Gender Distribution & Rank of Authorship in Surgical Literature

Abstract

Background Authorship of surgical literature is important for the career advancement of surgeons, and gender disparities in authorship may hinder the representation and leadership of women within academic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the gender distribution of first, senior, and overall authorship in peer-reviewed surgical journal studies across all surgical specialties to determine if disparities exist. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies investigating the gender distribution of authorship of surgical literature published before December 10th, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen’s Q test for heterogenous effects was used to determine whether random or fixed-effects models were appropriate. Results Fifteen studies investigating gender distribution of authorship met inclusion, which included a total of 136,627 pooled studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated the meta-proportion of first authorship for women to be 20.6% (95% CI: 13.9, 28.2), the meta-proportion of senior authorship for women to be 11.9% (95% CI: 6.6, 18.5), and the meta-proportion of overall authorship for women to be 23% (95% CI: 16.2, 30.7). In addition, the proportion of senior authorship for women was found to be significantly lower than the proportion of overall authorship for women (11.9% versus 23.0%, P = .0106). Conclusion There is a significantly smaller proportion of women who are first, senior, and overall authors in surgical literature compared to their colleagues who are men. Sustainable and effective solutions aimed at improving the representation of women surgeons in surgical research and research leadership are necessary.

Equity in scientific publishing: 2022 results from Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis

“…As before, we continue to call on other journals to share their results on equity and diversity. We note that reports continue to be published demonstrating inequity in publishing and appear to be increasing in the years since we have been reporting RPTH data [ [7] , [8] , [9] ]. In one shocking example, considering Scopus-indexed medical journals published in Latin America, women comprised only 12.9% of those in editorial leadership positions [ 10 ].…”

Correspondence in the British Journal of Anaesthesia from 2018–21: article types, authorship, and COVID-19

“… 5 , 6 Women were underrepresented among authors of correspondence in the BJA , with even less participation as first authors or last authors. 7 , 8 , 9 Correspondence with women first authors was more likely to have women last authors and more women authors overall, suggesting mentorship of women by women. 10 However participation by women was similar in 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 and between COVID-19 related and non-COVID-19 related correspondence.…”