Women Representation on Editorial Boards in Latin America Journals: Promoting Gender Equity in Academic Surgery, Anesthesia, and Obstetrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inequitable representation in journal editorial boards may impact women's career progression across surgical, anesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) specialties. However, data from Latin America are lacking. We evaluated women's representation on editorial boards of Latin America SAO journals in 2021. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis, retrieving journals through Scimago Journal and Country Rank 2020. Journals were included if active, focused on SAO topics, and publicly provided information on editorial board staff. Editorial board member names and positions were extracted from journals' websites. Members were classified into senior (e.g., editor-in-chief), academic (e.g., reviewer), and non-academic roles (e.g., administrative office). Women's representation was predicted from first names using Genderize.io. The number of women SAO physicians per country was obtained from articles and governmental reports. RESULTS: We included 19 of 25 identified journals and analyzed 1,318 names. Three anesthesiology, seven obstetric, and nine surgical journals represented five Latin American countries. Women held 17% (224/1,318) of board positions [p < 0.0001; 95% CI(0.14, 0.19)]. Women held fewer academic roles (14.3%, 155/1,084) compared to senior [28.9%, 64/221 (p < 0.001)] and non-academic roles [38.4%, 5/13 (p = 0.042)]. Surgical journals had fewer women (7.7%, 58/752) compared to anesthesia [25.5%, 52/204 (p = 0.006)] and obstetrics [31.5%, 114/362 (p < 0.001)]. Women's proportion on editorial boards increased according to the number of women SAO physicians per country (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study assessed the composition of editorial boards from Latin America SAO journals and demonstrated that women remain underrepresented. Our findings highlight the need for regional strategies to advance women's careers across SAO specialties.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

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