Longitudinal analyses of gender differences in first authorship publications related to COVID-19

Lerchenmüller, Carolin; Schmallenbach, Leo; Jena, Anupam B.; Lerchenmueller, Marc J.

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045176

Cited by 60 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the gender gap in senior authorship positions, which are often held by the most senior author and are also the most impactful on career progression, appears to be widening. 7 , 8 The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have worsened the preexisting gender bias in the authorship of journal articles, particularly those related to COVID-19, 9 , 10 with far-reaching consequences across multiple medical specialties and in preprints. 11 , 12 The underlying reasons are likely multifactorial and may include societal values that still preferentially attribute informal care responsibilities to women, 13 the fact that COVID-19–related research may be shaped and led by senior academics who remain predominantly men, 14 or the fact that the pandemic may have exacerbated women’s already greater teaching commitments in view of the need to transition to remote teaching.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of Women Among Editors in Chief of Leading Medical Journals

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Women remain underrepresented among editors of scientific journals, particularly in senior positions. However, to what extent this applies to medical journals of different specialties remains unclear.OBJECTIVE To investigate the gender distribution of the editors in chief at leading medical journals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSCross-sectional study of the editors in chief at the top 10 international medical journals of 41 categories related to the medical specialties of the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports in 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Proportion of women as editors in chief. RESULTSThis study found that, overall, women represented 21% (94 of 44) of the editors in chief, with wide variation across medical specialties from 0% to 82%. There were 5 categories for which none of the editors in chief were women (dentistry, oral surgery and medicine; allergy; psychiatry; anesthesiology; and ophthalmology) and only 3 categories for which women outnumbered men as editors in chief (primary health care, microbiology, and genetics and heredity). In 27 of the 41 categories, women represented less than a third of the editors in chief (eg, 1 of 10 for critical care medicine, 2 of 10 for gastroenterology and hepatology, and 3 of 10 for endocrinology and metabolism).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of Women Among Editors in Chief of Leading Medical Journals

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A more recent large study of first authorship attainment, in PubMed indexed life sciences articles with the term “covid” in the title and/or abstract published up to January 2021, found an overall gender gap in the early periods of the pandemic (1 February to 31 May 2020), but with a trend backwards to expected values over time in various medical disciplines. 14 Two further studies showed no gender disparities in publications in the early months of the pandemic, but these were undertaken only in American journals or in a single specialty, medical imaging. 15 19 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study

Gayet-Ageron

Messaoud

Richards³

et al. 2021

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. Design Cross sectional study. Setting Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. Population Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: first author’s gender. Secondary outcomes: last and corresponding authors’ gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in “pre-pandemic” period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in “covid-19” and “non-covid-19” manuscripts during pandemic. Results A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. Conclusions Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

show abstract

“…Evidence shows that women's leadership is associated with a higher likelihood of sex and gender being incorporated into research. 15,16 Yet women accounted for just 38% of first authors of COVID-19related research published between February, 2020, and January, 2021, 17 and of the 11 prominent research and surveillance organisations reviewed by GH5050 in 2021, only three (27%) were headed by women. 18 Policy processes that engage women, gender experts, and groups that are marginalised due to identities, such as disability, gender identity, ethnicity, and sexuality, are essential to the development of gender responsive and inclusive health responses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From routine data collection to policy design: sex and gender both matter in COVID-19

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccine equity is a growing concern of COVID-19 vaccination roll-outs and uptake globally. Gender has a role in vaccine uptake 1 but goes largely unrecognised in vaccine policies and programmes, undermining attempts to ensure equity. There is a wider gender blind spot that pervades national health responses to COVID-19 beyond vaccination, ranging from the way countries collect and report data to the commitments they make in pandemic health policies.Socially constructed gender norms can mean that women's access to COVID-19 prevention, testing, and treatment, including vaccination, is hindered by unaffordable fees or inability to travel to services. 2 In immunisation programmes before COVID-19, factors such as low autonomy, labour responsibilities, and unpaid care burdens were reasons for gendered barriers to vaccination that disadvantaged women. 3 COVID-19 vaccine uptake may be impacted by poorer access to health services and information about vaccines or perceptions of lower risk, among other factors. 4 Sex is thought to account for greater efficacy of some vaccines in women compared with men due to the different regulation of immune responses related to factors that include hormonal and chromosomal differences. 5 According to the Global Health 50/50 (GH5050) COVID-19 Sex-Disaggregated Data Tracker, among countries reporting COVID-19 vaccine uptake data, women comprise 53% of individuals receiving at least one dose. 6 However, only 34 of the roughly 180 countries that have begun vaccination programmes reported sexdisaggregated data on vaccine coverage between mid-April and mid-May, 2021. 6 Poor recognition by governments of the importance of considering sex and gender is also evident in national policies designed to guide vaccine roll-out. The GH5050 Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Health Policy Portal shows only five (9%) of 58 vaccine policies available as of March, 2021, mentioned gender. England, India, and Lebanon were the only countries found to include gender in their COVID-19 vaccine policies and to publicly report on vaccine uptake by sex. 6,7 However, the inclusion of gender is just a starting point. In-depth analysis of the UK Government's COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) meetings

show abstract

Longitudinal analyses of gender differences in first authorship publications related to COVID-19

Cited by 60 publications

References 28 publications

Representation of Women Among Editors in Chief of Leading Medical Journals

Representation of Women Among Editors in Chief of Leading Medical Journals

Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study

From routine data collection to policy design: sex and gender both matter in COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About