Trends in Female Authorship in High Impact Surgical Journals Between 2008 and 2018

Keith D. Lillemoe · Roy H. Perlis

41 citations0/0 files storedAnnals of Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Diversity and Career in Medicine scientometrics and bibliometrics research Sex and Gender in Healthcare

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the distribution of authorship by sex over the last 10 years among the top 25 surgical journals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite an increase in women entering surgical residency, there remains a sex disparity in surgical leadership. Scholarly activity is the foundation for academic promotion. However, few studies have evaluated productivity by sex in surgical literature. METHODS: Original research in the 25 highest-impact general surgery/subspecialty journals were included (1/2008-5/2018). Journals with <70% identified author sex were excluded. Articles were categorized by sex of first, last, and overall authorship. We examined changes in proportions of female first, last, and overall authorship over time, and analyzed the correlation between these measurements and journal impact factor. RESULTS: There were 71,867 articles from 19 journals included. Sex was successfully predicted for 87.3% of authors (79.1%-92.5%). There were significant increases in the overall percentage of female authors (β = 0.55, P < 0.001), female first authors (β = 0.97, P < 0.001), and female last authors (β = 0.53, P < 0.001) over the study period. Notably, all cardiothoracic subspecialty journals did not significantly increase the proportion of female last authors over the study period. There were no correlations between journal impact factor and percentage of overall female authors (rs = 0.39, P = 0.09), female first authors (rs = 0.29, P = 0.22), or female last author (rs = 0.35, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies continued but slow improvement in female authorship of high-impact surgical journals during the contemporary era. However, the improvement was more apparent in the first compared to senior author positions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

References

2006The “Gender Gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature — A 35-Year Perspective 2015Sex Differences in Academic Rank in US Medical Schools in 2014 2011Is There Still a Glass Ceiling for Women in Academic Surgery?2016Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)1995Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Glass ceiling or sticky floor?2012Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers 2002Increasing Womenʼs Leadership in Academic Medicine 2001Why Arenʼt There More Women Leaders in Academic Medicine? The Views of Clinical Department Chairs

Cited by

2022Authorship Trends and Disparities in Cardiothoracic Surgery 2021Analysis of authorship trends in vascular surgery demonstrates a sticky surgical floor for women 2023Gender differences in research topic and method selection in library and information science: Perspectives from three top journals 2023Contributions of Women to Cardiovascular Science Over Two Decades: Authorship, Leadership, and Mentorship 2021

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.