Gender differences in professional social networks use among critical care researchers.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies highlight that female anaesthesiology researchers have lower visibility on professional social networks (PSNs) than male researchers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to compare the use of PSNs between women and men in critical care research. METHODS: We included the first/last authors (FAs/LAs) among the most frequently cited articles in 2018 and 2019 in three critical care journals (Intensive Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, and Critical Care). We compared the use of three PSNs-Twitter, ResearchGate, and LinkedIn-between women and men in the FA/LA positions. RESULTS: We analysed 494 articles, which allowed us to include 426 FAs and 383 LAs. The use of a PSN was similar between women and men (Twitter: 35 vs. 31% FA p = 0.76, 38 vs. 31% LA p = 0.24; ResearchGate: 60 vs. 70% FA p = 0.06, 67 vs. 66% LA p = 0.95; LinkedIn: 54 vs. 56% FA p = 0.25, 68 vs. 64% LA p = 0.58; respectively). On ResearchGate, women had a lower reputation score (FA group 26.4 [19.5-31.5] vs. 34.8 [27.4-41.6], p < 0.01; LA group 38.5 [30.9-43.7] vs. 42.3 [37.6-46.4], p < 0.01) and fewer followers (FA group 28.5 [19-45] vs. 68.5 [72,5-657] p < 0.01; LA group 96.5 [43,8-258] vs. 178 [76.3-313.5] p = 0.02). Female researchers were FAs in 30% of the articles and LAs in 16%. CONCLUSION: In the field of critical care, the visibility of female researchers on the social networks dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.

Gender differences in professional social media use among anaesthesia researchers.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that female researchers are less visible on social media. The objective of this observational work was to compare the use of professional social networks between male and female anaesthesia researchers. METHODS: Among four anaesthesia journals, we analysed the first/last authors (FA/LA) of the most frequently cited articles in 2016-2017 and the authors who published more than one article per year between 2013 and 2018 (prolific authors). We compared the use of the professional social networks Twitter, LinkedIn, and ResearchGate by the selected authors and analysed the proportion of women in FA and LA position. The variables are presented as median (inter-quartile range). RESULTS: The analysis included 260 FA, 232 LA, and 297 prolific authors. Despite similar declared skills and number of citations, women had lower scientific reputation scores on ResearchGate (RG score: 32.0 [24.4-41.1] vs 20.3 [15.1-29.2]; P<0.0001 in the FA group; 39.3 [34.3-43.4] vs 35.7 [30.3-39.5], P<0.01 in the LA group; and 41.5 [35.6-45.7] vs 36.8 [28.1-42.7], P<0.01 in the prolific group). In all groups, women were significantly less followed on ResearchGate than men. In the three groups, the Twitter (22.7%, 25.0%, and 23.6%, respectively) and LinkedIn (59.2%, 56.5%, and 62.3%, respectively) usage rate were similar with no difference between men and women in each group. Of the 260 articles included, 94 (36.2%) manuscripts had female FA, whereas 41 (15.8%) had female LA. CONCLUSION: In anaesthesia, the visibility of female researchers on the social network dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.