The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

Abstract

Introduction:The voices of authors who publish medical education literature have a powerful impact on the field's discourses. Researchers have identified a lack of author diversity, which suggests potential epistemic injustice. This study investigates author characteristics to provide an evidence-based starting point for communal discussion with the intent to move medical education towards a future that holds space for, and values, diverse ways of knowing. Method:The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published in 24 medical education journals published between 2000 and 2020 to identify author characteristics, with an emphasis on author gender and geographic location and their intersection. Article metadata was downloaded from Web of Science. Genderize.io was used to predict author gender. Results: The journals published 37 263 articles authored by 62 708 unique authors. Males were more prevalent across all authorship positions (n = 62 828; 55.7%) than females (n = 49 975; 44.3%). Authors listed affiliations in 146 countries of which 95 were classified as Global South. Few articles were written by multinational teams (n = 3765; 16.2%). Global South authors accounted for 12 007 (11.4%) author positions of which 3594 (3.8%) were female. Discussion: This study provides an evidence-based starting point to discuss the imbalance of author voices in medical education, especially when considering the intersection of gender and geographical location, which further suggests epistemic injustice in medical education. If the field values a diversity of perspectives, there is considerable opportunity for improvement by engaging the community in discussions about what knowledge matters in medical education, the role of journals in promoting diversity, how to best use this baseline data and how to continue studying epistemic injustice in medical education.

Describing the landscape of medical education preprints on medRxiv

“…When compared with the overall volume of publications in medical education, 2 the current rate of preprints deposited seems quite small. However, preprint usage, as measured by full-text views and PDF downloads, is considerable when compared with the use of published medical education articles.…”

“…However, this form of scholarly communication has been criticized, with researchers highlighting lengthy publication timelines 1 and the narrow representation of authors. [2][3][4][5] In fields such as physics and mathematics, and increasingly in medicine, 6,7 preprints have been introduced to mitigate some of these concerns and have become an "integral" component of the scholarly conversation. 8 Because the majority of medical education journals now allow preprints, 9 and considering the fact that many other fields and disciplines enthusiastically welcome preprints, 10 it is important to learn more about this emerging communication mechanism in the context of medical education.…”

Can the medical educator speak? The next frontier of globalisation research in medical education

“…Recognising that researchers who author journal articles play an important role in knowledge production in medical education, Maggio et al describe the voices of those who have contributed to two decades of the medical education literature 2 . They paint a picture of a growing and evolving landscape with more female voices being heard but highlight a substantial geographical imbalance, with only a tiny fraction of articles coming from Global South authors.…”

Tuition Costs of Master’s of Health Professions Education Programs: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

“…Recent publications in medical education have highlighted that there is a marked disparity between the success of authors within the Global North and Global South. [7][8][9] The cost and availability of advanced training in HPE may be partly to blame, in addition to other factors (e.g., editorial board diversity, 10 access to funds or infrastructure 11 ). It is worth considering the link between graduate-level training and its effect on scholarly success (e.g., publications, grants, leadership positions).…”