn 2, Issue 10, 2019, Pages

  Thomas, Emma G ^a   Jayabalasingham, Bamini ^b   Collins, Tom ^b   Geertzen, Jeroen ^b   Bui, Chinh ^b   Dominici, Francesca ^a,c  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b ELSEVIER MASSON   (France)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EDITOR; ENGLISH (LANGUAGE); FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; SCOPUS; SEX DIFFERENCE; WRITING; BIBLIOMETRICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PUBLICATION; SEX RATIO;

AUTHORSHIP; BIBLIOMETRICS; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL WRITING; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SEX DISTRIBUTION; WOMEN, WORKING;

EID: 85073714841     PISSN: None     EISSN: 25743805     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13682     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS One. 2013; 8 (7):
2. Zeng XHT, Duch J, Sales-Pardo M, Differences in collaboration patterns across discipline, career stage, and gender. PLoS Biol. 2016; 14 (11):
3. Ahmadi M, Khurshid K, Sanelli PC, Influences for gender disparity in academic neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018; 39 (1): 18-23. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5443 29191872
4. Chauvin S, Mulsant BH, Sockalingam S, Stergiopoulos V, Taylor VH, Vigod SN. Gender differences in research productivity among academic psychiatrists in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2019; 64 (6): 415-422. doi: 10.1177/0706743718802798 30616409
5. Diamond SJ, Thomas CR Jr, Desai S, Gender differences in publication productivity, academic rank, and career duration among US academic gastroenterology faculty. Acad Med. 2016; 91 (8): 1158-1163. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001219 27144993
6. Mayer EN, Lenherr SM, Hanson HA, Jessop TC, Lowrance WT. Gender differences in publication productivity among academic urologists in the United States. Urology. 2017; 103: 39-46. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.064 28232174
7. Nguyen V, Marmor RA, Ramamoorthy SL, Blair SL, Clary BM, Sicklick JK. Academic surgical oncologists' productivity correlates with gender, grant funding, and institutional NCI comprehensive cancer center affiliation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25 (7): 1852-1859. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6450-5 29600347
8. Pfeiffer M, Fischer MR, Bauer D. Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: Which factors impact impact factors? BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16 (1): 190. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0712-3 27456010
9. Hsiehchen D, Hsieh A, Espinoza M. Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2 (5): E195000-e195000. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.5000 31150085
10. Holman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser CE. The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biol. 2018; 16 (4):
11. Bendels MHK, Dietz MC, Brüggmann D, Oremek GM, Schöffel N, Groneberg DA. Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: A descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships. BMJ Open. 2018; 8 (4):
12. Bendels MHK, Müller R, Brueggmann D, Groneberg DA. Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals. PLoS One. 2018; 13 (1):
13. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife. 2017; 6:
14. Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, Pollock BD, Smith EB, Martinez MA-M. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: Observational study (1994-2014). BMJ. 2016; 352: I847. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i847 26935100
15. Lerback J, Hanson B. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature. 2017; 541 (7638): 455-457. doi: 10.1038/541455a 28128272
16. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; 504 (7479): 211-213. doi: 10.1038/504211a 24350369
17. Ioannidou E, Rosania A. Under-representation of women on dental journal editorial boards. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (1):
18. Topaz CM, Sen S. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (8):
19. Buckley HL, Sciligo AR, Adair KL, Case BS, Monks JM. Is there gender bias in reviewer selection and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology ? N Z J Ecol. 2014; 38 (2): 335-339.
20. Edwards HA, Schroeder J, Dugdale HL. Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal. PLoS One. 2018; 13 (8):
21. Fox CW, Burns CS, Muncy AD, Meyer JA. Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Funct Ecol. 2016; 30 (1): 126-139. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12587
22. Heckenberg A, Druml C. Gender aspects in medical publication: The Wiener klinische Wochenschrift. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2010; 122 (5-6): 141-145. doi: 10.1007/s00508-010-1302-8 20361376
23. Lane J, Linden DJ. Is there gender bias in the peer review process at Journal of Neurophysiology ? J Neurophysiol. 2009; 101 (5). doi: 10.1152/jn.00196.2009
24. Primack RB, Ellwood E, Miller-Rushing AJ, Marrs R, Mulligan A. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions: An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biol Conserv. 2009; 142 (11): 2415-2418. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.021
25. Berg J. Examining author gender data. Science. 2019; 363 (6422): 7. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw4633 30606820
26. Murray D, Siler K, Larivière V, Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review. Preprint. Posted online August 29, 2019. bioRxiv:
27. Conley D, Stadmark J. Gender matters: A call to commission more women writers. Nature. 2012; 488 (7413): 590. doi: 10.1038/488590a 22932370
28. Süßenbacher S, Amering M, Gmeiner A, Schrank B. Gender-gaps and glass ceilings: A survey of gender-specific publication trends in Psychiatry between 1994 and 2014. Eur Psychiatry. 2017; 44: 90-95. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.03.008 28550785
29. Qureshi R, Lê J, Li T, Ibrahim M, Dickersin K. Gender and editorial authorship in high impact epidemiology journals [published online April 17, 2019]. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz094 30995311
30. Silver JK, Poorman JA, Reilly JM, Spector ND, Goldstein R, Zafonte RD. Assessment of women physicians among authors of perspective-type articles published in high-impact pediatric journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2018; 1 (3): E180802-e180802. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0802 30646033
31. Carr PL, Raj A, Kaplan SE, Terrin N, Breeze JL, Freund KM. Gender differences in academic medicine: Retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the National Faculty Survey. Acad Med. 2018; 93 (11): 1694-1699. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002146 29384751
32. Elsevier. What is Scopus Preview? https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a-id/15534/supporthub/scopus/#tips. Accessed March 25, 2019.
33. Harzing A-W, Alakangas S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics. 2016; 106 (2): 787-804. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
34. genderize.io. Determine the gender of a first name. https://genderize.io/. Accessed March 28, 2019.
35. La Gamba F, Corrao G, Romio S, Combining evidence from multiple electronic health care databases: Performances of one-stage and two-stage meta-analysis in matched case-control studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017; 26 (10): 1213-1219. doi: 10.1002/pds.4280 28799196
36. Data set for investigation of gender disparities in invited commentary authorship for medical journals. https://github.com/emgthomas/gender-and-invited-commentaries. Accessed September 9, 2019.
37. Westring A, McDonald JM, Carr P, Grisso JA. An integrated framework for gender equity in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2016; 91 (8): 1041-1044. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001275 27276008
38. Ellinas EH, Kaljo K, Patitucci TN, Novalija J, Byars-Winston A, Fouad NA. No room to "lean in": A qualitative study on gendered barriers to promotion and leadership. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019; 28 (3): 393-402. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7252 30481114
39. Babcock L, Recalde MP, Vesterlund L, Weingart L. Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. Am Econ Rev. 2017; 107 (3): 714-747. doi: 10.1257/aer.20141734
40. Guarino CM, Borden VM. Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Res High Educ. 2017; 58 (6): 672-694. doi: 10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2
41. Gupta N, Kemelgor C, Fuchs S, Etzkowitz H. The "Triple Burden": A cross-cultural analysis of the consequences of discrimination for women in science. Curr Sci. 2004; 89 (8): 1382-1386.
42. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109 (41): 16474-16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 22988126
43. Quadlin N. The mark of a woman's record: Gender and academic performance in hiring. Am Sociol Rev. 2018; 83 (2): 331-360. doi: 10.1177/0003122418762291
44. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, Huge M. The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci Commun. 2013; 35 (5): 603-625. doi: 10.1177/1075547012472684
45. Krawczyk M, Smyk M. Author's gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment. Eur Econ Rev. 2016; 90: 326-335. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.02.017
46. Hengel E. Two Essays on Bankruptcy and One Essay on Gender Differences in Academic Publishing [doctoral thesis]. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge; 2015.
47. Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968; 159 (3810): 56-63. doi: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56
48. Bol T, de Vaan M, van de Rijt A. The Matthew effect in science funding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018; 115 (19): 4887-4890. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115 29686094
49. Rossiter MW. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci. 1993; 23 (2): 325-341. doi: 10.1177/030631293023002004
50. Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O. The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Res Policy. 2018; 47 (6): 1007-1017. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.009
51. Santamariá L, Mihaljević H. Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2018; 4:
52. Zhang C, Bu Y, Ding Y, Xu J. Understanding scientific collaboration: Homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2018; 69 (1): 72-86. doi: 10.1002/asi.23916
53. Bates C, Gordon L, Travis E, Striving for gender equity in academic medicine careers: A call to action. Acad Med. 2016; 91 (8): 1050-1052. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001283 27332868
54. Zou J, Schiebinger L. AI can be sexist and racist: It's time to make it fair. Nature. 2018; 559 (7714): 324-326. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05707-8 30018439