Bias in Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Workplaces.

Obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) face similar types of biases in the workplace as any people in society. In this first of three articles exploring this issue, we present the stories from ob-gyns who describe their experiences dealing with these biases. These stories serve to personalize the issue and to encourage us to personally face bias in the workplace to build our own resilience and strength, to support those who are personally attacked or diminished, and to develop workplace cultures that are inclusive, diverse, and strong.

Use of the STROBE Checklist to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of Observational Research in Obstetrics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate observational research manuscripts submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology to determine the level of adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and highlight specific areas that could be improved. METHODS: A scoring system based on the STROBE checklist was developed and validated for consistency by volunteer medical students or doctors. Using this scoring system, we performed a cross-sectional analysis on 198 observational research manuscripts submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology from 2008 to 2016. Each manuscript was given a score based on the STROBE checklist. Comparisons were made among acceptance status, country of origin, and study type. Descriptive statistics (means, medians, and frequencies) were calculated for each manuscript category. The t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare differences between two groups and analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare differences among three or more groups. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the mean score for accepted (23.2±2.7) compared with rejected (19.7±4.1) manuscripts (P<.001). This difference was not seen when comparing country of origin and study type. Poor reporting was seen among all manuscript categories for objectives, study size, missing data, study participants, and translation of risk. Additionally, rejected manuscripts had poor reporting for eligibility criteria, variables, bias and confounding, statistical methods, unadjusted and adjusted estimates, and category boundaries. CONCLUSION: Overall, accepted manuscripts show better adherence to the STROBE checklist, but there are several critical items that are poorly reported in all manuscripts.

Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]). CONCLUSION: Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.

Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender.

BACKGROUND: Reports indicate that there are gender-based differences in aspects of the peer-review process. METHODS: This is an analysis of editorial board members' reviews of original research submissions based on gender using the web-based management program, Editorial Manager, from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2008. We evaluated recommendations of editorial board members for acceptance/rejection using a four-tier system, agreement with editor's final decision, turnaround time from review request to submission, and editors' grades of reviews on a 5-point scale. We evaluated the performance of editorial board members with advancing tenure, seeking trends in recommendations over time. RESULTS: We included 6062 manuscript reviews representing 5958 manuscripts; 67% were assigned to male editorial board members and 33% to females. There were 38 editorial board members (25 men, 13 women) with tenure duration from 2 to 4.9 years, and 3 editors (2 men, 1 woman) serving 7, 7, and 6 years, respectively. Women were less likely to accept or accept with minor revisions than men (p < 0.003). Median turnaround times were 14 (0-55) days for women and 10 (0-33) days for men (p < 0.001). The editors' grades assigned to women were more often than men's grades in the very good to exceptional category (p < 0.0001). There was no difference based on gender, with approximately 73% decision congruence overall with the editors' final decisions. Men rejected more manuscripts than did women with advancing tenure on the editorial board (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There are differences based on gender of editorial board members' recommendations about manuscript triage, turnaround time, and editors' grades assigned. Overall, however, these differences do not affect editors' ultimate decisions about manuscript publication.