Gender differences in pulmonology and critical care authorship and editorial boards

Nasrullah, Adeel; Sharma, A.; Hamza, Amina; Ramanujam, D.; Shah, Sana; Virk, Shiza; Shah, Aaisha; Javed, Anam; Garg, Ishan; Saa, Lisa; Verma, Akanksha; Faturous, Andrew; Assaf, Sara; DiSilvio, Briana; Sheikh, Abu Baker

doi:10.1080/03007995.2023.2174329

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The gender gap in publications and citations within academia is well-documented across a variety of subject domains. [22][23][24][25][26] In general, women authors have fewer publications and citations than their male colleagues, and in some fields, such as neuroscience and physics, manuscripts authored by women are cited by men far less frequently than publications authored by men. [27][28][29] In plastic surgery specifically, gender-in-authorship disparities seem to be decreasing but remain heavily biased toward male-authored publications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions

Persad-Paisley,

Gopal,

Menville

et al. 2024

Ann Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In plastic surgery academia, research output is heavily used as a metric of accreditation, from assessing residency applicants to evaluating faculty for promotion. The h index, defined as an author's h papers with at least h citations, is commonly used as a measure of academic success. However, the index itself disfavors junior researchers, favors publication quantity, and discounts highly cited works. Given the importance of bibliometrics within plastic surgery, there is a paramount need to adopt additional metrics to measure research productivity. The authors sought to validate the use of time-independent bibliometrics to complement the h index in measuring citation impact. Methods The genders and academic titles of plastic surgeons affiliated with US plastic surgery programs were recorded. Author publications were retrieved from Scopus. Bibliometrics software was used to calculate the following metrics per surgeon: h index, e index, and g index. Time-adjusted versions of these indices were used to correct for the number of years since first publication. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) are reported. Departmental ranks were determined using the cumulative sum of time-corrected indices and compared with Doximity departmental research rankings. P < 0.05 was deemed significant. Results Indices were calculated for 871 academic plastic surgeons in 85 departments/divisions. Men had statistically greater h index (median, 13.0 [IQR, 7.0–21.0] vs 6.0 [IQR, 3.0–13]; P < 0.001), e index (18.3 [IQR, 10.0–28.7] vs 11.1 [IQR, 5.5–18.4]; P < 0.001), and g index (23.0 [IQR, 11.0–39.0] vs 11.0 [IQR, 5.0–22.0]; P < 0.001) than women. Professors had the highest median time-uncorrected indices. After adjusting for the number of years since an author's first publication, there were no significant differences in m quotient (men: 0.66 [IQR, 0.40–0.98] vs women: 0.57 [IQR, 0.33–0.90]; P = 0.05) and ec index (men: 0.93 [IQR, 0.62–1.3] vs women: 0.87 [IQR, 0.50–1.3]; P = 0.08) between genders. Departmental chairs had significantly higher indices than other faculty after correcting for time. The calculated program rankings were low to moderately correlated with that of Doximity (correlation coefficient τ = 0.49 [95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.59; P < 0.001]). Conclusions Men and women have statistically similar citation patterns after correcting for the time. Citation differences between academic levels are less pronounced when controlling for time, suggesting comparable research quality between academic roles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions

Persad-Paisley,

Gopal,

Menville

et al. 2024

Ann Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We identified four studies that have previously assessed gender disparity in authorship in critical care literature, albeit with some methodological differences. Nasrullah et al [ 18 ] reported 29.1% and 21.2% females in first and senior authorship positions between 2019 to 2021. While our study period was much more extended, our study sample had a similar prevalence of female authorship between 2019 and 2021 (29.2% and 22.5%, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Vranas et al [ 16 ] reported 30.8% and 19.5% of females as first and senior authors between 2008 and 2018, with a small but statistically significant increase in the annual rate of change for female authorship (0.44% for first and 0.51% for senior authorship) while the corresponding prevalence in our study sample during this period was and 26.9% and 17.7%, respectively. It is noteworthy that Nasrullah et al [ 18 ] and Vranas et al [ 16 ] did not restrict their analysis to RCTs. Given that our analysis is highly consistent with these earlier studies despite the methodological differences indicates that similar gender disparity may exist in the critical care literature irrespective of the study design.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these studies were global studies that utilized all articles indexed in PubMed’s MEDLINE database during the study period. In comparison, Nasrullah et al [ 18 ] included studies from the top 20 high-impact journals, Vranas et al [ 16 ] included articles from 40 most frequently cited journals, and the current study sampled RCTs from 12 top-tier journals (7 specialized and five general medicine) that publish critical care-related articles. Therefore, it is plausible that more women in critical care research publish in lower-impact than high-impact journals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A retrospective bibliometric study design was used for this study, as reported in prior studies [ 16 – 18 ], to ensure comparability with the existing literature in this domain. Twelve journals were selected based on their impact factor according to the Journal Citation Reports and comprised seven journals specializing in critical care and five large general medicine.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gender and racial differences in first and senior authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trial studies from 2000 to 2022

Chander,

Luhana,

Sadarat

et al. 2023

Ann. Intensive Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Females and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the first and senior authorships positions of academic publications. This stems from various structural and systemic inequalities and discrimination in the journal peer-review process, as well as educational, institutional, and organizational cultures. Methods A retrospective bibliometric study design was used to investigate the representation of gender and racial/ethnic groups in the authorship of critical care randomized controlled trials in 12 high-impact journals from 2000 to 2022. Results In the 1398 randomized controlled trials included in this study, only 24.61% of the first authors and 16.6% of the senior authors were female. Although female authorship increased during the study period, authorship was significantly higher for males throughout (Chi-square for trend, p < 0.0001). The educational attainment [χ2(4) = 99.2, p < 0.0001] and the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ2(42) = 70.3, p = 0.0029] were significantly associated with gender. Male authorship was significantly more prevalent in 10 out of 12 journals analyzed in this study [χ2(11) = 110.1, p < 0.0001]. The most common race/ethnic group in our study population was White (85.1% women, 85.4% males), followed by Asians (14.3% females, 14.3% males). Although there was a significant increase in the number of non-White authors between 2000 and 2022 [χ2(22) = 77.3, p < 0.0001], the trend was driven by an increase in non-White male and not non-White female authors. Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with the country of the author’s affiliated institution [χ2(41) = 1107, p < 0.0001] but not with gender or educational attainment. Conclusions Persistent gender and racial disparities in high-impact medical and critical care journals underscore the need to revise policies and strategies to encourage greater diversity in critical care research.

show abstract

Analysis of terminated pulmonary hypertension clinical trials. What are we doing wrong?

Abdulelah,

Azzam

et al. 2024

Current Problems in Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender differences in pulmonology and critical care authorship and editorial boards

Cited by 5 publications

References 25 publications

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions

Is the h-Index Enough? A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of 871 Academic Plastic Surgeons and Their Departments/Divisions

Gender and racial differences in first and senior authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trial studies from 2000 to 2022

Analysis of terminated pulmonary hypertension clinical trials. What are we doing wrong?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About