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

Abstract

Background and ObjectivesPromotion 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOverall, 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).ConclusionsThis 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.