Diversity in high-impact psychiatric publishing: gender parity within reach?

AbstractGender parity and authorship diversity are declared goals in the publishing world. This study assessed the progress of authorship gender distribution over a quarter of a century and geographic diversity over the last 15 years in high-impact psychiatric journals. All articles published in 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the British Journal of Psychiatry, and JAMA Psychiatry were included and compared with data from three points in time starting in 1994. Descriptive statistics were gathered, and chi-square tests were performed. All tests were conducted as two-tailed, and p-values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Inter-rater reliability was calculated via Cohen’s kappa. In 2019 a total of 473 articles were published. Forty percent of all authors, 42.3% of first authors, and 29.4% of senior authors were female. Counting original research articles only, female first authorship reached 50.4%. In the 25-year period between 1994 and 2019, female first (p < .001), female senior (p < .001), and female overall (p < .001) authorship has increased. In the specific period between 2014 and 2019, overall female senior authorship in all articles (p = .940) as well as first (p = .101) and senior (p = .157) in original research plateaued. In non-original research articles, female first authorship was higher in 2019 compared to 2014 (p = .014), whilst female senior authorship plateaued (p = .154). Geographic diversity was low and did not change over time. Gender parity in the subcategory original research articles was reached for the first time in 2019. Senior female authorship and geographic diversity remain areas of concern that need further investigation and specific interventions.

Download Full-text

Endothelin XVI

Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology ◽

10.1139/cjpp-2020-0376 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 98 (9) ◽

pp. v-vii

Author(s):

Bambang Widyantoro ◽

Noriaki Emoto

Keyword(s):

Therapeutic Target ◽

Scientific Community ◽

Biomedical Science ◽

Research Articles ◽

Original Research ◽

Special Issue ◽

International Conference ◽

Physiological Regulator ◽

First Time ◽

Biomedical Fields

Although 31 years have passed since the discovery of endothelin, that pioneering report, and the subsequent flood of influential studies elucidating its molecular and clinical details, have since paved the way for thousands of publications. They showed the promise of endothelin and the vast amount of work that remains to be done to fully unleash the potential this peptide possesses, both as a key physiological regulator and as a therapeutic target. Endothelin conferences and their proceedings have served as a host for many of these breakthrough studies, and in keeping with this fine tradition, Endothelin XVI will host novel research articles presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Endothelin (ET-16) as its proceedings. On September 22–25, 2019, ET-16 was held at Kobe Port Oasis, Kobe, Japan, where numerous important discoveries were presented to the scientific community for the first time, many of which are compiled and published in this special issue. As the Editors of this special issue that comprises in-depth reviews, insightful editorials, and numerous original research articles discussing findings from various biomedical fields, we are extremely proud to present Endothelin XVI. We sincerely hope for the continued growth of this field for the benefit of the patients and the advancement of biomedical science.

Download Full-text

Authorship growth in contemporary medical literature

SAGE Open Medicine ◽

10.1177/2050312120915399 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. 205031212091539

Author(s):

Julie Y An ◽

Rachel J Marchalik ◽

Rachael L Sherrer ◽

Joseph A Baiocco ◽

Soroush Rais-Bahrami

Keyword(s):

Medical Literature ◽

Case Reports ◽

High Impact ◽

Research Articles ◽

Original Research ◽

Medical Specialties ◽

Review Articles ◽

Article Type ◽

Multivariable Regression ◽

Analysis Platform

Objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate authorship trends among publications in high-impact, peer-reviewed specialty journals published within the last decade and to assess how publication practices differ among medical specialties. Methods: The National Institutes of Health’s Portfolio Analysis platform, iCite, was queried for PubMed-indexed case reports, review articles, and original research articles published between 2005 and 2017 in 69 high-impact, clinical journals encompassing 23 medical specialties. Overall, 121,397 peer-reviewed publications were evaluated—of which, 45.1% were original research, 28.7% were review articles, and 26.3% were case reports. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the magnitude of association of publication year on the number of authors per article by specialty and article type. Results: Original research articles have the greatest increase in authorship (0.23 more authors per article per year), as compared with review articles (0.18 authors per article per year) and case reports (0.01 authors per article per year). Twenty-two of the 23 specialties evaluated had increase in authorship in high-impact specialty journals. Specialty growth rates ranged from 0.42 authors/year (Neurology), Psychiatry (0.35 authors/year), General Surgery (0.29 authors/year), Urology (0.27 authors/year), and Pathology (0.27 authors/year). Specialties with a greater percentage of graduates entering academics had more authors per article; surgical specialties and length of residency were not found to be predictive factors. Conclusion: There has been substantial growth in the authorship bylines of contemporary medical literature, much of which cannot be explained by increased complexity or collaboration alone.

Download Full-text

Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology—a 10-year perspective

European Radiology ◽

10.1007/s00330-021-07928-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Isabel Molwitz ◽

Jin Yamamura ◽

Ann-Kathrin Ozga ◽

Ilka Wedekind ◽

Thai-An Nguyen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽

Senior Author ◽

High Impact ◽

Original Research ◽

Impact Factor Journal ◽

European Radiology ◽

Logistic Regression Models ◽

High Ranking ◽

Female Authors ◽

Female Authorship

Abstract Objectives To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals. Methods In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination. Results The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p < .0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p < .0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p < .0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p < .0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships. Conclusion The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals. Key Points • Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals. • Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals. • Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas.

Download Full-text

International Journal of Engineering, IT and Scientific Research (IJEISR)

10.31219/osf.io/fkeqv ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS ◽

IJEISR ISJ

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Cutting Edge ◽

Research Articles ◽

Original Research ◽

Edge Information

International Journal of Engineering, IT and Scientific Research (IJEISR) is an Open Access international journal. We publish original research articles that are peer reviewed, and contain latest innovative cutting edge information articles on all aspects of Engineering, IT and Scientific Research. The coverage ranges across the research at various levels in connection with innovative tools for the development of advanced Engineering, IT and Scientific Research. Available online at https://int-scientific-journals.com

Download Full-text

Conservation: A New Open Access Journal for Rapid Dissemination of the Transdisciplinary Dimensions of Biodiversity Conservation

Conservation ◽

10.3390/conservation1010002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 17-20

Author(s):

Antoni Margalida ◽

Luca Luiselli ◽

José L. Tella ◽

Shuqing Zhao

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Biodiversity Conservation ◽

Case Reports ◽

Digital Publishing ◽

Open Access Journal ◽

Research Articles ◽

Original Research ◽

Rapid Dissemination

We are pleased to launch the new peer-reviewed open access journal, Conservation, published by MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), which offers an exciting new opportunity to publish comprehensive reviews, original research articles, communications, case reports, letters, commentaries, and other perspectives related to the biological, sociological, ethical, economic, methodological, and other transdisciplinary dimensions of conservation [...]

Download Full-text

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047107 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e047107

Author(s):

Mallory K. Ellingson ◽

Xiaoting Shi ◽

Joshua J. Skydel ◽

Kate Nyhan ◽

Richard Lehman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Senior Author ◽

High Impact ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Original Research ◽

Potential Cost ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Review Articles ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Medical Researchers

ObjectiveTo estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Data sourcesScopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the ‘Medicine’ subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.Main outcome measuresMedian APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.ResultsThere were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1–5) and 1471 (4, 2–8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0–US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0–US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.ConclusionsMedical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

Download Full-text

Recombinant Human Adenovirus-p53 Therapy for the Treatment of Oral Leukoplakia and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina57050438 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 57 (5) ◽

pp. 438

Author(s):

Jagadish Hosmani ◽

Shazia Mushtaq ◽

Shahabe Saquib Abullais ◽

Hussain Mohammed Almubarak ◽

Khalil Assiri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Oral Cancer ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Oral Leukoplakia ◽

Research Articles ◽

Original Research ◽

Therapeutic Effects ◽

The World

Background and Objectives: Oral cancer is the 6th most common cancer in the world and oral leukoplakia is an oral potentially malignant disorder that could develop into oral cancer. This systematic review focusses on randomized clinical trials for recombinant adenovirus p-53 (rAD-p53) therapy for the treatment of oral leukoplakia and cancer. Materials and Methods: We searched for research articles on various databases such as Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infra-structure), Springerlink, cochrane and Web of sciences from 2003 to 2020. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were used for the search. Inclusion criteria included original research, randomized clinical trials and articles only in English language. Exclusion criteria were any articles that were not research articles, not randomized trials, non-human studies, etc. The articles were further graded on the Jadad scale. Results: 578 articles were assessed from various databases; only 3 articles were found to be appropriate for this review. Thus, meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity and lack of data. In the three studies, whether rAD-p53 was used as a standalone therapy or with other therapies, there was a beneficial effect of the therapy. Furthermore, there were no serious adverse events and the only adverse events reported were fever, pain at the local injection site, flu-like symptoms and lowered WBC count. Conclusions: Thus, we can conclude that this therapy has a potential for beneficial therapeutic effects and further clinical trials with more patients need to be performed to get better understanding of the effect of rAD-p53 therapy, which probably will pave the way to its approval in other parts of the world.

Download Full-text

Metrics for Original Research Articles in the AJR: From First Submission to Final Publication

American Journal of Roentgenology ◽

10.2214/ajr.14.13944 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 204 (6) ◽

pp. 1152-1156 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Andrew B. Rosenkrantz ◽

Mukesh Harisinghani

Keyword(s):

Research Articles ◽

Original Research

Download Full-text

Histopathologic Differences between Jewish and Arab Population in Israel at First-Time Presentation with Bladder Cancer

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2017/8239601 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 2017 ◽

pp. 1-4

Author(s):

Ofir Avitan ◽

Zaher Bahouth ◽

Sarel Halachmi ◽

Sagi Shprits ◽

Ismail Masarwa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Metastatic Disease ◽

Urothelial Cancer ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Arab Women ◽

Chi Square ◽

Arab Population ◽

Different Populations ◽

Aggressive Tumors ◽

Arab Men ◽

First Time

Background. Pathology of urothelial carcinoma may vary in different populations at diagnosis. Our aim was to evaluate the histopathologic differences between Jewish and Arab patients in Israel at first diagnosis of urothelial cancer. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively collected data of all patients with confirmed urothelial cancer, treated at our department between January 2010 and January 2015. We examined the distribution of the histopathologic data among the studied populations. To compare the categorical variables we used the Chi-Square Pearson test. Comparison of independent variables was made by Student’s t-test. P value below 0.05 was considered significant. Results. The study group included 413 patients, 345 Jews and 68 Arabs. The major differences were that Arab patients were younger (62.61 versus 68.55 years, P=0.001), had more aggressive tumors that were detected at a more advanced stage, and had also a higher rate of metastatic disease (7.4% versus 3.2%, P=0.05). Nonurothelial cell tumors were 2.3 times more prevalent in Arab population. Unlike Jewish population, Arab women had higher rate of invasive/metastatic disease compared with Arab men (40% versus 22.4%). Conclusion. At time of diagnosis the tumors were more aggressive in Arab patients, especially in Arab women. The reasons for those differences constitute a target for a separate research. These results should have an impact on prevention medicine and education of physicians treating mixed populations.

Download Full-text

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051224 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (7) ◽

pp. e051224

Author(s):

Vaidehi Misra ◽

Frozan Safi ◽

Kathryn A Brewerton ◽

Wei Wu ◽

Robin Mason ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Data Extraction ◽

Gender Disparity ◽

High Impact ◽

Original Research ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medical Journals ◽

The Usa ◽

Study Characteristics ◽

Data Elements

ObjectivesEvaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.DesignCross-sectional review.Data sourcesMedline database.Eligibility criteriaArticles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries.Data extractionKey data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs).ResultsWe included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe.ConclusionsWomen were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women’s authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186702.

Download Full-text