Keywords
endocrine, gender-gap, sex-ratio, demographics, bias, equity, medicine
endocrine, gender-gap, sex-ratio, demographics, bias, equity, medicine
In the revised version of our paper, we introduced a Punnett Square (Figure 4) depiction of our trends to allow easier visualization of gender combinations as well as the inclusion of lone authors. The abstract has also been paraphrased to fix any ambiguity that could have been raised due to differences in individual perspectives. The word 'initial', while describing authors, has been replaced by 'first' since it defines the order of authorship more clearly.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Kunal Mahajan
MM- Male-Male
MF-Male-Female
FM- Female-Male
FF- Female-Female
JOE-Journal of Endocrinology
GCE- General & Comparative Endocrinology
Women confront a variety of challenges, and most of us are aware of the discrimination they suffer on a daily basis, whether in society, the job, schools, or the scientific community1. Salaries and allowances are only a small part of the pay disparity2. Women have experienced more hurdles than their male counterparts in obtaining support in the field of medical research, including but not limited to assets, funding, assistance, and the peer-review process, to name a few3,4. In any type of study, motivation and the availability of resource reserves are crucial, and a lack of both might have a detrimental impact on the scientific advancement that the medical community is actively seeking5. Such difficulties are replicated when female writers seek funding for their projects and research, resulting in a "gender pay gap" that often goes unnoticed and discourages women from pursuing research2.
Women make up about half of the medical school students in the United States6. This is a significant rise from less than 10% in 19656,7. The proportion of female physicians in endocrinology is 44%8,9. The gender disparity is anticipated to narrow even more, as women made up three-quarters of endocrinology fellowship applicants in 20148,9.
Women remain underrepresented in senior academic positions including tenured faculty positions, though9. While female physicians filled 38% of faculty positions in US medical schools in 2014, only 22% of tenured professors were female4,10.
With numerous reforms and activism, the number of females active in delivering specialist healthcare in the field of endocrinology, or any other profession for that matter, has increased in recent decades11,12. A similar pattern has emerged among females active in indirect health care, such as females with backgrounds in basic sciences, epidemiologists, and others9. However, growth in the number of females working in these sectors does not always correspond to increased research possibilities10.
A few papers in cardiology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology after analyzing the current literature were discovered by this study, however there was a noteworthy absence in endocrinology11,13,14. Therefore this study plans to fill this gap and analyze part of the reality by individually assessing articles published in two major endocrinology journals to evaluate whether there has been a proportionate change in the number of articles published by female authors, and whether the female authors were funded by government bodies, educational institutions, or organizations, or if they were solely self-funded. Additionally, demographic analysis was included to comment on how well specific geographical regions have performed in terms of fostering gender equality during the 70-year timeframe of our research.
To find appropriate papers for this study, journal search engines such as PubMed, Scimago, Embase, OMICS, and Google Scholar were used15. The two journals had to have a comparable number of articles in each, data available from at least 1961, and an h-index over 100 to be eligible. One journal was chosen from a publisher in the United Kingdom, while the other was chosen from a publisher in the United States to reduce the bias and diversify the pool of authors who are submitting the manuscript and for better randomization. Bioscientifica's Journal of Endocrinology and General and Comparative Endocrinology were the two journals that met this study’s’ requirements. Any other journal that met the criteria but has already been examined in a similar study was ruled out16. Other important endocrinology journals, such as the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and Thyroid, had already been utilized to track demographics and female authorship trends14.
Selected publications were examined, and data for this research was gathered for the first year of each decade, beginning in 1961. In total, data from seven decades were examined: 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011, and 2021. The data was collected between January 1st and December 31st of the following year. A total of 2432 articles in both journals (JOE – 1162, GCE – 1270) were discovered. Book reviews, author indexes, animal indexes, subject indexes, inaccessible articles, or articles where the gender couldn't be determined were not included. Following the exclusion of articles, the total number of articles was estimated to be 2291(See Underlying data)17. (JOE- 1115, GCE -1176).
In the manuscript, data was gathered for both the first and senior authors, and the categories assigned were further documented. A total of 'n' papers from both journals were independently evaluated. If they were book reviews, author indexes, or cumulative indexes, a 'm' number of articles had to be eliminated due to a lack of reasonable evidence on the gender, demography, or funding of the paper. As a result, (n-m) papers in this research were included (Table 1). Using the aforementioned methodology, each item was immediately assessed in order to analyze the following variables:
The following approaches were used to collect data, in order of preference based on availability: To gather information from University/Organization/LinkedIn pages, I) Google was used to search for writers by their names and departments. II) Assuming gender based on nomenclature conventions (e.g., John being the name of a male author; Christy being a female author).
III) The biological genders of some authors who were registered on Scopus and Google Scholar were used to assign genders. In addition, in the event of a snag, https://gender-api.com was used to resolve the issue.
The following approaches were used to collect data, in order of preference based on availability: I) Data from University/Organization/LinkedIn/ORCiD pages; II) Author affiliations specified in the article; III) data from University/Organization/LinkedIn/ORCiD pages; IV) Based on regional nomenclature conventions and trends (e.g., Asian names being Raja Gopalchandra, Li-Hu Wang, BK Gupta, Chandragouda Patil, etc.). Author affiliation was one of the variables used to assign demographics to the authors, therefore a lot of focus was placed on where they were affiliated.
To include all other authors engaged in the study, the presence of at least one female author was determined using the same methods to determine the biological gender of the first and senior authors.
Because all qualifications overlap, authors were divided into broad categories. MBBS/MD/DM/DO was included in Category 1. Ph.D./MSc/MPH were placed in category 2, and other paramedical areas were placed in category 3. To prevent prejudice while reporting, authors were divided into groups that classified qualifications according to international criteria.
UNESCO's international standard classification of education was also used in this study18.
Data on funding was gathered by skimming through articles and looking for keywords such as 'grant, "support,' 'fund,' 'acknowledgement,' 'thank,' and so on19.
The articles were divided into major groups such as government, university or organization, industry, self, other, and not stated. The majority of the available data came from the government, university, organization, or industry, with the exception of a few articles where funding was a problem, in which case the category ‘others’ was used, and for articles where funding was not available, the category ‘not mentioned’ was used. In research with several funding sources, government-based sources were given priority over other sources.
Companies/Industry/commercial sources were given preference over organizational or university financing in other multi-source sponsored studies without any government backing.
Data was incorporated in Microsoft Excel Sheet and further data was analyzed using GraphPad Prism Version 9.3.1., data was reported in tabular form. Unpaired t test (non-parametric, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) was used to compare the outcomes with two variables, one way ANOVA (Kruskal Wallis Test) was used for comparison in places with three or more variables. Chi-Square was used for categorical variables.
There was an increase in female first authors from 1961 to 2021. The contribution of females as first authors increased from 7% (10/143) in 1961 to 29.6% (74/250) in 2021 (p=0.0006). An unpaired, non-parametric t-test was employed to determine significance. Not only first authors, but participation from female senior authors grew as well, however, the rise in senior authors occurred between 1971 and 2021, whereas the rise in female first authors occurred between 1961 and 2021. The unpaired, non-parametric t-test was performed to correlate significance, in senior female authors rise was seen from 12.5 % (43/344) in 1971 to 22.2 % (48/245) in 2021 (p=0.0006). (Figure 1) Surprisingly, the senior female contribution was 15.6 % in 1961 (14/90) a bit more than expected. When the data was stratified by region, it was discovered that Europe was the leading contributor in terms of female involvement in research for both first and senior authors, followed by the Americas. Additionally, first authors and senior authors were viewed as having similar levels of involvement. The African and Australian continents made the least contribution. (Figure 2) Remarkably, a growing trend in which female engagement was included as a variable was noticed. All the writers in the paper were thoroughly assessed, and even if one of the authors was a woman, it was marked as yes and placed in a different category.
Although female involvement, with respect to all authorship orders, rose from 17.48% (25/143) in 1961 to 68% (170/250) in 2021, females continue to publish fewer manuscripts as first (29.6%) and senior (22.2%) authors.
Categories of first writers and senior authors were created using a new representation in which a mix of male and female authors were used to report the four possible results. The categories Male-Male, Male-Female, Female-Male, and Female-Female were used. Data evaluation resulted in Chi-Square = 124.6 with p<0.0001. (Figure 3 and Figure 4)
Calculations were made to examine the distribution of funding sources for submissions with female first authors, as well as the qualifications possessed by the writers at the time. This section contains related data as well as observations made for the core goals of this study (Table 2).
This study focused on the articles published from 1961 to 2021 (Seven-decades), in two major endocrinology journals i.e. Bioscientifica's Journal of Endocrinology and General and Comparative Endocrinology, though there are more landmark journals in the field of endocrinology they were excluded because they were already used in the study by El Hakimi et al. showing authorship trends in major endocrinology journals14. Although El Hakimi et al. analyzed four prominent endocrinology journals (Thyroid, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, and Diabetes Care), each journal's purpose and scope were distinct, resulting in a bias when comparing them14. El Hakimi et al. found that the overall percentage age of female authors increased from 23.3 % in 1991 to 39.2 % in 2015, but in this study, female contributions as first author increased from 7% (10/143) in 1961 to 29.6 % (74/250) in 2021. Female qualification was one of the key reasons for limited female involvement from 1961 to 2021, as discovered in this study, making it one of the most significant factors to keep in mind as the increasing trend in female contribution is observed. This has to do with the fact that the number of females involved is proportional to their qualifications.
Despite the fact that, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, there were 51.3 % female endocrinologists compared to 48.3 % males in the United States in 2019, there is still a mystery as to why there are still so few female authors in scientific literature20. Female first authors made up 3.0 % of all publications in 1958, compared to 23 % in 2016, according to Amankwah et al.13 In other specialties, such as cardiology, female first authors made up 3.0 % of all publications in 1958, compared to 23 % in 201613. Similarly, in 1958, female senior authors accounted for 5.2 % of all publications, compared to 20% in 2016. There was also a rise in the number of articles from Europe and Asia compared to this study where an increase in articles from Americas and Europe was observed.
Despite the overwhelming positive findings, the studies also point to several potential areas of concern. Although the percentage age of female authors has increased over time, the data show that there was a lack of momentum among both first and senior authors between 1981 and 1991. Expanding and combining ideas from various articles published in major journals such as Endocrinology, Cardiology, and Gastroenterology, additional factors such as qualifications, funding source and further stratified, and female involvement as any co-author were considered.
Several studies have looked into gender inequalities in medicine, such as Sidhu et al. work in the United Kingdom, or Mehran et al. works in Cardiology where Data from randomized controlled trials was investigated to assess gender gap. However, there was still a need to look into a way to assess the outcomes over a longer period of time. Because, in order to see the change, a long-term strategy must be implemented across several years to obtain more precise findings. The aim was to assess the same in this study by including 70 years of data, resulting in a more skewed conclusion. Researchers have incorporated data indicating trends over 20 or 30 years in the past or recently, but this is the first research of such kind, with articles gathered over 70 years.
Several combinations of male-female First and Senior Authors were employed, resulting in four possible scenarios of MM, MF, FM, FF, where a decline in MM combination of authors and an increase in MF or FM from 1961 to 2021 was noticed (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
This was unique because, whereas other authors identified patterns in sole females, this study viewed this as a fact that needed to be addressed. In a cross-sectional study published by Gayet-Ageron et al., a similar combination was employed, although the major focus was on author contribution rather than gender inequality.
This study employed methods to determine the gender of first and senior authors that were similar to those previously reported in studies on gender and authorship. As a result, the findings of this study provide a more accurate and comprehensive picture of change over time than a sample consisting exclusively of original research articles published in the included journals in a single year per decade, for example. Qualification, continent, and female participation in all the authors present were also factored in this study.
This research found a statistically significant rise in the number of female authors participating in endocrinology research, both as first and senior authors. Despite the increase in female engagement, it was discovered that it still falls short of male participation. Female involvement had previously increased sharply, but it plateaued in the 2000s, remaining significantly below 50% and consequently less than male participation. Female contribution increased initially in the Americas and then on the European continent. Female authors from Europe contributed the most, followed by those from the American continent, both of which are high-income regions of the world. The rise in female contributions was not restricted to affluent countries; the Asian continent, which still contains many low-income regions, had a similar upward trend. Despite a large rise in female participation, changes for females and gender equality are still needed to boost female empowerment and the scientific community.
Dryad: Trends in authorship demographics for manuscripts published in endocrine journals - A 70-year analysis
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.rjdfn2zdh17
This project contains the following underlying data:
Data-Sheet.csv. (Data were collected from two major journals and analyzed for individual parameters as mentioned in the first row of the excel sheet. The first row describes all the numeric coding used to allot different categories to the study parameters.)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public domain dedication).
Arpit Jain: Methodology, Data curation, Writing- original draft
Hritik Madan: Data curation, Writing- review & editing
Kamaldeep Singh: Methodology, Project administration, Writing- original draft
Yash Agarwal: Data curation, Writing- review & editing
Bharat Midha: Data curation, Writing- review & editing
Shreya Gulati: Methodology, Project administration, Writing- review & editing
Priyanka Batra: Project administration, Supervision, Writing- review & editing
Ankur Batra: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision
Priyanshu Jain: Supervision, Visualization, Writing- review & editing
Ipsa Arora: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation
Madhav Prabhu: Supervision, Visualization
Shreyas Arya: Formal Analysis, Supervision, Validation
Yashasvi Chugh: Formal Analysis, Validation
Shobhit Piplani: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing- original draft
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Epidemiology, meta-research
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
No
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
References
1. Lin Z, Li N: Contextualizing Gender Disparity in Editorship in Psychological Science.Perspect Psychol Sci. 2023; 18 (4): 887-907 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Psychology, Diversity, Metascience
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Version 2 (revision) 20 Oct 22 |
read | read | read | |
Version 1 26 Jul 22 |
read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)