Gender disparities among leadership in academic surgical publishing over the past decade.

BACKGROUND: Women account for 19 % of practicing surgeons in the United States, with representation decreasing with higher academic rank. Less is known about the proportion of women in editorial leadership positions at surgical journals. The objective of this study was to examine gender representation among editorial leadership at high-impact surgical journals. METHODS: The five journals with the highest impact factors in general, cardiothoracic, plastics, otolaryngology, orthopedics, urology, vascular, and neurosurgery were identified. Data were abstracted on the proportion of women editors-in-chief (EIC) and editorial board members between 2010 and 2020 to determine how these demographics changed over time. RESULTS: Multiple fields had no women EIC over the past decade (orthopedics, urology, cardiothoracic, neurosurgery). In all other fields, women were a minority of EIC. In 2020, women made up 7.9 % of EIC and 11.1 % of editorial boards in surgical journals. CONCLUSIONS: Women remain under-represented among leadership at high-impact surgical journals, with varying improvement over the past decade among different subspecialties.

Female Leadership in Academic Plastic Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gender equity remains to be realized in academic plastic and reconstructive surgery. The purpose of this study was to measure the proportion of women in leadership roles in academic plastic and reconstructive surgery to verify where gender gaps may persist. METHODS: Six markers of leadership were analyzed: academic faculty rank, manuscript authorship, program directorship, journal editor-in-chief positions, society board of directors membership, and professional society membership. Descriptive statistics were performed, and chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: About 16 percent to 19 percent of practicing plastic surgeons are female, as measured by the percentage of female faculty and American Society of Plastic Surgeons members. Female plastic surgeons comprised 18.9 percent (n = 178) of the faculty from 88 academic plastic surgery institutions, and represented 9.9 percent of full professors and 10.8 percent of chiefs. Nineteen institutions had no female faculty. Women were first authors in 23.4 percent of publications and senior author in 14.7 percent of publications. No journal studied had a female editor-in-chief. Of the examined plastic and reconstructive societies, the proportion of women on the board of directors ranged from 16.7 percent to 23.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of female program directors, first manuscript authors, and board members of certain societies is commensurate with the number of women in the field, suggesting an evolving landscape within the specialty. However, women remain underrepresented in many other leadership roles, heralding the work that remains to ensure gender parity exists for those pursuing leadership roles in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

How did COVID-19 affect medical and cardiology journals? A pandemic in literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The spreading speed of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the medical community to produce efforts in updating and sharing the evidence about this new disease, trying to preserve the accuracy of the data but at the same time avoiding the potentially harmful delay from discovery to implementation. The aim of our analysis was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical literature in terms of proportion of COVID-19-related published papers and temporal patterns of publications within a sample of general/internal medicine and cardiology journals. METHODS: We searched through PubMed scientific papers published from 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2021 about COVID-19 in ten major medical journals, of which five were in general/internal medicine and five in the cardiology field. We analyzed the proportion of COVID-19-related papers, and we examined temporal trends in the number of published papers. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of COVID-19-related papers was 18.5% (1986/10 756). This proportion was higher among the five selected general/internal medicine journals, compared with cardiology journals (23.8% vs 9.5%). The vast majority of papers were not original articles; in particular, in cardiology journals, there were 28% 'original articles', 17% 'review articles' and 55.1% 'miscellaneous', compared with 20.2%, 5.1% and 74.7% in general/internal medicine journals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the big impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international scientific literature. General and internal medicine journals were mainly involved, with cardiology journals only at a later time.

Examining Gender Imbalance in Chemistry Authorship.

Despite decades of progress toward a more equitable society, gender representation in the sciences continues to be heavily skewed toward men. We were interested in gender representation in chemistry through the lens of scientific publishing. Publications are a central academic currency and are critical for funding, recruiting, and promotion in academia. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the percentage of female first and last authors across 10 chemistry, 3 chemical biology, and 3 general journals from 2005 to 2020. We show that women are substantially underrepresented in chemistry authorship even when compared with their relative populations in academia and are not predicted to achieve parity within the next 50 years at the current rate in any journal. Our findings highlight the need for changes to the publishing process to achieve a more equitable publishing environment.