Disequilibrium in Gender Ratios among Authors who Contributed Equally

Abstract

1In recent decades, the biomedical literature has witnessed an increasing number of 2 authors per article together with a concomitant increase of authors claiming to have 3 contributed equally. In this study, we analyzed over 3000 publications from 1995-2017 4 claiming equal contributions for authors sharing the first author position for author 5 number, gender, and gender position. The frequency of dual pairings contributing equally 6 was male-male > mixed gender > female-female. For mixed gender pairs males were more 7 often at the first position although the disparity has lessened in the past decade. Among 8 author associations claiming equal contribution and containing three or more individuals, 9 males predominated in both the first position and number of gender exclusive groupings. 10Our results show a disequilibrium in gender ratios among authors who contributed equally 11 from expected ratios had the ordering been done randomly or alphabetical. Given the 12 importance of the first author position in assigning credit for a publication, the finding of 13 fewer than expected females in associations involving shared contributions raises 14 concerns about women not receiving their fair share of expected credit. The results 15 suggest a need for journals to request clarity on the method used to decide author order 16 among individuals claiming to have made equal contributions to a scientific publication.

Gender and Editorial Authorship in High-Impact Epidemiology Journals

“…We observed, for example, that women were less likely than men (31% versus 69%) to be first authors when they share authorship. This finding is consistent with other biomedical studies ( 16 , 18 ).…”

“…Additionally, women should be encouraged to be proactive when leadership opportunities arise; older women should provide visible role models and guidance ( 1 , 3 ). Moreover, we would all benefit from implicit bias training to better understand how to address our own personal biases, which could influence the participation of women in leadership roles ( 3 , 6 , 18 ). It is not uncommon for studies of gender disparities to be met with scrutiny and skepticism, but it is difficult to dismiss evidence that has mounted over time ( 1 – 7 , 10 , 16 – 18 ).…”

“…Moreover, we would all benefit from implicit bias training to better understand how to address our own personal biases, which could influence the participation of women in leadership roles ( 3 , 6 , 18 ). It is not uncommon for studies of gender disparities to be met with scrutiny and skepticism, but it is difficult to dismiss evidence that has mounted over time ( 1 – 7 , 10 , 16 – 18 ). It is not necessary to understand all the underlying reasons for disparities before working for effective change.…”