Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Abstract

Importance: The inclusion of authors from diverse backgrounds and with different lived experiences is critical to ensuring the questions addressed in systematic reviews (SRs), as well as the subsequent conclusions and recommendations made, are representative of the global community. Objective: To assess the gender and geographic diversity of authors among all Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision as compared with a random sample of non-Cochrane SRs of interventions in the field of eyes and vision. Design: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite maintains a database of SRs in the field of eyes and vision. We selected all (n = 313) eyes and vision intervention SRs published in The Cochrane Library and a random sample of 313 eyes and vision intervention SRs published elsewhere for this study. We determined gender of the first and corresponding authors ("woman," "man," or "unknown") using a previously developed algorithm and their location based on institution country and the World Health Organization region. Results: From the 626 reviews included in our sample, we identified 751 unique authors who comprised 887 author positions (i.e., first and/or corresponding authors). We were able to ascertain the gender of 647/751 (86%) authors: 276 women and 371 men. Among Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the proportions of women in first and/or corresponding author positions were consistent and approximately equal to men. Among non-Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the representation of women was markedly lower as corresponding authors than other positions. Most authors of Cochrane eyes and vision SRs were from the UK (31%) and USA (26%), whereas most authors of non-Cochrane SRs were from China (34%). Conclusions and relevance: Compared with authors of non-Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision, authors of Cochrane SRs appear to have approximately equal representation of women and men among perceived important author positions and be located in European and North American countries, possibly due to the locations of the Cochrane editorial teams. Cochrane Eyes and Vision should continue to recruit authors from around the world in locations that reflect the global burden of eye disease.

Global Research on Coronaviruses: Metadata-Based Analysis for Public Health Policies

“…Again, we can see a high level of collaboration and knowledge transfer. In further research, scholars could also perform the analyses with EDI in mind and use the metadata to have a metric of potential EDI metric imbalances [ 35 ]. This can be particularly useful in order to correct these imbalances.…”

Ethically Driven and Methodologically Tailored: Setting the Agenda for Systematic Reviews in Domestic Violence and Abuse

“…These backgrounds were openly discussed within the team but there was limited discussion about the role played by our experiences or knowledge in shaping the review. There are attempts to begin to examine the diversity of review teams and the role of authors’ demographics in influencing research questions and processes (Qureshi et al, 2020 ). Reflexivity is a necessary strategy to consider how familiarity/ experience influences the researcher (Berger, 2015 ) and is critical for collaborative DVA research (Linabary et al, 2021 ).…”

Lack of Gender Diversity Among Systematic Reviews Authors in the Urological Literature (1998-2021)

“…The algorithm we employed to determine gender has been tested and found reliable in previous studies. 6,11 Thanks to a rigorous methodological approach that included pilot testing of the data abstraction form, the discordance in the abstracted data was low at 5%. 6 As with all studies, ours is not without limitations.…”

“…6,11 Thanks to a rigorous methodological approach that included pilot testing of the data abstraction form, the discordance in the abstracted data was low at 5%. 6 As with all studies, ours is not without limitations. First, there was a relatively high percentage of authors where the gender could not be determined (10.3%).…”

“…1,2 Gender disparities in authorship in the fields of science and medicine are well established, with gender gaps seen in authorship of submissions to high-impact journals, to systematic reviews, and to invited commentaries (26.6%-41.7%). [3][4][5][6] When categorizing by authorship positions such as first and senior (last) author, the percentage of women author contributions are even lower, ranging from 10% to 20%. 4,7 Despite an increasing number of women matching into the specialty of urology, it remains a maledominated field with men making up 89.1% of practicing urologists.…”