Comparison of women and men in biomedical informatics scientific dissemination: retrospective observational case study of the AMIA Annual Symposium: 2017–2020

Andrea L. Hartzler · Gondy Leroy A · Brenda Daurelle · Magali Ochoa · Dasha Cohen · Carole H. Stipelman

13 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association

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 Career Development and Diversity

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although the representation of women in science has improved, women remain underrepresented in scientific publications. This study compares women and men in scholarly dissemination through the AMIA Annual Symposium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through a retrospective observational study, we analyzed 2017-2020 AMIA submissions for differences in panels, papers, podium abstracts, posters, workshops, and awards for men compared with women. We assigned a label of woman or man to authors and reviewers using Genderize.io, and then compared submission and acceptance rates, performed regression analyses to evaluate the impact of the assumed gender, and performed sentiment analysis of reviewer comments. RESULTS: Of the 4687 submissions for which Genderize.io could predict man or woman based on first name, 40% were led by women and 60% were led by men. The acceptance rate was smilar. Although submission and acceptance rates for women increased over the 4 years, women-led podium abstracts, panels, and workshops were underrepresented. Men reviewers increased the odds of rejection. Men provided longer reviews and lower reviewer scores, but women provided reviews that had more positive words. DISCUSSION: Overall, our findings reflect significant gains for women in the 4 years of conference data analyzed. However, there remain opportunities to improve representation of women in workshop submissions, panel and podium abstract speakers, and balanced peer reviews. Future analyses could be strengthened by collecting gender directly from authors, including diverse genders such as non-binary. CONCLUSION: We found little evidence of major bias against women in submission, acceptance, and awards associated with the AMIA Annual Symposium from 2017 to 2020. Our study is unique because of the analysis of both authors and reviewers. The encouraging findings raise awareness of progress and remaining opportunities in biomedical informatics scientific dissemination.

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 — 13 citations exist upstream.

References

2019Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations 2020Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines 2013The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship 2006The “Gender Gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature — A 35-Year Perspective 2018The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review 2018The Misgendering Machines 2017Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review.

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.