Longitudinal Analysis of Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Medical Faculty Across 24 Medical Schools in the United States

Abstract

Purpose This study examines gender differences in academic productivity, as indicated by publications and federal grant funding acquisition, among a longitudinal cohort of medical faculty from 24 medical schools across the United States, 1995 to 2012. Method Data for this research was taken from the National Faculty Study involving a survey with medical faculty recruited from medical schools in 1995, and followed up in 2012. Data included surveys and publication and grant funding databases. Outcomes were number of publications, h-index and principal investigator on a federal grant in the prior two years. Gender differences were assessed using negative binomial regression models for publication and h-index outcomes, and logistic regression for the grant funding outcome; analyses adjusted for race/ethnicity, rank, specialty area and years since first academic appointment. Results Data were available for 1,244 of the 1,275 (98%) subjects eligible for the follow up study. Men were significantly more likely than women to be married/partnered, have children, and hold the rank of professor (P < .0001). Adjusted regression models document that women have a lower rate of publication (relative number = .71; 95% CI = .63, .81; P < .0001) and h-index (relative number = .81; 95% CI = .73, .90; P < .0001) relative to men, though there was no gender difference in grant funding. Conclusions Women faculty acquire federal funding at similar rates as male faculty, yet lag behind in terms of publications and their impact. Medical academia must consider how to help address ongoing gender disparities in publication records.

Where Are the Women? The Underrepresentation of Women Physicians Among Recognition Award Recipients From Medical Specialty Societies

“…Diversity and inclusion then are 2 separate but related concepts that can be assessed through data-driven initiatives in all health care organizations, including medical specialty societies. Although there are reports in the literature of gender gaps in leadership, promotion, rank, salary, grand rounds speakerships, publication rate, and hindex at the medical school level [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47], few reports have focused on the inclusion of women and other underrepresented groups [48] within medical specialty societies and access to their associated resources for career advancement. In a study of 54 journals across 28 specialties, researchers concluded that, ".women's representation on [professional medical] society and [journal] editorial boards does not always reflect their presence in the specialty," also noting that women's representation in society leadership positions was "critically lacking in certain specialties" despite significant representation within those fields [49].…”

Striving for Gender Equity in Academic Medicine Careers: A Call to Action

“…Women represent approximately half of students entering medical schools and more than half of those entering PhD programs, yet a collection of articles in this issue 1–8 suggest that women continue to confront career barriers unbeknownst to many of their men counterparts in academic medicine. Women continue to be paid lower salaries, receive less funding, have less opportunity to publish, and be promoted at slower and lower rates.…”

Advancement of Women in the Biomedical Workforce: Insights for Success

“…Raj et al evaluated the results of a 17-year longitudinal study at 24 medical schools to analyze academic rank and productivity of faculty 8 . They found that women were significantly less likely than men to reach full professor status and attain senior leadership positions.…”

“…However, despite the differences in productivity, women still achieved the same levels of federal grant funding as men. The authors recommend that institutional leaders develop strategies for mentoring and supporting women to publish more frequently, especially early in their careers, to increase their overall academic productivity and likelihood of promotion 8 .…”