Long-Term Analysis of Sex Differences in Prestigious Authorships in Cardiovascular Research Supported by the National Institutes of Health

Lerchenmüller, Carolin; Lerchenmueller, Marc J.; Sorenson, Olav

doi:10.1161/circulationaha.117.032325

Cited by 63 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The strengths of our study include manual identification of gender by a study team member. Data derived from an online gender identification system, while easier to replicate and less resource-intensive, are unable to infer gender in a higher proportion of cases 19 26 41…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles.ObjectiveWe sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals.Design/Setting/ParticipantsIn this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018.Primary outcome measureAuthorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal.Secondary outcome measuresTo compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author.ResultsOf the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles.ConclusionsWomen physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we extracted information from the PubMed database, which represents the most comprehensive reference list of scientific publications in the life sciences. Second, we determined the probable gender of the authors through the Genderize database, an established approach81011 that allows gender assignment for a large number of authors based on their first names. Third, we used information from the Journal Citation Report (Clarivate Analytics) to determine the impact factor of the publishing journals as well as the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) library to categorize articles into fields of research.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study

Lerchenmueller

Sorenson

Jena

2019

BMJ

Self Cite

168

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWomen remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations.DesignRetrospective observational study.Data sourcesTitles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017.Main outcome measuresAnalysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as “novel” or “excellent.” For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field.ResultsArticles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples.ConclusionsClinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.

show abstract

“…Going down the left column, what may first meet the eye is that the mentors of the male and female F32 recipients appear similar across several characteristics, suggesting that the highly promising F32 applicants get in essence matched to mentors of comparable caliber. Mentors have similar levels of experience and that experience is as relevant to the research of female and male F32 recipients, judged by the content overlap of the mentor's past research with the first publication from the 8 Adapting this impact factor threshold yielded qualitatively similar results, but a threshold of 15 only includes the most prominent life science field journals and general science journals (Lerchenmüller et al, 2018). Moreover, we use share of high quality papers because the pure number of publications is highly correlated with years of experience.…”

Section: Matched Sample Approach To Account For Potential Sex Differementioning

confidence: 98%

“…One explanation for facing constraints might be stereotypes. Many studies have documented sex differences in publication rates (Cole and Zuckerman, 1984), in the status of the publishing journals (Lerchenmüller et al, 2018), and in citations the work ends up receiving (Larivière et al, 2013). Again, this evidence stems almost exclusively from cross-sectional data which precludes drawing robust inference as to whether the results hold for cohorts of young scientists, leaving room for women being underestimated despite being capable of achieving equal output (Hoisl and Mariani, 2016).…”

Section: Determinants Of Gender Homophily At Early Career Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Homophily, Biased Attention, and the Gender Gap in Science

Lerchenmueller¹,

Hoisl

Schmallenbach

2019

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does homophilous collaboration influence women's early career progress? To answer this question, we turn to a granular dataset of 3,233 highly qualified junior life scientists who receive mentored, early career sponsorship from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and analyze their publication trajectories as careers unfold. Employing a matched sample approach that exploits variance in the sets of research contacts the junior scientists start out with, we distinguish sex differences in collaboration choices from potential differences in collaboration opportunities. We document that outsized gender homophily among women exists and primarily stems from how female leaders of scientific projects assemble their teams. Women continue same-sex collaborations as lead authors at twice the rate compared to men, on average, and in particular when the mentor is part of the author team or when the focal junior scientist leads the team. As such, systematic gender homophily among female scientists may engender the sponsorship and resources needed to motivate young women to join and pursue an academic career. On the flip side, we show that author teams led by women receive 11% less citations, on average, and up to 29% less citations for work of comparable caliber published in the most influential journals. Taken together, while women's propensity to working with other women may support early career researchers, biased attention to women's work may harm careers and, in particular, women who publish in the highest-impact journals and who would otherwise be poised to narrowing gender gaps at more senior career stages.

show abstract

Long-Term Analysis of Sex Differences in Prestigious Authorships in Cardiovascular Research Supported by the National Institutes of Health

Cited by 63 publications

References 5 publications

Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study

Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study

Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study

Homophily, Biased Attention, and the Gender Gap in Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About