ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor
More

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Mol. Pharmaceutics 2023, 20, 8, 4219-4227
  • Open Access
  • Editors Choice
Article

Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Jacqueline E. McLaughlin
    Jacqueline E. McLaughlin
    Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States
    More by Jacqueline E. McLaughlin
  • Jacob M. Bachelder
    Jacob M. Bachelder
    Carborro High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States
    More by Jacob M. Bachelder
  • Kristy M. Ainslie*
    Kristy M. Ainslie
    Division of Pharmacoengineering and Molecular Pharmaceutics, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States
    Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States
    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States
    *Email: [email protected]
    More by Kristy M. Ainslie
    Orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-8382
Open PDFSupporting Information (2)

Molecular Pharmaceutics

Cite this: Mol. Pharmaceutics 2023, 20, 8, 4219–4227
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.3c00328
Published June 23, 2023

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

First and last authorship are important metrics of productivity and scholarly success for trainees and professors. For 11 drug delivery-related journals in 2021, the percentage of female first (39.5%) and last (25.7%) authorship was reported. A strong negative correlation, with female first (rp = −0.73) and female last authorship (rp = −0.66), was observed with respect to journal impact factor. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation with male first and last authorship (rp = 0.71). Papers were ∼1.5 times more likely to have a male first author, and ∼3 times more likely to have a male last author, than females. A female was 22% more likely to have first authorship if the last author was female, although there is an ∼1% increase per year in female authorship with male last authorship, which equates to equality in first authorship by 2044. Considering that drug delivery is composed of engineering, chemistry, and pharmaceutical science disciplines, the observed 25.7% female last authorship does not represent the approximately 35.5% to 50% of professors that are female in these disciplines, internationally. Overall, female authorship in drug delivery-related journals should improve to better represent the work of female senior authors.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Subjects

what are subjects

Keywords

what are keywords

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
An important metric of success for any researcher is publishing their research in peer-reviewed journals. Trainees are most often evaluated on the number of first author publications they have produced during their training. This is underscored by the fact that many programs in the United States require at least one first author paper for completion of a PhD. For tenure track investigators, last authorship is indicative of independent work and the number of last or corresponding author publications is a significant metric for promotion and tenure at most research universities. Publication of one’s research is therefore an important proxy for researchers’ achievements throughout their career. For this reason, it is important to understand the extent that women have been successful in obtaining first and last authorship on publications and in particular in the drug delivery space as it is an interdisciplinary area composed of engineers, chemists, and pharmaceutical scientists.
To understand this extent, we have looked at the number of publications of female authors in drug delivery as well as the impact factor of journals in which these researchers publish. Journal impact factor (JIF) is a metric of how many times the average article in a journal is cited. It is calculated each year for a journal and is determined as the number of times articles were cited during the previous 2 years the journal was published divided by the total number of articles that could be cited during those 2 years. This value is calculated by the analytics company Clarivate. By definition, journals of a higher JIF are cited more and therefore are more often discussed in the media and research community that can lead to increased invitations to present at conferences and universities as well as invitations to submit reviews or other published works.
When considering the steps of peer review, there are both internal and external decisions relative to the author(s) which affects where the publication is finally published. The first step in peer review relies on the author(s), typically the last and sometimes first or other authors, selecting an appropriate journal. Once the manuscript is prepared, it is then submitted to the journal and routed to an editor. The editor can then decide to send the manuscript out for peer review or reject it. Sometimes, the editor will reject the manuscript and suggest routing to a “sister” journal that is often a lower JIF or an open access journal in the same publishing group. If the manuscript is sent out for review, then it can be sent to any number of reviewers who ideally read the manuscript, comment on it, and either accept or reject it. Then, these comments are sent to the editor who decides to reject or accept (likely with revisions) the manuscript. Often, these processes can be elongated with higher JIF journals. Routing to a “sister” journal can also occur after the peer review is received. The outcomes of female authors at each of these various steps are not well reported, but the number of manuscripts as well as JIF of the manuscript journals is freely available information.
Therefore, across years and journals, we evaluated female and male authorship in the first or last author position. This was evaluated as a function of JIF for 11 journals that publish drug delivery research. We also evaluated the likelihood of a women having first authorship if a woman or a man is the last author, presumably as an indicator as to if a woman is better mentored by a woman or a man. Further, we evaluated authorship over a 5 year span for six journals that publish drug delivery research. Since editors have such a significant role in a manuscript’s fate, we also evaluated these metrics with respect to the percentage of women on the editorial board and if the editor-in-chief is a woman or man. This work is meant to characterize and generate discourse about authorship in drug delivery journals for female and male authors at both the trainee and principal investigator level.

Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Data Collection

Articles were collected at the indicated year via the journal’s International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) using Publish or Perish software (https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish; London UK). Although gender is not binary, for our analysis, gender was assumed to be either male or female based on the individual’s first name. A database of male and female names was developed from an online list (https://adoption.com/baby-names/browse) and enriched for ambiguous or undetermined names via picture identification through a web search (Table S1). Initials were identified through Scopus links to the author, a web search that included the individual’s affiliation or the individual’s middle name. Names that could not be grouped due to the lack of information (i.e., names could not be identified and initials could not be determined) were excluded from analysis (n = 85; Table S2).
Data was collected for papers from 11 journals in which drug delivery research was published in 2021: International Journal of Pharmaceutics (IJP), Journal of Controlled Release (JCR), Biomaterials (BioMat), Advanced Materials (AdvMat), Science Translational Medicine (STM), Nanoletters (NL), Nature Nanotechnology (NN), Small, Molecular Pharmaceutics (Mol Pharm), Nanoletters, ACS Nano, and the AAPS Journal (AAPS). A subset of six of those journals was also used to collect data for the years 2017–2021 (IJP, JCR, AdvMat, STM, and NN). Data was organized in Excel (see the Supporting Information). The 2021 Clarivate journal impact factor (JIF) used for comparisons is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Journal Impact Factors (JIF) for Journals Where Drug Delivery Research Is Published
publisherjournal titleJIF (2021)
American Chemical Society (ACS)ACS Nano16.24
WileyAdvanced Materials (AdvMat)32.09
ElsevierBiomaterials (Biomat)a15.30
ElsevierInternational Journal of Pharmaceutics (IJP)a6.27
ElsevierJournal of Controlled Release (JCR)a11.47
ACSMolecular Pharmaceutics (MolPharm)5.36
ACSNano Letters (NL)11.38
NatureNature Nanotechnology (NN)a40.52
WileySmalla15.15
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)Science Translational Medicine (STM)a19.32
SpringerThe AAPS Journal (AAPS)3.60
mean ± SD 16.06 ± 11.29
a

Indicating the subset of journals evaluated over a 5 year period (2017–2021).

Statistical Analysis

All papers with at least two authors were included in the analyses (n = 6712 for 2021 articles; n = 16,822 for 2017–2021 articles). Chi-square was used to determine differences in the authorship position by gender as indicated by the male first and last author (MM), female first and male last author (FM), male first author and female last author (MF), and female first and last author (FF). Also, analysis was performed on the female first author with either the male or female last author (FX) and the female last author with either the male or female first author (XF). This data is also reported for males (MX and XM). Pearson (rp) correlations were used to examine the strength of the relationships between JIF, gender position, and editorial composition. Spearman’s correlation (rs) was also determined, although rp is an appropriate test given the distribution of the data. An independent t-test was used to determine differences in continuous variables for editor-in-chief (EIC) gender. All analyses were conducted in SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The minimum significance level for all significance tests in this study was p < 0.05.

Regression Analysis of Authorship Controlling for JIF in 2021

Logistic multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to examine the relationship of last author gender (level 1) and JIF (level 2) with first author gender. MLM is an appropriate method for analyzing nested data structures (e.g., papers within journals). When papers are handled by the same journal, their outcomes are likely to be similar in important ways, violating the assumption of independent observations in traditional regression analysis. Other analytic approaches that do not account for nested data can produce misestimated standard errors, incorrect statistical inferences, and biased coefficients. Therefore, the MLM developed in this study statistically controlled for papers nested within journals.
To build the full MLM, an unconditional model (also called the null model) containing no independent variables was used to determine MLM appropriateness. Journal-level variance (i.e., random effect variance) indicated whether the intercept variance varied between papers, which confirmed the appropriateness of MLM for this dataset. A full model was built that included paper- and journal-level characteristics. All variables were entered into the models as fixed effects. Model coefficients were calculated as odd ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI).
In general, the intercept for each model represents the likelihood of female first or last authorship when controlling for all variables in the model. For female first authorship, since the standard deviation of the intercept (or random effect intercept) between journals was statistically significant (P-value = 0.047), we can assume that the intercept variance varied significantly between journals, which indicates significant variation between journals regarding first authorship gender and provides justification for the use of MLM for this data set. When controlling for JIF and last authorship gender in the full MLM, the model correctly classified 61.5% of cases. For female last authorship, since the standard deviation of the intercept (or random effect intercept) between journals was statistically significant (P-value = 0.048), we can assume that the intercept variance varied significantly between journals, which indicates significant variation between journals regarding last authorship gender and provides justification for the use of MLM for this data set. When controlling for JIF and first authorship gender in the full MLM, the model correctly classified 74.3% of cases.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Of the 11 chosen journals for 2021, the percentage of female authorship for both the first and last author was determined (Figure 1 and Table S3). Our results indicated that a higher percentage of female authors was published as first authors (FX; 39.5%) over last authors (XF; 25.7%) across the 6712 articles evaluated for 2021. When averaged across all 11 journals, this trend is illustrated again, with the average ± standard deviation percentages of female first authorship at 40.80 ± 8.31% and female last authorship at 27.41 ± 8.31%.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Data collected from 11 journals that published research related to drug delivery in 2021. Percentage of paper authorship for a given group. The total number of publications for that group is indicated in the bar. Average % of papers with MX = male first author and either a male or female last author; FX = female first author and either a male or female last author; XM = male last author and either a male or female first author; XF = female last author and either a male or female first author; MM = male first and last author; FM = female first and male last author; FF = female first and last author; MF = male first author and female last author.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
The lower percentage of female authors could be attributed to the lower number of female PhD graduates in drug delivery, compared to males. To evaluate this, one can look at the graduation percentages of female PhD students in the primary fields that make up drug delivery research: pharmaceutical sciences, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, and chemistry. Data from the last 20 years or earlier has indicated that the percentage of females is reported to be 45.7% for pharmaceutical sciences for the 2000s and 2010s, (1) 31.2 ± 1.2% for chemical engineering between 2010 and 2019, (2) 38.1 ± 0.8% for biomedical engineering in 2009, 2010, and 2014–2017, (3) and 37.6 ± 1.6% for chemistry for 2009–2015, in the United States. (2) This data indicated that approximately 38% of graduates in fields that include drug delivery are female, which is within the range of what is observed here with the average first authorship (40.80 ± 8.31%); however, this does not consider international data when the journals selected include international authors. Recent surveys of international pharmaceutical science (Asia, North America, Europe, Africa, and Australia) and engineering (European Union (EU)) graduate students indicated that female graduate students represent about 50% of the students across the locations surveyed. (4,5) Although additional data is needed to draw significant conclusions, female first author publication rates in drug delivery are within the range or slightly lower than female PhD graduate students graduating in related fields.
However, the average last authorship (27.41 ± 8.31) is well below what is observed for women professors at most levels across these fields in the United States (Table 2). Further, with the inclusion of international data, female professors in pharmaceutical sciences are reported to be approximately 50% across Asia, North America, Europe, Africa, and Australia. (4) This is slightly higher than for general science and engineering (STEM), which is reported to be approximately 40% across the EU for women. (7) Even if it is assumed that most last authored manuscripts are produced when a professor is an associate or full professor, the average percentage of these two positions is 35.5% in the United States and greater than that internationally, which equates to a greater than 8.5% gap in gender for the last author percentage.
Table 2. Percentage of Women Professors across Fields of Drug Delivery in the United States (6)
women professorsassistant professorsassociate professorsfull professors
all49%42%29%
pharmacy59%45%24%
chemistry27%30%15%
engineering29%29%NA
Some of this difference in last authorship could be accounted for in the roles of female faculty as women are often overrepresented in non-tenure track academic positions. (8) Faculty who have primarily teaching or clinical appointments may have less of a requirement for publishing than research centric faculty. The American Association of University Professors surveyed 996 universities and reported the roles of male and females in various appointments (Table 3A). Women have a higher percentage of appointments in non-tenure track positions, regardless of the rank, and reduced percentage in tenured positions. The largest differences between males and females in a given rank in non-tenure track positions are assistant professors (7.2%) followed by associates (3.1%) and professors (2.5%), and the remaining differences are less than 1%. Although these differences are significant, they cannot alone account for the difference in male and female last authorship. (9) Further, the reduced last authorship of females we observed (27.41 ± 8.31%) is not accounted by female faculty in clinical positions, which may have less of an emphasis on publishing (Table 3B). Both social sciences and pharmaceutical sciences researchers in pharmacy programs would require publications for promotion, and women account for 47 and 36.2% of the faculty in these areas, respectively. (10) These figures align similarly with engineering, where 2019 statistics indicated that women constitute 36.7% of teaching faculty in that discipline, with 35.5% as research faculty, as collected by the National Science Foundation. (11) Overall, this data indicates that there are small increases in women in positions that may have a reduced requirement for publishing, but these small differences likely do not account for the reduction in the overall last author publications.
Table 3. (A, B) Role of Women in Faculty with Respect to Teaching or Clinical Appointments (9,10)
AB
2017–2018non-tenure track (M%:F%)tenure track (M%:F%)tenured pap(M%:F%)%women1990–19912002–20032012–20132012–2013
professor4.2:6.71.3:1.394.6:92.0pharmacy practice36%53%61%66%
associate7.1:10.26.3:6.786.6:83.2
assistant18.3:25.577.5:70.54.1:4.0social sciences/outcomes21%31%44%47%
instructor96.1:96.51.5:1.62.4:1.9
lecturer94.6:95.14.5:4.11.0:0.8pharmaceutical sciencesa19.528.5%33.5%36.2%
no rank86.9:87.43.7:4.19.4:8.5
a

Data is averaged across several pharmaceutical science disciplines (e.g., pharmaceutics, medicinal chemistry, and pharmacokinetics).

Across 11 journals and their articles published in 2021, we evaluated male and female authorship as it relates to JIF. Very strong relationships were seen between JIF and female or male authorship (Table 2 and Figure 2) that were observed. Specifically, JIF demonstrated strong negative correlations with % first female (rp = −0.73, P-value = 0.010), % last female (rp = −0.66, P-value = 0.028), and % first and last female (rp = −0.71, P-value = 0.013) and a strong positive correlation with % first and last male (rp = 0.71, P-value = 0.014). Chi-square also revealed differences in the authorship position by gender (P-value <0.001) (Table S3). A similar observance was reported by Shen et al. for several high impact journals across neuroscience. (12) In their analysis of female first and last authorship from 2005 to 2017 for JIFs in the same range we report, they report Spearman’s coefficient of −0.75 for female first authors and −0.56 for last authors. Our data yields more negative Spearman’s coefficients of −0.85 and −0.87 for female first and last authorship, respectively (Table S3). This would indicate that in comparison to the data from the general and neuroscience-focused journals studied by Shen et al., journals in which drug delivery research is published have a reduced incidence of female first and last authors as it correlates to JIF. Although neuroscience has a significantly higher percentage of female PhD graduates (53%) than drug delivery disciplines reported domestically above (38%), the percentage of women in tenure track faculty is less in neuroscience with the percentage of females reported for 2017–2018 being only 30.8% with 13.8% of tenured professors at the rank of full professor. (13) In addition to Shen et al.’s work, the percentages of women first authors and last authors for 40 infectious disease journals were evaluated and there was no observed correlation between gender and JIF, but the range of JIFs (4.46 ± 4.13) evaluated was lower than we evaluated in this study (16.06 ± 11.29). (14) Overall, this data would indicate that females in drug delivery have a decreased frequency of publication in high impact journals over other scientific fields, including those like neuroscience that have fewer female professors.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Data collected from 11 journals that published research related to drug delivery in 2021. Authorship for a given group across journal impact factor (rp = −0.73 to 0.71). FX = average % of papers with female first author; XF = average % of papers with female last author; FF = average % of papers with female first and last author; MM = average % of papers with male first and last author; XM = average % of papers with male last author.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
This observed difference in gender and authorship could be a function of many things, including bias by editors and reviewers during the peer review process or female authors (first or last) choosing lower JIF journals to submit their work. We evaluated the editorial board composition for the journals in Table 1 (Table S4) to understand the impact an editorial board may have on these observed gender differences. For the journals evaluated here, the relationship between journal JIF and percentage of females on the editorial board was not statistically significant (rp = −0.33 to 0.38). Further, there was no difference in JIF based on editor-in-chief (EIC) gender (P-value = 0.25). Weak to negligible relationships were also found between XF and FX authorship and percentage of female editors (rp = −0.32 to 0.23), number of editors (rp = −0.34 to 0.31), and size of the editorial board (rp = −0.29 to 0.34). This would indicate that having a female editor does not affect female authorship in the field of drug delivery. In the field of infectious diseases, the percentage of females on the editorial board had a significant effect on first and last authorship by women, but the gender of the EIC did not have an effect. (14) Similarly in urology, there was a positive correlation between total female authors and female editors. (15) In the journals evaluated here, 25.58% of the EICs were women and the editorial board averaged 42.93 ± 27.3% women. In comparison to the percentage of female last author publications, we observed (XF: 27.41 ± 8.31%) that these values are not significantly different, but women are on average represented at a higher percentage on editorial boards than the last authorship averaged over all the 11 journals reported here.
Female authors not submitting to higher impact journals could also result in the observed decrease in female authorship with increasing JIF. There is limited information regarding submission to journals; however, Squazzoni et al. evaluated submission in 2329 Elsevier journals (Biomat, IJP, and JCR are Elsevier’s journals) from 2018 to 2020 and observed that women submit about 45% of the number of manuscripts as men. (16) They noted that across these journals, submission rates during the early stages of COVID mostly affected female authors, and similarly Bell and Fong concluded that women submitted less during COVID than men in the area of public health. (17) At the high impact journal Cell, data based on self-reported gender indicates that women made up 17.0% of all submissions, with men at 76.8%, non-binary individuals at 0.6%, and not reported at 5.6% for the years 2017–2021. (18) Despite these discrepancies in submission rates, the accepted rate is approximately the same (11–12%), but there was a smaller percentage invited to revise for women (31.7% invited to revise) than for men (36.7% invited to revise). Data that also supports that women authors receive increased adverse outcomes during reviews than males was shown in the field of ecology for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in 2010–2015. (19) Their data showed that women first authors were as likely as male first authors to be sent for review, but female first authors received worse peer review scores and were rejected at a higher rate than males. When the data was self-reported, women and men reported the same level of rejection. Further, in sub-Saharan Africa, female STEM PhD students report 25% fewer manuscripts being accepted for publication in any given year, in comparison to men. (20) This data in conjunction with the editorial board data would indicate that one barrier to publication of articles by female authors is peer review. Peer review has also been reported as a barrier for historically excluded groups, including women. When peer review data was recently analyzed from 312,740 manuscripts in biological sciences, they reported that female authors had worse or similar outcomes at each step of the review than male authors. (21)
One way to mitigate bias may be double-blinded peer review where the author and peer reviewers are blinded to each other’s name and thereby gender. A majority of the journals that publish drug delivery research are only single-blinded, where the authors are blinded as to who performed the peer review. Smith et al. recently reported that for biological sciences, a higher percentage of female manuscripts was submitted for review when the manuscripts were double-blinded (authors and reviewers blinded) than when they were single-blinded. (21) A recent analysis of double-blinded peer review studies by Kern-Goldberger et al. concluded mixed results with this type of peer review. Of the eight double-blinded peer review studies examined, four concluded perceived gender bias with review and four concluded that there was no impact. (22) Other studies indicated that triple-blind review (blinded author, editor, and reviewers) could result in decreased gender bias. (23) However, blinded peer review is difficult to fully carry out as many authors will self-cite, particularly for methods. Further artificial intelligence has shown that women and men use different terms or vernacular in their writing, which may result in implicit bias in peer reivew. (24) Journals and publishing houses tracking reviewers for gender-based differences may lead to reduced gender bias if biased reviewers are then removed from the reviewing pool. Further, key word usage could be used to screen for bias during peer review. (25)
To understand differences in male and female authorship across the 11 journals evaluated, we used Chi-square analysis. Results showed significant differences between journals for FX, XF, FF, and MM (Figure 3 and Table S5). For female first or last authors, significant differences (P-value <0.001) across the journals were observed. Significant differences were also observed for FF and MM authorship (P-value <0.001). Also significant were FM and MF authorship (P-value <0.05). Of note, FF and MF authorship were the lowest percentages for all journals, except the AAPS Journal where authorship was most evenly distributed between rank and male or female (Figure 3B); however, it also has the lowest 2021 impact factor (JIF = 3.603) and the fewest articles (n = 121). Differences were also noted between publishing groups (Table S6).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Percentage of first and last authorship for female and males across 11 journals for 2021. (A) Percentage based on first authorship. FX = average % of papers with female first author; MX = average % of papers with male first author. (B) Percentages for iteration of all four groups. MM = average % of papers with male first and last author; FM = average % of papers with female first and male last author; FF = average % of papers with female first and last author; MF = average % of papers with male first and female last author (Table S5).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
To understand if the trends observed in 2021 were year-specific, six journals were evaluated over a 5 year period for male and female authorship. During this 5 year period, there were significant differences in the number of female first authors (P-value = 0.005), particularly with male last authors (Figure 4 and Table S7). A significant (P-value = 0.011) and general upward trend was observed for female first authors and male last authors across the 5 year period. This observed trend would indicate that female first authorship in drug delivery did not decrease due to COVID. If extrapolated, female first authors with male last authors are predicted to account for 50% of papers in the year 2044 (Figure S1). This is 14 years later (2030) than it is extrapolated for female first authors (regardless of male or female last authorship) to constitute 50% of first authorship (Figure S1). This data indicates that female first authorship is on the rise, while female last authorship is considered constant (P-value = 0.123), so it may be inferred that female trainees are increasing in the field, but female professors are remaining relatively constant. This lack of change in female last authorship could also be due to the particular time selected for analysis and that the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2019, significantly affecting professors with young children and particularly women. (26)

Figure 4

Figure 4. Average percentage of first and last authorship for female and males across six journals for 5 years. (A) Percent authorship for first author male and female publications. FX = average % of papers with female first author; MX = average % of papers with male first author. (B) Percent authorship for first and last authorship for male and female. FF = average % of papers with female first and last author; MM = average % of papers with male first and last author; FM = average % of papers with female first and male last author; MF = average % of papers with male first and female last author (Table S7).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
As the rate of female first authorship increased, the rate of male first authorship with male last authors decreased over the 5 year span (P-value = 0.011). This is in contrast to male first authors with female last authors, which remained relatively constant over the 5 year period (P-value = 0.301). Moreover, female first and last authorship are also stable over the period of time evaluated (P-value = 0.656). This would indicate that the overall female first authorship is increasing at the decrease in male first authorship with respect to male last authorship but not with respect to female last authorship. However, it should be noted that the increase in female first authorship (and decrease in male first authorship) is still relatively modest, at less than 1% a year (0.93%/year; Figure S1). Broderick and Casadevall reported a similar decrease in male first authorship broadly across scientific papers, which was observed to begin to decrease in 2007. In the same study, when male first authorship was compared between the United States, Europe, and other regions (e.g., Asia), there were no noticeable differences in the probability of male first authors, indicating that these gender differences were independent of the author’s country. (27)
Our data indicated that there was a significant downward trend with respect to JIF if a female was the first (P-value = 0.004) or last author (P-value = 0.007), and a larger percentage of publications in most journals was observed when a male is the last author. We wanted then to explore the likelihood of a female being a first author, so we performed logistic multilevel modeling (MLM) at a fixed JIF. The intercept for the unconditional MLM was 0.64 (CI 0.55–0.75, P-value <0.001), which indicates that the odds for a paper to have a female first author were 0.64–1. This means that papers were about 1.5 times more likely to have a male first author than female (Table S8). For female last authors, the intercept was found to be 0.36 (CI 0.29–0.45, P-value <0.001), which indicates that the odds are 0.36–1 (Table S8). This means that males are approximately 3 times more likely to be the last author on a publication compared to females in the field of drug delivery. The odds of a female last author are approximately 2 times less than that of a female first author, which would indicate that a smaller percentage of females are transitioning from trainees to principal investigators.
There are multiple reasons why female trainees may not pursue academia, but it is indicated that this decision is made during PhD studies. One study noted that at the conclusion of their PhD, women are twice as likely to not want to pursue academia than their male counterpart, when the same study noted that an equal percentage of women and men wanted to pursue academia at the beginning of their PhD. (28) This change during their PhD could be because of a reported 147% increase in peer-sexual harassment experienced by female students. (29) Also, women during their PhD may be considering starting a family. This aligns with data that indicates that motherhood has been linked to 81% of women changing their desire to enter academia compared to the start of their PhD. (28) Likely, this turnaround is linked to the common, albeit fictitious, (30,31) discourse in the academic settings that women are less productive or that being faculty is too demanding for women with children. Further, the decision to have children has been shown to result in a less competitive tenure-track application since there is a documented bias against mothers being hired, especially as compared to fathers. (32)
The ability of women to even compete for a tenure track position is another reason that women are not transitioning from a first to a senior author because they were not hired in academia. In addition to our data that indicates that female first authors are significantly less likely to publish in higher JIF journals, additional barriers have been reported like reduced credit for a female’s work, leading to a reduced number of publications and patents. There are several studies that indicate that women are less likely to receive credit for their work than their male counterparts. (33−36) Indeed, Feldon et al. report that male PhD students are 15% more likely to be listed as an author than female PhD students in the area of biological sciences. (36) Additionally, Ross et al. conclude that women are 59% less likely to be named on patents than men. (33) This reduction in metrics can lead to fewer training opportunities to develop the ones researched into a publication, naivete related to intellectual property, and a less competitive application to a tenure track position. These differences in acknowledgement for publications and patents can translate into more female candidates being overlooked for tenure track positions. Indeed, Williams and Ceci noted that female candidates were preferred 2:1 in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology when candidates were identically qualified, (37) but in a study by the same team in the same year, they illustrated that this difference was not observed when women were slightly less qualified than the male candidate. (38) Taken together, these studies indicate that women’s research work is more likely to be discounted or published in lower JIF papers that can directly impact their ability to acquire a tenure track position because women would be required to work harder to have the same research metrics as a man’s whose work is less likely to be discounted.
Another barrier to female PhDs pursuing academia is the reported poor rate of promotion of female professors (Table 2). Poor promotion rates are likely because women faculty has been reported to receive fewer awards, (1) lower teaching scores, (39) reduced NIH dollars, (40) decreased invitations to give talks, (41) and fewer citations in publications (42) than their male counterparts. Further, as our data and others indicate, women have fewer publications (43,44) than their male colleagues, and these publications are in lower impact journals. Taken together, these metrics account for a majority of the metrics related to tenure and promotion. Additionally, women have been noted to have an increased service load compared to their male colleagues, usually at the detriment of their research. (45,46) Also, women are often burdened with higher teaching loads than their male counterparts. (47) In addition to reduced promotion, many female faculty members leave academia, further reducing representation. Notably, these departures are brought about due to underrepresentation and stereotypes, lack of social networks, and chilly academic climates. (47,48) With poor success rates and an adverse environment, it is therefore not surprising that fewer women pursue faculty.
To understand the role of female representation in authorship, we evaluated the likelihood of a female first authorship with a female last authorship. The odds of a first author female paper were 1.22 (CI 1.09–1.36) times higher for papers with a female last author than a male last author (P-value = 0.001) (Table S8). This indicates that if a female is seeking out first authorship, then they are 22% more likely to achieve that with a female last author than a male last author, indicating potential bias in author selection by male senior authors. This thought aligns with a previous study that has reported that male-only pairings are most common with two author pairings, (27) shared first authorship is most common between three or more males, and that male scientists are most likely to share data with other male scientists. (49) However, with the general upward trend of female first author and male last author publications and no significant differences in female last author trends over the 5 years evaluated (Table S7), this ratio could improve overtime. The fact that there is no significant difference in female last author trends is interesting in the context that a study of French PhD students reported that mid-career female supervisors who have a national grant were most positively associated with student productivity (i.e., student’s publication quantity, quality, and co-authorship network size). (50) Overall, our data support that female representation as last authors directly impacts female first authorship.
Our data indicates that the representation of females in academia and as mentors for female trainees can improve authorship outcomes; however, our noted discrepancy around gender differences and authorship is often amplified in other underrepresented groups. For instance, it is well observed that differences related to author ethnicity and affiliation affect representation across publications. (21) One way to mitigate this for gender, ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ status is to create a greater sense of inclusion. (51) NSF’s program Targeting Equity in Access to Mentoring (TEAM) ADVANCE seeks to increase women in STEM tenure track positions by increasing networking and improving academic climate. (47) Inclusion of LGBTQ+ examples in case studies and other aspects of lectures has been shown to increase the feeling of acceptance for LGBTQ+ students, which is important because this group is 30% more likely to experience harassment than their peers. (52,53) Further, at the trainee level, underrepresented minority retention has been significantly increased by providing greater financial support, tutoring, and fostering teamwork, as exemplified by the University of Maryland Baltimore Campus’ Meyerhoff Graduate Fellows Program as well as similar programs supported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Penn State University. (54) These examples highlight that the creation of a more inclusive environment is needed to retain not only female faculty but also other underrepresented individuals.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
For these journals evaluated in the field of drug delivery, female authorship is underrepresented, particularly for last author females. In contrast to the male first and last author, there is a significant negative correlation for the female first and female last author with respect to JIF. Significant differences between the 11 journals evaluated in the year 2021 were observed for the female first or last author and all authors groups (MM, FM, MF, and FF). Differences in first or last author gender were shown not to be dependent on percentage of female editor-in-chief or percentage of female editors. Literature would support that the primary barrier to increasing women authors is bias in the peer review process, although other factors might contribute. Male first authors were 1.5 times more likely than female first authors; however, in the journals evaluated, there is a general upward trend of <1% per year in the number of female first authors with male last authors with equality extrapolated to be achieved in 2030 for all female first authors. Despite the increase in female first authors, there is no notable yearly increase in female last authors, with male last authorship predicted to be observed 3 times more than females. This indicates that females are less likely to transition to principal investigators, likely because of reduced credit for their scientific effort, difficulties in acquiring a tenure track position, and concerns around motherhood. Women last authors are 22% more likely to have female first authors than male last authors, which support literature that indicates that males are more likely to share data with other males. Overall, the differences reported for gender are also observed with other underrepresented groups and a greater sense of inclusion can help mitigate attrition of talented faculty and trainees in these groups.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.3c00328.

  • Link to the list of male and female names used for analysis as well as the number of authors omitted for each journal because their gender could not be identified; tables with number and percentages of total authorship, editorial board, differences in authorship by journal, publications by publishing house, and authorship across 2017–2021 with respect to gender; table of statistics for the relationship between JIF and authorship in 2021 providing the number, percentage, average, Pearson’s coefficient, Spearman’s correlation, and P-value for this relationship with respect to gender groupings; tables related to the multilevel modeling and projections to parity between male and female authorship; the number, percentage, and average for all relationships as well as the differences per year; the methods for analysis (PDF)

  • Excel file featuring the list of male and female names used for analysis (XLSX)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
  • Corresponding Author
    • Kristy M. Ainslie - Division of Pharmacoengineering and Molecular Pharmaceutics, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States;  Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States;  Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States;  Orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-8382;  Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Jacqueline E. McLaughlin - Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States
    • Jacob M. Bachelder - Carborro High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States
  • Author Contributions

    J.E.M. contributed to the data analysis, manuscript writing, and editing. J.M.B. contributed to the data collection and analysis. K.M.A. contributed to the study design, data analysis, manuscript writing, and editing.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Funding for this work was provided by UNC Internal Funds.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 54 other publications.

  1. 1
    Draugalis, J. R.; Plaza, C. M.; Taylor, D. A.; Meyer, S. M. The status of women in US academic pharmacy. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2014, 78, 178,  DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7810178
    Google Scholar
    1
    The status of women in US academic pharmacy
    Draugalis JoLaine R; Plaza Cecilia M; Taylor Danielle A; Meyer Susan M
    American journal of pharmaceutical education (2014), 78 (10), 178 ISSN:.
    OBJECTIVE: To describe the status of women in pharmacy education with particular focus on a 10-year update of a previous study. METHODS: Information was obtained from national databases, published reports, scholarly articles, and association websites. Comparisons were made between men and women regarding degree completion, rank, tenure status, leadership positions, research awards, salaries, and career advancement. RESULTS: There have been modest gains in the number of women serving as department chairs and deans. Salary disparities were found between men and women at several ranks within pharmacy practice. Men were more apt to be tenured or in tenure-track positions and received 89.4% of the national achievement awards tracked since 1981. CONCLUSION: The problem cannot be simply attributed to the pipeline of those entering academia. Barriers to advancement differ between men and women. We recommend that individuals, institutions, and associations implement strategies to decrease barriers and reduce bias against women.
  2. 2
    Tom, J. W.; Green, R. A.; Cherney, E. C.; Huang, M.; Lott, J. Empowering Women in Chemical Sciences and Engineering through Outreach: A Platform to Explore Careers in the Pharmaceutical Industry. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 154– 161,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00335
    Google Scholar
    2
    Empowering Women in Chemical Sciences and Engineering through Outreach: A Platform to Explore Careers in the Pharmaceutical Industry
    Tom, Jean W.; Green, Rebecca A.; Cherney, Emily C.; Huang, Masano; Lott, Jennifer
    Journal of Chemical Education (2022), 99 (1), 154-161CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
    This paper describes a grassroots outreach program at Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), organized by women chemists and chem. engineers, for women studying chem. and chem. engineering. This effort supports the company's belief that excellence in creativity and innovation is enhanced when its scientists and engineers bring diverse experiences and backgrounds to the teams inventing and developing novel medicines. The in-person event includes seminars, poster sessions, lab tours, networking lunch and a discussion panel for students from local colleges and universities. These events were designed to expose students to potential careers in the pharmaceutical industry. We present data from 275 survey respondents out of the 354 participants from the past 7 years. The survey results were overwhelmingly pos. and showed the events were particularly impactful in (1) increasing an understanding of what chemists or chem. engineers do in the pharmaceutical industry, (2) presenting a broader view of academic options, (3) building higher confidence in the students' choice of major, and (4) fostering a sense of belonging and pride to be a woman in a STEM field. These events enhanced the company's ability to attract and hire top talent, while engaging current employees as role models for the next generation of women in STEM. We believe the program is an excellent model for other companies, industries, and professional societies to attract talented students from underrepresented groups to STEM fields.
  3. 3
    Barabino, G.; Frize, M.; Ibrahim, F.; Kaldoudi, E.; Lhotska, L.; Marcu, L.; Stoeva, M.; Tsapaki, V.; Bezak, E. Solutions to Gender Balance in STEM Fields Through Support, Training, Education and Mentoring: Report of the International Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 275– 292,  DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00097-0
    Google Scholar
    3
    Solutions to Gender Balance in STEM Fields Through Support, Training, Education and Mentoring: Report of the International Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group
    Barabino Gilda; Frize Monique; Ibrahim Fatimah; Ibrahim Fatimah; Kaldoudi Eleni; Lhotska Lenka; Lhotska Lenka; Marcu Loredana; Marcu Loredana; Bezak Eva; Stoeva Magdalena; Stoeva Magdalena; Tsapaki Virginia; Bezak Eva
    Science and engineering ethics (2020), 26 (1), 275-292 ISSN:.
    The aim of this article is to offer a view of the current status of women in medical physics and biomedical engineering, while focusing on solutions towards gender balance and providing examples of current activities carried out at national and international levels. The International Union of Physical and Engineering Scientists in Medicine is committed to advancing women in science and health and has several initiatives overseen by the Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group. Some of the main strategies proposed by the Task Group to attain gender balance are: (a) identify and promote female role models that achieve successful work-life balance, (b) establish programs to develop female leaders, (c) create opportunities for females to increase the international visibility within the scientific community, and (d) establish archives and databases of women in STEM.
  4. 4
    Morris, M. E.; Ren, T.; Asare-Nkansah, S.; Bilensoy, E.; Gatwood, J.; Giolito, M. V.; Nicolazzo, J. A.; Zuo, Z.; Pauletti, G. M. Doctoral Graduate Programs in the Pharmaceutical Sciences: An International Survey. J. Pharm. Sci. 2022, 111, 3196– 3205,  DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2022.07.001
    Google Scholar
    4
    Doctoral Graduate Programs in the Pharmaceutical Sciences: An International Survey
    Morris, Marilyn E.; Ren, Tianjing; Asare-Nkansah, Samuel; Bilensoy, Erem; Gatwood, Justin; Giolito, Maria Virginia; Nicolazzo, Joseph A.; Zuo, Zhong; Pauletti, Giovanni M.
    Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Philadelphia, PA, United States) (2022), 111 (12), 3196-3205CODEN: JPMSAE; ISSN:0022-3549. (Elsevier Inc.)
    This publication represents the first to report global information on characteristics and requirements of doctoral programs in the pharmaceutical sciences in schools/colleges of Pharmacy. Survey responses (140 responses) were received from doctoral programs in 23 countries, with the greatest no. of responses obtained from Japan, followed by India and the United States. Program characteristics and requirements, and student and faculty information, including graduate placement, in programs in Asia, North America, Europe, Africa and Australia were compared. Survey responses indicated differences in entrance requirements for doctoral programs with min. requirements being a bachelor 's degree, pharmacy degree or master 's degree, including a M.Phil. degree. Programs differed widely in size in all geog. areas, but there was a similar emphasis on core educational learning outcomes (core competencies) and Ph. D. graduation requirements including qualifying examns., thesis defense with internal and external reviewers and requirements for peer-reviewed publications. Addnl., three-quarters of programs indicated that there was external review of their programs every 2-4 or 5-7 years. Female students and female faculty mentors represented about 50% of students/faculty in programs in most geog. areas. Placement of students after graduation indicated that the highest percentage went into the pharmaceutical industry in Asia (predominantly India) and North America, with a lower percentage in Europe, Africa and Australia.
  5. 5
    European Commission She figures 2021 : gender in research and innovation : statistics and indicators. Publications Office: 2021.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  6. 6
    Ainslie, K. M. 9 to 5 in Academia: Addressing Barriers for Women. Mol. Pharmaceutics 2023, 20, 1– 3,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00899
    Google Scholar
    6
    9 to 5 in Academia: Addressing Barriers for Women
    Ainslie, Kristy M.
    Molecular Pharmaceutics (2023), 20 (1), 1-3CODEN: MPOHBP; ISSN:1543-8384. (American Chemical Society)
    There is no expanded citation for this reference.
  7. 7
    Beddoes, Z. M. Why half the scientists in some eastern European countries are women. Economist 2019.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  8. 8
    Rennane, S.; Acheson-Field, H.; Edwards, K. A.; Gahlon, G.; Zaber, M. A. Leak or link? the overrepresentation of women in non-tenure-track academic positions in STEM. PLoS One 2022, 17, e0267561  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267561
    Google Scholar
    8
    Leak or link? the overrepresentation of women in non-tenure-track academic positions in STEM
    Rennane, Stephanie; Acheson-Field, Hannah; Edwards, Kathryn A.; Gahlon, Grace; Zaber, Melanie A.
    PLoS One (2022), 17 (6), e0267561CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
    This paper examines gender variation in departures from the tenure-track science, technol., engineering, and math (STEM) academic career pathway to non-tenure-track academic careers. We integrate multiple data sources including the Survey of Earned Doctorates and the Survey of Doctorate Recipients to examine longitudinal career outcomes of STEM doctorate women. We consider three types of careers after receipt of a PhD: academic, academic non-tenure-track, and non-academic positions. We find that STEM women are more likely to hold academic non-tenure-track positions, which are assocd. with lower job satisfaction and lower salaries among men and women. Explanations including differences in field of study, prepn. in graduate school, and family structure only explain 35 percent of the gender gap in non-tenure-track academic positions.
  9. 9
    Harmon, O.; Hopkins, B.; Kelchen, R.; Persky, J.; Roy, J. The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2017–18; American Association of University Professors: ACADEME Magazine, 2018.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  10. 10
    Draugalis, J. R.; Medina, M. S.; Taylor, J. N.; Plaza, C. M.; Lopez, E. J. An Update on the Progress Toward Gender Equity in US Academic Pharmacy. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2022, 86, ajpe8962,  DOI: 10.5688/ajpe8962
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  11. 11
    National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Early Career Doctorates Survey. Foundation, N. S., Ed. 2017.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  12. 12
    Shen, Y. A.; Webster, J. M.; Shoda, Y.; Fine, I. Persistent Underrepresentation of Women’s Science in High Profile Journals. bioRxiv 2018, 275362,  DOI: 10.1101/275362
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  13. 13
    Machlovi, S.; Pero, A.; Ng, S.; Zhong, M.; Cai, D. Women in neuroscience: Where are we in 2019?. J. Neurosci. Res. 2021, 99, 9– 12,  DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24570
    Google Scholar
    13
    Women in neuroscience: Where are we in 2019?
    Machlovi, Saima; Pero, Adriana; Ng, Sabrina; Zhong, Margaret; Cai, Dongming
    Journal of Neuroscience Research (2021), 99 (1), 9-12CODEN: JNREDK; ISSN:0360-4012. (Wiley-Blackwell)
    There is no expanded citation for this reference.
  14. 14
    Last, K.; Hübsch, L.; Cevik, M.; Wolkewitz, M.; Müller, S. E.; Huttner, A.; Papan, C. Association between women’s authorship and women’s editorship in infectious diseases journals: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 1455– 1464,  DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00367-X
    Google Scholar
    14
    Association between women's authorship and women's editorship in infectious diseases journals: a cross-sectional study
    Last Katharina; Hubsch Lilith; Muller Sophie Elisabeth; Cevik Muge; Wolkewitz Martin; Huttner Angela; Papan Cihan
    The Lancet. Infectious diseases (2022), 22 (10), 1455-1464 ISSN:.
    BACKGROUND: Gender inequity is still pervasive in academic medicine, including journal publishing. We aimed to ascertain the proportion of women among first and last authors and editors in infectious diseases journals and assess the association between women's editorship and women's authorship while controlling for a journal's impact factor. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we randomly selected 40 infectious diseases journals (ten from each 2020 impact factor quartile), 20 obstetrics and gynaecology journals (five from each 2020 impact factor quartile), and 20 cardiology journals (five from each 2020 impact factor quartile) that were indexed in Journal Citation Reports, had an impact factor, had retrievable first and last author names, and had the name of more than one editor listed. We retrieved the names of the first and last authors of all citable articles published by the journals in 2018 and 2019 that counted towards their 2020 impact factor and collected the names of all the journals' editors-in-chief, deputy editors, section editors, and associate editors for the years 2018 and 2019. We used genderize.io to predict the gender of each first author, last author, and editor. The outcomes of interest were the proportions of women first authors and women last authors. We assessed the association between women's editorship and women's authorship by fitting quasi-Poisson regression models comprising the variables: the proportion of women last authors or women first authors; the proportion of women editors; the presence of a woman editor-in-chief; and journal 2020 impact factor. FINDINGS: We found 11 027 citable infectious diseases articles, of which 167 (1·5%) had an indeterminable first author gender, 155 (1·4%) had an indeterminable last author gender, and seven (0·1%) had no authors indexed. 5350 (49·3%) of 10 853 first authors whose gender could be determined were predicted to be women and 5503 (50·7%) were predicted to be men. Women accounted for 3788 (34·9%) of 10 865 last authors whose gender could be determined and men accounted for 7077 (65·1%). Of 577 infectious diseases journal editors, 190 (32·9%) were predicted to be women and 387 (67·1%) were predicted to be men. Of the 40 infectious diseases journals, 13 (32·5%) had a woman as editor-in-chief. For infectious diseases journals, the proportion of women editors had a significant effect on women's first authorship (incidence rate ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·06-1·63; p=0·012) and women's last authorship (1·92, 1·45-2·55; p<0·0001). The presence of a woman editor-in-chief, the proportion of women last or first authors, and the journal's impact factor exerted no effect in these analyses. INTERPRETATION: The proportion of women editors appears to influence the proportion of women last and first authors in the analysed infectious diseases journals. These findings might help to explain gender disparities observed in publishing in academic medicine and suggest a need for revised policies towards increasing women's representation among editors. FUNDING: The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
  15. 15
    Prunty, M.; Rhodes, S.; Sun, H.; Miller, A.; Calaway, A.; Kutikov, A.; Plimack, E. R.; Ponsky, L.; Murray, K. S.; Bukavina, L. A Seat at the Table: The Correlation Between Female Authorship and Urology Journal Editorial Board Membership. European Urology Focus 2022, 8, 1751– 1757,  DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.04.009
    Google Scholar
    15
    A Seat at the Table: The Correlation Between Female Authorship and Urology Journal Editorial Board Membership
    Prunty Megan; Rhodes Stephen; Sun Helen; Calaway Adam; Ponsky Lee; Miller April; Kutikov Alexander; Plimack Elizabeth R; Bukavina Laura; Murray Katie S
    European urology focus (2022), 8 (6), 1751-1757 ISSN:.
    BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in editorial board composition exist across a variety of surgical subspecialties. OBJECTIVE: To investigate temporal variation in gender representation on the editorial boards of urology journals and assess the relationship between editorial board composition and female authorship. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed female authorship and editorial board composition between 2002 and 2020 among eight high-impact urology journals. Female publication status was assessed using publication records retrieved from PubMed. Editorial board information was manually extracted and titles were grouped for comparison as Editor-in-Chief, mid-level editor, and consulting editors. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Female representation across different editorial levels was analyzed via hierarchical logistic regression with additional terms to test for between-journal differences in overall representation and change over time. The relationship between representation on editorial boards and as publication authors was assessed at the journal level via correlation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Eight journals and 49 412 articles were analyzed. No female has held the title of Editor-in-Chief for any of these eight journals in 18 yr. Significant growth was seen for mid-level editors, whereas no growth was seen for consulting editors. Neurourology and Urodynamics and Journal of Sexual Medicine had significantly higher than average female editorial board representation (p < 0.05). Across the eight journals, there was a statistically significant correlation between the proportion of overall female authors and female editors (r = 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.99). For all journals, the proportion of female contributing authors is greater than the proportion of female editorial board members. CONCLUSIONS: Women in urology represent a small but increasing presence as editorial board members. Clear differences exist between journals, potentially attributable to specialty-specific demographics. Despite increasing representation, no female has ever been appointed Editor-in-Chief for any of the eight journals evaluated. At the journal-specific level, a positive correlation was observed between female editorial staff and female authorship. Given the implication of both academic authorship and editorial board assignment on academic advancement, actionable changes are outlined to guide improvement in gender diversity at the journal level. PATIENT SUMMARY: Females are under-represented on the editorial boards for urology journals, although some roles have seen growth over time. Moreover, female editorial board membership is associated with representation of females among article authors. Gender disparities in both are noteworthy because they affect career paths and contribute to the gender gap in urology.
  16. 16
    Squazzoni, F.; Bravo, G.; Grimaldo, F.; García-Costa, D.; Farjam, M.; Mehmani, B. Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PLoS One 2021, 16, e0257919  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257919
    Google Scholar
    16
    Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals
    Squazzoni, Flaminio; Bravo, Giangiacomo; Grimaldo, Francisco; Garcia-Costa, Daniel; Farjam, Mike; Mehmani, Bahar
    PLoS One (2021), 16 (10), e0257919CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
    During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between Feb. and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Result showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was esp. pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.
  17. 17
    Bell, M. L.; Fong, K. C. Gender Differences in First and Corresponding Authorship in Public Health Research Submissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am. J. Public Health 2021, 111, 159– 163,  DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305975
    Google Scholar
    17
    Gender Differences in First and Corresponding Authorship in Public Health Research Submissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Bell Michelle L; Fong Kelvin C
    American journal of public health (2021), 111 (1), 159-163 ISSN:.
    Objectives. To investigate the rate of manuscript submission to a major peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health) by gender, comparing periods before and during the pandemic.Methods. We used data from January 1 to May 12, 2020, and defined the start of the pandemic period by country as the first date of 50 or more confirmed cases. We used an algorithm to classify gender based on first name and nation of origin. We included authors whose gender could be estimated with a certainty of at least 95%.Results. Submission rates were higher overall during the pandemic compared with before. Increases were higher for submissions from men compared with women (41.9% vs 10.9% for corresponding author). For the United States, submissions increased 23.8% for men but only 7.9% for women. Women authored 29.4% of COVID-19-related articles.Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the pandemic exacerbated gender imbalances in scientific research.
  18. 18
    Cell-Editorial-Team Assessing gender disparity among Cell authors. Cell 2022, 185, 747– 749,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.02.001
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  19. 19
    Fox, C. W.; Paine, C. E. T. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of Ecol. Evol. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 3599– 3619,  DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4993
    Google Scholar
    19
    Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
    Fox Charles W; Paine C E Timothy
    Ecology and evolution (2019), 9 (6), 3599-3619 ISSN:2045-7758.
    The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer-review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer-review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer-review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of the gender differences in peer-review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer-review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.
  20. 20
    Fisher, M.; Nyabaro, V.; Mendum, R.; Osiru, M. Making it to the PhD: Gender and student performance in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 2020, 15, e0241915  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241915
    Google Scholar
    20
    Making it to the PhD: Gender and student performance in sub-Saharan Africa
    Fisher, Monica; Nyabaro, Violet; Mendum, Ruth; Osiru, Moses
    PLoS One (2020), 15 (12), e0241915CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
    Women's underrepresentation in science, technol., engineering, and mathematics (STEM) impedes progress in solving Africa's complex development problems. As in other regions, women's participation in STEM drops progressively moving up the education and career ladder, with women currently constituting 30% of Africa's STEM researchers. This study elucidates gender-based differences in PhD performance using new survey data from 227 alumni of STEM PhD programs in 17 African countries. We find that, compared to their male counterparts, sampled women had about one less paper accepted for publication during their doctoral studies and took about half a year longer to finish their PhD training. Neg. binomial regression models provide insights on the obsd. differences in women's and men's PhD performance. Results indicate that the correlates of publication productivity and time to PhD completion are very similar for women and men, but some gender-based differences are obsd. For publication output, we find that good supervision had a stronger impact for men than women; and getting married during the PhD reduced women's publication productivity but increased that of men. Becoming a parent during the PhD training was a key reason that women took longer to complete the PhD, according to our results. Findings suggest that having a female supervisor, attending an institution with gender policies in place, and pursuing the PhD in a department where sexual harassment by faculty was perceived as uncommon were enabling factors for women's timely completion of their doctoral studies. Two priority interventions emerge from this study: (1) family-friendly policies and facilities that are supportive of women's roles as wives and mothers and (2) fostering broader linkages and networks for women in STEM, including ensuring mentoring and supervisory support that is tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.
  21. 21
    Smith, O. M.; Davis, K. L.; Pizza, R. B.; Waterman, R.; Dobson, K. C.; Foster, B.; Jarvey, J. C.; Jones, L. N.; Leuenberger, W.; Nourn, N.; Conway, E. E.; Fiser, C. M.; Hansen, Z. A.; Hristova, A.; Mack, C.; Saunders, A. N.; Utley, O. J.; Young, M. L.; Davis, C. L. Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 7, 512– 523,  DOI: 10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w
    Google Scholar
    21
    Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups
    Smith Olivia M; Davis Kayla L; Pizza Riley B; Waterman Robin; Dobson Kara C; Foster Brianna; Jarvey Julie C; Jones Leonard N; Leuenberger Wendy; Nourn Nan; Conway Emily E; Fiser Cynthia M; Hansen Zoe A; Hristova Ani; Mack Caitlin; Saunders Alyssa N; Utley Olivia J; Young Moriah L; Davis Courtney L; Smith Olivia M; Davis Kayla L; Dobson Kara C; Jarvey Julie C; Jones Leonard N; Leuenberger Wendy; Hristova Ani; Mack Caitlin; Saunders Alyssa N; Utley Olivia J; Young Moriah L; Davis Courtney L; Smith Olivia M; Nourn Nan; Pizza Riley B; Waterman Robin; Conway Emily E; Foster Brianna; Fiser Cynthia M; Jones Leonard N; Nourn Nan; Hansen Zoe A; Hansen Zoe A; Davis Courtney L
    Nature ecology & evolution (2023), 7 (4), 512-523 ISSN:.
    Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.
  22. 22
    Kern-Goldberger, A. R.; James, R.; Berghella, V.; Miller, E. S. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 227, 43– 50,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.030
    Google Scholar
    22
    The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review
    Kern-Goldberger Adina R; James Richard; Berghella Vincenzo; Miller Emily S
    American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (2022), 227 (1), 43-50.e4 ISSN:.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.
  23. 23
    Conklin, M.; Singh, S. Triple-blind review as a solution to gender bias in academic publishing, a theoretical approach. Studies in Higher Education 2022, 47, 2487– 2496,  DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2081681
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  24. 24
    Kim, L.; Smith, D. S.; Hofstra, B.; McFarland, D. A. Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers. Research Policy 2022, 51, 104411,  DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104411
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  25. 25
    Orgeira-Crespo, P.; Míguez-Álvarez, C.; Cuevas-Alonso, M.; Rivo-López, E. An analysis of unconscious gender bias in academic texts by means of a decision algorithm. PLoS One 2021, 16, e0257903  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257903
    Google Scholar
    25
    An analysis of unconscious gender bias in academic texts by means of a decision algorithm
    Orgeira-Crespo, Pedro; Miguez-Alvarez, Carla; Cuevas-Alonso, Miguel; Rivo-Lopez, Elena
    PLoS One (2021), 16 (9), e0257903CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
    Inclusive language focuses on using the vocabulary to avoid exclusion or discrimination, specially referred to gender. The task of finding gender bias in written documents must be performed manually, and it is a time-consuming process. Consequently, studying the usage of non-inclusive language on a document, and the impact of different document properties (such as author gender, date of presentation, etc.) on how many non-inclusive instances are found, is quite difficult or even impossible for big datasets. This research analyzes the gender bias in academic texts by analyzing a study corpus of more than 12,000 million words obtained from more than one hundred thousand doctoral theses from Spanish universities. For this purpose, an automated algorithm was developed to evaluate the different characteristics of the document and look for interactions between age, year of publication, gender or the field of knowledge in which the doctoral thesis is framed. The algorithm identified information patterns using a CNN (convolutional neural network) by the creation of a vector representation of the sentences. The results showed evidence that there was a greater bias as the age of the authors increased, who were more likely to use non-inclusive terms; it was concluded that there is a greater awareness of inclusiveness in women than in men, and also that this awareness grows as the candidate is younger. The results showed evidence that the age of the authors increased discrimination, with men being more likely to use non-inclusive terms (up to an index of 23.12), showing that there is a greater awareness of inclusiveness in women than in men in all age ranges (with an av. of 14.99), and also that this awareness grows as the candidate is younger (falling down to 13.07). In terms of field of knowledge, the humanities are the most biased (20.97), discarding the subgroup of Linguistics, which has the least bias at all levels (9.90), and the field of science and engineering, which also have the least influence (13.46). Those results support the assumption that the bias in academic texts (doctoral theses) is due to unconscious issues: otherwise, it would not depend on the field, age, gender, and would occur in any field in the same proportion. The innovation provided by this research lies mainly in the ability to detect, within a textual document in Spanish, whether the use of language can be considered non-inclusive, based on a CNN that has been trained in the context of the doctoral thesis. A significant no. of documents have been used, using all accessible doctoral theses from Spanish universities of the last 40 years; this dataset is only manageable by data mining systems, so that the training allows identifying the terms within the context effectively and compiling them in a novel dictionary of non-inclusive terms.
  26. 26
    Gabster, B. P.; van Daalen, K.; Dhatt, R.; Barry, M. Challenges for the female academic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020, 395, 1968– 1970,  DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31412-4
    Google Scholar
    26
    Challenges for the female academic during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Gabster, Brooke Peterson; van Daalen, Kim; Dhatt, Roopa; Barry, Michele
    Lancet (2020), 395 (10242), 1968-1970CODEN: LANCAO; ISSN:0140-6736. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    Science and innovation benefit from diversity. However, as the global community fights COVID-19, the productivity and scientific output of female academics are disproportionately affected, leading to loss of women's scientific expertise from the public realm.
  27. 27
    Broderick, N. A.; Casadevall, A. Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally. eLife 2019, 8, e36399  DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36399
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  28. 28
    Thébaud, S.; Taylor, C. J. The Specter of Motherhood: Culture and the Production of Gendered Career Aspirations in Science and Engineering. Gender & Society 2021, 35, 395– 421,  DOI: 10.1177/08912432211006037
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  29. 29
    Wood, L.; Hoefer, S.; Kammer-Kerwick, M.; Parra-Cardona, J. R.; Busch-Armendariz, N. Sexual Harassment at Institutions of Higher Education: Prevalence, Risk, and Extent. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 4520– 4544,  DOI: 10.1177/0886260518791228
    Google Scholar
    29
    Sexual Harassment at Institutions of Higher Education: Prevalence, Risk, and Extent
    Wood Leila; Hoefer Sharon; Kammer-Kerwick Matt; Parra-Cardona Jose Ruben; Busch-Armendariz Noel
    Journal of interpersonal violence (2021), 36 (9-10), 4520-4544 ISSN:.
    Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem on college campuses. Across eight academic campuses, 16,754 students participated in an online study that included questions about sexual harassment victimization by a faculty/staff member or by a peer since enrollment at their Institution of Higher Education (IHE). Utilizing an intersectional theory and hurdle models, this study explored the effects of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, age at enrollment, student status, and time spent at institution on students' risk for peer- and faculty/staff-perpetrated sexual harassment victimization, as well as the extent of victimization for students who experience harassment. Across institutions, 19% of students reported experiencing faculty/staff-perpetrated sexual harassment and 30% reported experiencing peer-perpetrated sexual harassment. Hypotheses related to intersectional impacts were partially supported, with most significant findings in main effects. Time at institution was found to increase both risk and extent of victimization of both types of harassment. Traditional undergraduate students, non-Latinx White students, female students, and gender and sexual minority students were found to be at increased risk for harassment. Being female increases the odds of experiencing both faculty/staff and peer sexual harassment by 86% and 147%, respectively. Latinx students and students with an ethnicity other than White reported less victimization, but those who reported sexual harassment faced greater extent of harassing behaviors. A discussion of these findings for institutional program planning and policy is explored.
  30. 30
    Kmec, J.; Are, A. motherhood penalties and fatherhood bonuses warranted? Comparing pro-work behaviors and conditions of mothers, fathers, and non-parents. Soc. Sci. Res. 2011, 40, 444– 459,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.11.006
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  31. 31
    Krapf, M.; Ursprung, H.; Zimmermann, C. Parenthood and Productivity of Highly Skilled Labor: Evidence from the Groves of Academe; Federal Resarve Bank of St. Louis: 2014.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  32. 32
    Correll, S.; Benard, S.; Paik, I. Is There a Motherhood Penalty?. Am. J. Sociol. 2007, 112, 1297– 1339,  DOI: 10.1086/511799
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  33. 33
    Ross, M. B.; Glennon, B. M.; Murciano-Goroff, R.; Berkes, E. G.; Weinberg, B. A.; Lane, J. I. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature 2022, 608, 135– 145,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
    Google Scholar
    33
    Women are credited less in science than men
    Ross, Matthew B.; Glennon, Britta M.; Murciano-Goroff, Raviv; Berkes, Enrico G.; Weinberg, Bruce A.; Lane, Julia I.
    Nature (London, United Kingdom) (2022), 608 (7921), 135-145CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:1476-4687. (Nature Portfolio)
    Abstr.: There is a well-documented gap between the obsd. no. of works produced by women and by men in science, with clear consequences for the retention and promotion of women1. The gap might be a result of productivity differences2-5, or it might be owing to women's contributions not being acknowledged6,7. Here we find that at least part of this gap is the result of unacknowledged contributions: women in research teams are significantly less likely than men to be credited with authorship. The findings are consistent across three very different sources of data. Anal. of the first source-large-scale administrative data on research teams, team scientific output and attribution of credit-show that women are significantly less likely to be named on a given article or patent produced by their team relative to their male peers. The gender gap in attribution is present across most scientific fields and almost all career stages. The second source-an extensive survey of authors-similarly shows that women's scientific contributions are systematically less likely to be recognized. The third source-qual. responses-suggests that the reason that women are less likely to be credited is because their work is often not known, is not appreciated or is ignored. At least some of the obsd. gender gap in scientific output may be owing not to differences in scientific contribution, but rather to differences in attribution.
  34. 34
    Sarsons, H. Recognition for Group Work: Gender Differences in Academia. Am. Econ. Rev. 2017, 107, 141– 145,  DOI: 10.1257/aer.p20171126
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  35. 35
    Dung, S. K.; López, A.; Barragan, E. L.; Reyes, R.-J.; Thu, R.; Castellanos, E.; Catalan, F.; Huerta-Sánchez, E.; Rohlfs, R. V. Illuminating Women’s Hidden Contribution to Historical Theoretical Population Genetics. Genetics 2019, 211, 363– 366,  DOI: 10.1534/genetics.118.301277
    Google Scholar
    35
    Illuminating Women's Hidden Contribution to Historical Theoretical Population Genetics
    Dung Samantha Kristin; Lopez Andrea; Barragan Ezequiel Lopez; Reyes Rochelle-Jan; Thu Ricky; Castellanos Edgar; Catalan Francisca; Rohlfs Rori V; Huerta-Sanchez Emilia; Huerta-Sanchez Emilia; Huerta-Sanchez Emilia
    Genetics (2019), 211 (2), 363-366 ISSN:.
    While productivity in academia is measured through authorship, not all scientific contributors have been recognized as authors. We consider nonauthor "acknowledged programmers" (APs), who developed, ran, and sometimes analyzed the results of computer programs. We identified APs in Theoretical Population Biology articles published between 1970 and 1990, finding that APs were disproportionately women (P = 4.0 × 10(-10)). We note recurrent APs who contributed to several highly-cited manuscripts. The occurrence of APs decreased over time, corresponding to the masculinization of computer programming and the shift of programming responsibilities to individuals credited as authors. We conclude that, while previously overlooked, historically, women have made substantial contributions to computational biology. For a video of this abstract, see: https://vimeo.com/313424402.
  36. 36
    Feldon, D. F.; Peugh, J.; Maher, M. A.; Roksa, J.; Tofel-Grehl, C. Time-to-Credit Gender Inequities of First-Year PhD Students in the Biological Sciences. CBE─Life Sciences Education 2017, 16, ar4,  DOI: 10.1187/cbe.16-08-0237
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  37. 37
    Williams, W. M.; Ceci, S. J. National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2015, 112, 5360– 5365,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112
    Google Scholar
    37
    National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track
    Williams, Wendy M.; Ceci, Stephen J.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2015), 112 (17), 5360-5365CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
    National randomized expts. and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biol., engineering, economics, and psychol. at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main expt., 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women vs. men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non-math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up expts., 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technol., engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.
  38. 38
    Ceci, S. J.; Williams, W. M. Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1532,  DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532
    Google Scholar
    38
    Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men
    Ceci Stephen J; Williams Wendy M
    Frontiers in psychology (2015), 6 (), 1532 ISSN:1664-1078.
    Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males.
  39. 39
    Peterson, D. A. M.; Biederman, L. A.; Andersen, D.; Ditonto, T. M.; Roe, K. Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. PLoS One 2019, 14, e0216241
    Google Scholar
    39
    Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching
    Peterson, David A. M.; Biederman, Lori A.; Andersen, David; Ditonto, Tessa M.; Roe, Kevin
    PLoS One (2019), 14 (5), e0216241CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
    Student evaluations of teaching are widely believed to contain gender bias. In this study, we conduct a randomized expt. with the student evaluations of teaching in four classes with large enrollments, two taught by male instructors and two taught by female instructors. In each of the courses, students were randomly assigned to either receive the std. evaluation instrument or the same instrument with language intended to reduce gender bias. Students in the anti-bias language condition had significantly higher rankings of female instructors than students in the std. treatment. There were no differences between treatment groups for male instructors. These results indicate that a relatively simple intervention in language can potentially mitigate gender bias in student evaluation of teaching.
  40. 40
    NIH Research Grants: Awards by Gender and Percentage to Women. (October 4),
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  41. 41
    Nittrouer, C. L.; Hebl, M. R.; Ashburn-Nardo, L.; Trump-Steele, R. C. E.; Lane, D. M.; Valian, V. Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2018, 115, 104– 108,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708414115
    Google Scholar
    41
    Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities
    Nittrouer, Christine L.; Hebl, Michelle R.; Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie; Trump-Steele, Rachel C. E.; Lane, David M.; Valian, Virginia
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2018), 115 (1), 104-108CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
    Colloquium talks at prestigious universities both create and reflect academic researchers' reputations. Gender disparities in colloquium talks can arise through a variety of mechanisms. The current study examines gender differences in colloquium speakers at 50 prestigious US colleges and universities in 2013-2014. Using archival data, we analyzed 3,652 talks in six academic disciplines. Men were more likely than women to be colloquium speakers even after controlling for the gender and rank of the available speakers. Eliminating alternative explanations (e.g., women declining invitations more often than men), our follow-up data revealed that female and male faculty at top universities reported no differences in the extent to which they (i) valued and (ii) turned down speaking engagements. Addnl. data revealed that the presence of women as colloquium chairs (and potentially on colloquium committees) increased the likelihood of women appearing as colloquium speakers. Our data suggest that those who invite and schedule speakers serve as gender gatekeepers with the power to create or reduce gender differences in academic reputations.
  42. 42
    Chatterjee, P.; Werner, R. M. Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles. JAMA Network Open 2021, 4, e2114509– e2114509,  DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  43. 43
    Huang, J.; Gates, A. J.; Sinatra, R.; Barabási, A.-L. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2020, 117, 4609– 4616,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914221117
    Google Scholar
    43
    Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines
    Huang, Junming; Gates, Alexander J.; Sinatra, Roberta; Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2020), 117 (9), 4609-4616CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
    There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are underrepresented in most scientific disciplines and publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender differences in performance through a bibliometric anal. of academic publishing careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines. We find that, paradoxically, the increase of participation of women in science over the past 60 years was accompanied by an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact. Most surprisingly, though, we uncover two gender invariants, finding that men and women publish at a comparable annual rate and have equiv. career-wise impact for the same size body of work. Finally, we demonstrate that differences in publishing career lengths and dropout rates explain a large portion of the reported career-wise differences in productivity and impact, although productivity differences still remain. This comprehensive picture of gender inequality in academia can help rephrase the conversation around the sustainability of women's careers in academia, with important consequences for institutions and policy makers.
  44. 44
    Cotton, A. D.; Seiple, I. B. Examining Gender Imbalance in Chemistry Authorship. ACS Chem. Biol. 2021, 16, 2042– 2046,  DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.1c00142
    Google Scholar
    44
    Examining gender imbalance in chemistry authorship
    Cotton, Adam D.; Seiple, Ian B.
    ACS Chemical Biology (2021), 16 (11), 2042-2046CODEN: ACBCCT; ISSN:1554-8929. (American Chemical Society)
    Despite decades of progress toward a more equitable society, gender representation in the sciences continues to be heavily skewed toward men. We were interested in gender representation in chem. through the lens of scientific publishing. Publications are a central academic currency and are crit. for funding, recruiting, and promotion in academia. Here we report the results of an anal. that compared the percentage of female first and last authors across 10 chem., 3 chem. biol., and 3 general journals over the past 15 years. We show that women are substantially underrepresented in chem. authorship even when compared to their relative populations in academia and are not predicted to achieve parity within the next 50 years at the current rate in any journal. Our findings highlight the need for changes to the publishing process to achieve a more equitable publishing environment.
  45. 45
    Misra, J.; Lundquist, J.; Holmes, E.; Agiomavritis, S. The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work. American Association of University Professors 2011.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  46. 46
    Guarino, C. M.; Borden, V. M. H. Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?. Research in Higher Education 2017, 58, 672– 694,  DOI: 10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  47. 47
    Casad, B. J.; Franks, J. E.; Garasky, C. E.; Kittleman, M. M.; Roesler, A. C.; Hall, D. Y.; Petzel, Z. W. Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. J. Neurosci. Res. 2021, 99, 13– 23,  DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24631
    Google Scholar
    47
    Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM
    Casad, Bettina J.; Franks, Jillian E.; Garasky, Christina E.; Kittleman, Melinda M.; Roesler, Alanna C.; Hall, Deidre Y.; Petzel, Zachary W.
    Journal of Neuroscience Research (2021), 99 (1), 13-23CODEN: JNREDK; ISSN:0360-4012. (Wiley-Blackwell)
    Recently there is widespread interest in women's underrepresentation in science, technol., engineering, and mathematics (STEM); however, progress toward gender equality in these fields is slow. More alarmingly, these gender disparities worsen when examg. women's representation within STEM departments in academia. While the no. of women receiving postgraduate degrees has increased in recent years, the no. of women in STEM faculty positions remains largely unchanged. One explanation for this lack of progress toward gender parity is neg. and pervasive gender stereotypes, which may facilitate hiring discrimination and reduce opportunities for women's career advancement. Women in STEM also have lower social capital (e.g., support networks), limiting women's opportunities to earn tenure and learn about grant funding mechanisms. Women faculty in STEM may also perceive their academic climate as unwelcoming and threatening, and report hostility and uncomfortable tensions in their work environments, such as sexual harassment and discrimination. Merely the presence of gender-biased cues in phys. spaces targeted toward men (e.g., "geeky" decor) can foster a sense of not belonging in STEM. We describe the following three factors that likely contribute to gender inequalities and women's departure from academic STEM fields: (a) numeric underrepresentation and stereotypes, (b) lack of supportive social networks, and (c) chilly academic climates. We discuss potential solns. for these problems, focusing on National Science Foundation-funded ADVANCE organizational change interventions that target (a) recruiting diverse applicants (e.g., training search committees), (b) mentoring, networking, and professional development (e.g., promoting women faculty networks); and (c) improving academic climate (e.g., educating male faculty on gender bias).
  48. 48
    Chisholm, S.; Ceyer, S.; Friedman, J.; Chisholm, S.; Hopkins, N.; Friedman, J.; Kleitman, D.; Hewitt, J.; Matthews, J.; Hodges, K.; Potter, M.; Rizzoli, P.; Leigh Royden, L.; Silbey, R.; Stubbe, J. A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT ; 1999.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  49. 49
    Massen, J. J. M.; Bauer, L.; Spurny, B.; Bugnyar, T.; Kret, M. E. Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 12927,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13491-0
    Google Scholar
    49
    Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists
    Massen Jorg J M; Bauer Lisa; Spurny Benjamin; Bugnyar Thomas; Kret Mariska E; Kret Mariska E
    Scientific reports (2017), 7 (1), 12927 ISSN:.
    Humans are considered to be highly prosocial, especially in comparison to other species. However, most tests of prosociality are conducted in highly artificial settings among anonymous participants. To gain a better understanding of how human hyper-cooperation may have evolved, we tested humans' willingness to share in one of the most competitive fields of our current society: academia. Researchers were generally prosocial with 80% sharing a PDF of one of their latest papers, and almost 60% willing to send us their data. Intriguingly, prosociality was most prominent from male to male, and less likely among all other sex-combinations. This pattern suggests the presence of male-exclusive networks in science, and may be based on an evolutionary history promoting strong male bonds.
  50. 50
    Corsini, A.; Pezzoni, M.; Visentin, F. What makes a productive Ph.D. student?. Research Policy 2022, 51, 104561
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  51. 51
    Rainey, K.; Dancy, M.; Mickelson, R.; Stearns, E.; Moller, S. Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education 2018, 5, 10,  DOI: 10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6
    Google Scholar
    51
    Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM
    Rainey Katherine; Dancy Melissa; Mickelson Roslyn; Stearns Elizabeth; Moller Stephanie
    International journal of STEM education (2018), 5 (1), 10 ISSN:.
    BACKGROUND: Women and students of color are widely underrepresented in most STEM fields. In order to investigate this underrepresentation, we interviewed 201 college seniors, primarily women and people of color, who either majored in STEM or started but dropped a STEM major. Here we discuss one section of the longer interview that focused on students' sense of belonging, which has been found to be related to retention. In our analysis, we examine the intersections of race and gender with students' sense of belonging, a topic largely absent from the current literature. RESULTS: We found that white men were most likely to report a sense of belonging whereas women of color were the least likely. Further, we found that representation within one's STEM sub-discipline, namely biology versus the physical sciences, impacts sense of belonging for women. Four key factors were found to contribute to sense of belonging for all students interviewed: interpersonal relationships, perceived competence, personal interest, and science identity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that students who remain in STEM majors report a greater sense of belonging than those who leave STEM. Additionally, we found that students from underrepresented groups are less likely to feel they belong. These findings highlight structural and cultural features of universities, as well as STEM curricula and pedagogy, that continue to privilege white males.
  52. 52
    Kosciw, J.; Clark, C.; Truong, N.; Zongrone, A. The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/NSCS19-FullReport-032421-Web_0.pdf (April 2022),
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  53. 53
    Cech, E. A.; Waidzunas, T. J. Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabe0933  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe0933
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  54. 54
    Lebovitz, L.; Swaan, P. W.; Eddington, N. D. Trends in Research and Graduate Affairs in Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy, Part 3: Underrepresented Minorities. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2020, 84, 7641,  DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7641
    Google Scholar
    54
    Trends in Research and Graduate Affairs in Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy, Part 3: Underrepresented Minorities
    Lebovitz Lisa; Swaan Peter W; Eddington Natalie D
    American journal of pharmaceutical education (2020), 84 (5), 7641 ISSN:.
    Objective. To examine the landscape of research and graduate affairs nationally and within schools and colleges of pharmacy. This report, part 3 of a three-part series, focuses on underrepresented minority (URM) faculty members and students, with a focus on recruitment and retention. Findings. There has been a substantial increase in recruitment of Asian faculty members by schools of pharmacy over the last 10 years, but there has been only minimal changes in the numbers of Black and Hispanic faculty numbers, which reflects the challenges in recruitment and retention of URM faculty members. Consistently low enrollment of Black and Hispanic graduate students over a 10-year period demonstrates that pharmacy schools could improve their stated diversity initiatives and goals. Despite an overall increase in PhDs conferred over the last 10 years, international students continue to receive the majority of degrees conferred. Graduation rates of Black and Hispanic students have remained low, suggesting that continued and sustained efforts are needed to recruit, support, and graduate URM students. Summary. Pharmacy schools must make a focused investment and effort toward increasing the diversity of their graduate enrollees by modeling their recruitment, enrollment, and retention strategies after national programs and best practices. Because there is a direct link between the number of faculty role models and the recruitment of students, pharmacy schools must enhance the recruitment, retention, and success of URM faculty members. Further, pharmacy schools should provide inclusion training to encourage better communication with URM advisees.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Download PDF
Go to Molecular Pharmaceutics
Get e-Alerts
Get e-Alerts

Molecular Pharmaceutics

Cite this: Mol. Pharmaceutics 2023, 20, 8, 4219–4227
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.3c00328
Published June 23, 2023

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

3938

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Data collected from 11 journals that published research related to drug delivery in 2021. Percentage of paper authorship for a given group. The total number of publications for that group is indicated in the bar. Average % of papers with MX = male first author and either a male or female last author; FX = female first author and either a male or female last author; XM = male last author and either a male or female first author; XF = female last author and either a male or female first author; MM = male first and last author; FM = female first and male last author; FF = female first and last author; MF = male first author and female last author.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Data collected from 11 journals that published research related to drug delivery in 2021. Authorship for a given group across journal impact factor (rp = −0.73 to 0.71). FX = average % of papers with female first author; XF = average % of papers with female last author; FF = average % of papers with female first and last author; MM = average % of papers with male first and last author; XM = average % of papers with male last author.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Percentage of first and last authorship for female and males across 11 journals for 2021. (A) Percentage based on first authorship. FX = average % of papers with female first author; MX = average % of papers with male first author. (B) Percentages for iteration of all four groups. MM = average % of papers with male first and last author; FM = average % of papers with female first and male last author; FF = average % of papers with female first and last author; MF = average % of papers with male first and female last author (Table S5).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Average percentage of first and last authorship for female and males across six journals for 5 years. (A) Percent authorship for first author male and female publications. FX = average % of papers with female first author; MX = average % of papers with male first author. (B) Percent authorship for first and last authorship for male and female. FF = average % of papers with female first and last author; MM = average % of papers with male first and last author; FM = average % of papers with female first and male last author; MF = average % of papers with male first and female last author (Table S7).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

  • References

    This article references 54 other publications.

    1. 1
      Draugalis, J. R.; Plaza, C. M.; Taylor, D. A.; Meyer, S. M. The status of women in US academic pharmacy. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2014, 78, 178,  DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7810178
      1
      The status of women in US academic pharmacy
      Draugalis JoLaine R; Plaza Cecilia M; Taylor Danielle A; Meyer Susan M
      American journal of pharmaceutical education (2014), 78 (10), 178 ISSN:.
      OBJECTIVE: To describe the status of women in pharmacy education with particular focus on a 10-year update of a previous study. METHODS: Information was obtained from national databases, published reports, scholarly articles, and association websites. Comparisons were made between men and women regarding degree completion, rank, tenure status, leadership positions, research awards, salaries, and career advancement. RESULTS: There have been modest gains in the number of women serving as department chairs and deans. Salary disparities were found between men and women at several ranks within pharmacy practice. Men were more apt to be tenured or in tenure-track positions and received 89.4% of the national achievement awards tracked since 1981. CONCLUSION: The problem cannot be simply attributed to the pipeline of those entering academia. Barriers to advancement differ between men and women. We recommend that individuals, institutions, and associations implement strategies to decrease barriers and reduce bias against women.
    2. 2
      Tom, J. W.; Green, R. A.; Cherney, E. C.; Huang, M.; Lott, J. Empowering Women in Chemical Sciences and Engineering through Outreach: A Platform to Explore Careers in the Pharmaceutical Industry. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 154– 161,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00335
      2
      Empowering Women in Chemical Sciences and Engineering through Outreach: A Platform to Explore Careers in the Pharmaceutical Industry
      Tom, Jean W.; Green, Rebecca A.; Cherney, Emily C.; Huang, Masano; Lott, Jennifer
      Journal of Chemical Education (2022), 99 (1), 154-161CODEN: JCEDA8; ISSN:0021-9584. (American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.)
      This paper describes a grassroots outreach program at Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), organized by women chemists and chem. engineers, for women studying chem. and chem. engineering. This effort supports the company's belief that excellence in creativity and innovation is enhanced when its scientists and engineers bring diverse experiences and backgrounds to the teams inventing and developing novel medicines. The in-person event includes seminars, poster sessions, lab tours, networking lunch and a discussion panel for students from local colleges and universities. These events were designed to expose students to potential careers in the pharmaceutical industry. We present data from 275 survey respondents out of the 354 participants from the past 7 years. The survey results were overwhelmingly pos. and showed the events were particularly impactful in (1) increasing an understanding of what chemists or chem. engineers do in the pharmaceutical industry, (2) presenting a broader view of academic options, (3) building higher confidence in the students' choice of major, and (4) fostering a sense of belonging and pride to be a woman in a STEM field. These events enhanced the company's ability to attract and hire top talent, while engaging current employees as role models for the next generation of women in STEM. We believe the program is an excellent model for other companies, industries, and professional societies to attract talented students from underrepresented groups to STEM fields.
    3. 3
      Barabino, G.; Frize, M.; Ibrahim, F.; Kaldoudi, E.; Lhotska, L.; Marcu, L.; Stoeva, M.; Tsapaki, V.; Bezak, E. Solutions to Gender Balance in STEM Fields Through Support, Training, Education and Mentoring: Report of the International Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 275– 292,  DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00097-0
      3
      Solutions to Gender Balance in STEM Fields Through Support, Training, Education and Mentoring: Report of the International Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group
      Barabino Gilda; Frize Monique; Ibrahim Fatimah; Ibrahim Fatimah; Kaldoudi Eleni; Lhotska Lenka; Lhotska Lenka; Marcu Loredana; Marcu Loredana; Bezak Eva; Stoeva Magdalena; Stoeva Magdalena; Tsapaki Virginia; Bezak Eva
      Science and engineering ethics (2020), 26 (1), 275-292 ISSN:.
      The aim of this article is to offer a view of the current status of women in medical physics and biomedical engineering, while focusing on solutions towards gender balance and providing examples of current activities carried out at national and international levels. The International Union of Physical and Engineering Scientists in Medicine is committed to advancing women in science and health and has several initiatives overseen by the Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group. Some of the main strategies proposed by the Task Group to attain gender balance are: (a) identify and promote female role models that achieve successful work-life balance, (b) establish programs to develop female leaders, (c) create opportunities for females to increase the international visibility within the scientific community, and (d) establish archives and databases of women in STEM.
    4. 4
      Morris, M. E.; Ren, T.; Asare-Nkansah, S.; Bilensoy, E.; Gatwood, J.; Giolito, M. V.; Nicolazzo, J. A.; Zuo, Z.; Pauletti, G. M. Doctoral Graduate Programs in the Pharmaceutical Sciences: An International Survey. J. Pharm. Sci. 2022, 111, 3196– 3205,  DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2022.07.001
      4
      Doctoral Graduate Programs in the Pharmaceutical Sciences: An International Survey
      Morris, Marilyn E.; Ren, Tianjing; Asare-Nkansah, Samuel; Bilensoy, Erem; Gatwood, Justin; Giolito, Maria Virginia; Nicolazzo, Joseph A.; Zuo, Zhong; Pauletti, Giovanni M.
      Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Philadelphia, PA, United States) (2022), 111 (12), 3196-3205CODEN: JPMSAE; ISSN:0022-3549. (Elsevier Inc.)
      This publication represents the first to report global information on characteristics and requirements of doctoral programs in the pharmaceutical sciences in schools/colleges of Pharmacy. Survey responses (140 responses) were received from doctoral programs in 23 countries, with the greatest no. of responses obtained from Japan, followed by India and the United States. Program characteristics and requirements, and student and faculty information, including graduate placement, in programs in Asia, North America, Europe, Africa and Australia were compared. Survey responses indicated differences in entrance requirements for doctoral programs with min. requirements being a bachelor 's degree, pharmacy degree or master 's degree, including a M.Phil. degree. Programs differed widely in size in all geog. areas, but there was a similar emphasis on core educational learning outcomes (core competencies) and Ph. D. graduation requirements including qualifying examns., thesis defense with internal and external reviewers and requirements for peer-reviewed publications. Addnl., three-quarters of programs indicated that there was external review of their programs every 2-4 or 5-7 years. Female students and female faculty mentors represented about 50% of students/faculty in programs in most geog. areas. Placement of students after graduation indicated that the highest percentage went into the pharmaceutical industry in Asia (predominantly India) and North America, with a lower percentage in Europe, Africa and Australia.
    5. 5
      European Commission She figures 2021 : gender in research and innovation : statistics and indicators. Publications Office: 2021.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Ainslie, K. M. 9 to 5 in Academia: Addressing Barriers for Women. Mol. Pharmaceutics 2023, 20, 1– 3,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00899
      6
      9 to 5 in Academia: Addressing Barriers for Women
      Ainslie, Kristy M.
      Molecular Pharmaceutics (2023), 20 (1), 1-3CODEN: MPOHBP; ISSN:1543-8384. (American Chemical Society)
      There is no expanded citation for this reference.
    7. 7
      Beddoes, Z. M. Why half the scientists in some eastern European countries are women. Economist 2019.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    8. 8
      Rennane, S.; Acheson-Field, H.; Edwards, K. A.; Gahlon, G.; Zaber, M. A. Leak or link? the overrepresentation of women in non-tenure-track academic positions in STEM. PLoS One 2022, 17, e0267561  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267561
      8
      Leak or link? the overrepresentation of women in non-tenure-track academic positions in STEM
      Rennane, Stephanie; Acheson-Field, Hannah; Edwards, Kathryn A.; Gahlon, Grace; Zaber, Melanie A.
      PLoS One (2022), 17 (6), e0267561CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
      This paper examines gender variation in departures from the tenure-track science, technol., engineering, and math (STEM) academic career pathway to non-tenure-track academic careers. We integrate multiple data sources including the Survey of Earned Doctorates and the Survey of Doctorate Recipients to examine longitudinal career outcomes of STEM doctorate women. We consider three types of careers after receipt of a PhD: academic, academic non-tenure-track, and non-academic positions. We find that STEM women are more likely to hold academic non-tenure-track positions, which are assocd. with lower job satisfaction and lower salaries among men and women. Explanations including differences in field of study, prepn. in graduate school, and family structure only explain 35 percent of the gender gap in non-tenure-track academic positions.
    9. 9
      Harmon, O.; Hopkins, B.; Kelchen, R.; Persky, J.; Roy, J. The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2017–18; American Association of University Professors: ACADEME Magazine, 2018.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    10. 10
      Draugalis, J. R.; Medina, M. S.; Taylor, J. N.; Plaza, C. M.; Lopez, E. J. An Update on the Progress Toward Gender Equity in US Academic Pharmacy. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2022, 86, ajpe8962,  DOI: 10.5688/ajpe8962
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    11. 11
      National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Early Career Doctorates Survey. Foundation, N. S., Ed. 2017.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    12. 12
      Shen, Y. A.; Webster, J. M.; Shoda, Y.; Fine, I. Persistent Underrepresentation of Women’s Science in High Profile Journals. bioRxiv 2018, 275362,  DOI: 10.1101/275362
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    13. 13
      Machlovi, S.; Pero, A.; Ng, S.; Zhong, M.; Cai, D. Women in neuroscience: Where are we in 2019?. J. Neurosci. Res. 2021, 99, 9– 12,  DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24570
      13
      Women in neuroscience: Where are we in 2019?
      Machlovi, Saima; Pero, Adriana; Ng, Sabrina; Zhong, Margaret; Cai, Dongming
      Journal of Neuroscience Research (2021), 99 (1), 9-12CODEN: JNREDK; ISSN:0360-4012. (Wiley-Blackwell)
      There is no expanded citation for this reference.
    14. 14
      Last, K.; Hübsch, L.; Cevik, M.; Wolkewitz, M.; Müller, S. E.; Huttner, A.; Papan, C. Association between women’s authorship and women’s editorship in infectious diseases journals: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 1455– 1464,  DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00367-X
      14
      Association between women's authorship and women's editorship in infectious diseases journals: a cross-sectional study
      Last Katharina; Hubsch Lilith; Muller Sophie Elisabeth; Cevik Muge; Wolkewitz Martin; Huttner Angela; Papan Cihan
      The Lancet. Infectious diseases (2022), 22 (10), 1455-1464 ISSN:.
      BACKGROUND: Gender inequity is still pervasive in academic medicine, including journal publishing. We aimed to ascertain the proportion of women among first and last authors and editors in infectious diseases journals and assess the association between women's editorship and women's authorship while controlling for a journal's impact factor. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we randomly selected 40 infectious diseases journals (ten from each 2020 impact factor quartile), 20 obstetrics and gynaecology journals (five from each 2020 impact factor quartile), and 20 cardiology journals (five from each 2020 impact factor quartile) that were indexed in Journal Citation Reports, had an impact factor, had retrievable first and last author names, and had the name of more than one editor listed. We retrieved the names of the first and last authors of all citable articles published by the journals in 2018 and 2019 that counted towards their 2020 impact factor and collected the names of all the journals' editors-in-chief, deputy editors, section editors, and associate editors for the years 2018 and 2019. We used genderize.io to predict the gender of each first author, last author, and editor. The outcomes of interest were the proportions of women first authors and women last authors. We assessed the association between women's editorship and women's authorship by fitting quasi-Poisson regression models comprising the variables: the proportion of women last authors or women first authors; the proportion of women editors; the presence of a woman editor-in-chief; and journal 2020 impact factor. FINDINGS: We found 11 027 citable infectious diseases articles, of which 167 (1·5%) had an indeterminable first author gender, 155 (1·4%) had an indeterminable last author gender, and seven (0·1%) had no authors indexed. 5350 (49·3%) of 10 853 first authors whose gender could be determined were predicted to be women and 5503 (50·7%) were predicted to be men. Women accounted for 3788 (34·9%) of 10 865 last authors whose gender could be determined and men accounted for 7077 (65·1%). Of 577 infectious diseases journal editors, 190 (32·9%) were predicted to be women and 387 (67·1%) were predicted to be men. Of the 40 infectious diseases journals, 13 (32·5%) had a woman as editor-in-chief. For infectious diseases journals, the proportion of women editors had a significant effect on women's first authorship (incidence rate ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·06-1·63; p=0·012) and women's last authorship (1·92, 1·45-2·55; p<0·0001). The presence of a woman editor-in-chief, the proportion of women last or first authors, and the journal's impact factor exerted no effect in these analyses. INTERPRETATION: The proportion of women editors appears to influence the proportion of women last and first authors in the analysed infectious diseases journals. These findings might help to explain gender disparities observed in publishing in academic medicine and suggest a need for revised policies towards increasing women's representation among editors. FUNDING: The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
    15. 15
      Prunty, M.; Rhodes, S.; Sun, H.; Miller, A.; Calaway, A.; Kutikov, A.; Plimack, E. R.; Ponsky, L.; Murray, K. S.; Bukavina, L. A Seat at the Table: The Correlation Between Female Authorship and Urology Journal Editorial Board Membership. European Urology Focus 2022, 8, 1751– 1757,  DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.04.009
      15
      A Seat at the Table: The Correlation Between Female Authorship and Urology Journal Editorial Board Membership
      Prunty Megan; Rhodes Stephen; Sun Helen; Calaway Adam; Ponsky Lee; Miller April; Kutikov Alexander; Plimack Elizabeth R; Bukavina Laura; Murray Katie S
      European urology focus (2022), 8 (6), 1751-1757 ISSN:.
      BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in editorial board composition exist across a variety of surgical subspecialties. OBJECTIVE: To investigate temporal variation in gender representation on the editorial boards of urology journals and assess the relationship between editorial board composition and female authorship. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed female authorship and editorial board composition between 2002 and 2020 among eight high-impact urology journals. Female publication status was assessed using publication records retrieved from PubMed. Editorial board information was manually extracted and titles were grouped for comparison as Editor-in-Chief, mid-level editor, and consulting editors. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Female representation across different editorial levels was analyzed via hierarchical logistic regression with additional terms to test for between-journal differences in overall representation and change over time. The relationship between representation on editorial boards and as publication authors was assessed at the journal level via correlation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Eight journals and 49 412 articles were analyzed. No female has held the title of Editor-in-Chief for any of these eight journals in 18 yr. Significant growth was seen for mid-level editors, whereas no growth was seen for consulting editors. Neurourology and Urodynamics and Journal of Sexual Medicine had significantly higher than average female editorial board representation (p < 0.05). Across the eight journals, there was a statistically significant correlation between the proportion of overall female authors and female editors (r = 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.99). For all journals, the proportion of female contributing authors is greater than the proportion of female editorial board members. CONCLUSIONS: Women in urology represent a small but increasing presence as editorial board members. Clear differences exist between journals, potentially attributable to specialty-specific demographics. Despite increasing representation, no female has ever been appointed Editor-in-Chief for any of the eight journals evaluated. At the journal-specific level, a positive correlation was observed between female editorial staff and female authorship. Given the implication of both academic authorship and editorial board assignment on academic advancement, actionable changes are outlined to guide improvement in gender diversity at the journal level. PATIENT SUMMARY: Females are under-represented on the editorial boards for urology journals, although some roles have seen growth over time. Moreover, female editorial board membership is associated with representation of females among article authors. Gender disparities in both are noteworthy because they affect career paths and contribute to the gender gap in urology.
    16. 16
      Squazzoni, F.; Bravo, G.; Grimaldo, F.; García-Costa, D.; Farjam, M.; Mehmani, B. Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PLoS One 2021, 16, e0257919  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257919
      16
      Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals
      Squazzoni, Flaminio; Bravo, Giangiacomo; Grimaldo, Francisco; Garcia-Costa, Daniel; Farjam, Mike; Mehmani, Bahar
      PLoS One (2021), 16 (10), e0257919CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
      During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between Feb. and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Result showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was esp. pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.
    17. 17
      Bell, M. L.; Fong, K. C. Gender Differences in First and Corresponding Authorship in Public Health Research Submissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am. J. Public Health 2021, 111, 159– 163,  DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305975
      17
      Gender Differences in First and Corresponding Authorship in Public Health Research Submissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic
      Bell Michelle L; Fong Kelvin C
      American journal of public health (2021), 111 (1), 159-163 ISSN:.
      Objectives. To investigate the rate of manuscript submission to a major peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health) by gender, comparing periods before and during the pandemic.Methods. We used data from January 1 to May 12, 2020, and defined the start of the pandemic period by country as the first date of 50 or more confirmed cases. We used an algorithm to classify gender based on first name and nation of origin. We included authors whose gender could be estimated with a certainty of at least 95%.Results. Submission rates were higher overall during the pandemic compared with before. Increases were higher for submissions from men compared with women (41.9% vs 10.9% for corresponding author). For the United States, submissions increased 23.8% for men but only 7.9% for women. Women authored 29.4% of COVID-19-related articles.Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the pandemic exacerbated gender imbalances in scientific research.
    18. 18
      Cell-Editorial-Team Assessing gender disparity among Cell authors. Cell 2022, 185, 747– 749,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.02.001
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    19. 19
      Fox, C. W.; Paine, C. E. T. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of Ecol. Evol. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 3599– 3619,  DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4993
      19
      Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
      Fox Charles W; Paine C E Timothy
      Ecology and evolution (2019), 9 (6), 3599-3619 ISSN:2045-7758.
      The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer-review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer-review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer-review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of the gender differences in peer-review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer-review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.
    20. 20
      Fisher, M.; Nyabaro, V.; Mendum, R.; Osiru, M. Making it to the PhD: Gender and student performance in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 2020, 15, e0241915  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241915
      20
      Making it to the PhD: Gender and student performance in sub-Saharan Africa
      Fisher, Monica; Nyabaro, Violet; Mendum, Ruth; Osiru, Moses
      PLoS One (2020), 15 (12), e0241915CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
      Women's underrepresentation in science, technol., engineering, and mathematics (STEM) impedes progress in solving Africa's complex development problems. As in other regions, women's participation in STEM drops progressively moving up the education and career ladder, with women currently constituting 30% of Africa's STEM researchers. This study elucidates gender-based differences in PhD performance using new survey data from 227 alumni of STEM PhD programs in 17 African countries. We find that, compared to their male counterparts, sampled women had about one less paper accepted for publication during their doctoral studies and took about half a year longer to finish their PhD training. Neg. binomial regression models provide insights on the obsd. differences in women's and men's PhD performance. Results indicate that the correlates of publication productivity and time to PhD completion are very similar for women and men, but some gender-based differences are obsd. For publication output, we find that good supervision had a stronger impact for men than women; and getting married during the PhD reduced women's publication productivity but increased that of men. Becoming a parent during the PhD training was a key reason that women took longer to complete the PhD, according to our results. Findings suggest that having a female supervisor, attending an institution with gender policies in place, and pursuing the PhD in a department where sexual harassment by faculty was perceived as uncommon were enabling factors for women's timely completion of their doctoral studies. Two priority interventions emerge from this study: (1) family-friendly policies and facilities that are supportive of women's roles as wives and mothers and (2) fostering broader linkages and networks for women in STEM, including ensuring mentoring and supervisory support that is tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.
    21. 21
      Smith, O. M.; Davis, K. L.; Pizza, R. B.; Waterman, R.; Dobson, K. C.; Foster, B.; Jarvey, J. C.; Jones, L. N.; Leuenberger, W.; Nourn, N.; Conway, E. E.; Fiser, C. M.; Hansen, Z. A.; Hristova, A.; Mack, C.; Saunders, A. N.; Utley, O. J.; Young, M. L.; Davis, C. L. Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 7, 512– 523,  DOI: 10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w
      21
      Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups
      Smith Olivia M; Davis Kayla L; Pizza Riley B; Waterman Robin; Dobson Kara C; Foster Brianna; Jarvey Julie C; Jones Leonard N; Leuenberger Wendy; Nourn Nan; Conway Emily E; Fiser Cynthia M; Hansen Zoe A; Hristova Ani; Mack Caitlin; Saunders Alyssa N; Utley Olivia J; Young Moriah L; Davis Courtney L; Smith Olivia M; Davis Kayla L; Dobson Kara C; Jarvey Julie C; Jones Leonard N; Leuenberger Wendy; Hristova Ani; Mack Caitlin; Saunders Alyssa N; Utley Olivia J; Young Moriah L; Davis Courtney L; Smith Olivia M; Nourn Nan; Pizza Riley B; Waterman Robin; Conway Emily E; Foster Brianna; Fiser Cynthia M; Jones Leonard N; Nourn Nan; Hansen Zoe A; Hansen Zoe A; Davis Courtney L
      Nature ecology & evolution (2023), 7 (4), 512-523 ISSN:.
      Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.
    22. 22
      Kern-Goldberger, A. R.; James, R.; Berghella, V.; Miller, E. S. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 227, 43– 50,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.030
      22
      The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review
      Kern-Goldberger Adina R; James Richard; Berghella Vincenzo; Miller Emily S
      American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (2022), 227 (1), 43-50.e4 ISSN:.
      OBJECTIVE: Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.
    23. 23
      Conklin, M.; Singh, S. Triple-blind review as a solution to gender bias in academic publishing, a theoretical approach. Studies in Higher Education 2022, 47, 2487– 2496,  DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2081681
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    24. 24
      Kim, L.; Smith, D. S.; Hofstra, B.; McFarland, D. A. Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers. Research Policy 2022, 51, 104411,  DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104411
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    25. 25
      Orgeira-Crespo, P.; Míguez-Álvarez, C.; Cuevas-Alonso, M.; Rivo-López, E. An analysis of unconscious gender bias in academic texts by means of a decision algorithm. PLoS One 2021, 16, e0257903  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257903
      25
      An analysis of unconscious gender bias in academic texts by means of a decision algorithm
      Orgeira-Crespo, Pedro; Miguez-Alvarez, Carla; Cuevas-Alonso, Miguel; Rivo-Lopez, Elena
      PLoS One (2021), 16 (9), e0257903CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
      Inclusive language focuses on using the vocabulary to avoid exclusion or discrimination, specially referred to gender. The task of finding gender bias in written documents must be performed manually, and it is a time-consuming process. Consequently, studying the usage of non-inclusive language on a document, and the impact of different document properties (such as author gender, date of presentation, etc.) on how many non-inclusive instances are found, is quite difficult or even impossible for big datasets. This research analyzes the gender bias in academic texts by analyzing a study corpus of more than 12,000 million words obtained from more than one hundred thousand doctoral theses from Spanish universities. For this purpose, an automated algorithm was developed to evaluate the different characteristics of the document and look for interactions between age, year of publication, gender or the field of knowledge in which the doctoral thesis is framed. The algorithm identified information patterns using a CNN (convolutional neural network) by the creation of a vector representation of the sentences. The results showed evidence that there was a greater bias as the age of the authors increased, who were more likely to use non-inclusive terms; it was concluded that there is a greater awareness of inclusiveness in women than in men, and also that this awareness grows as the candidate is younger. The results showed evidence that the age of the authors increased discrimination, with men being more likely to use non-inclusive terms (up to an index of 23.12), showing that there is a greater awareness of inclusiveness in women than in men in all age ranges (with an av. of 14.99), and also that this awareness grows as the candidate is younger (falling down to 13.07). In terms of field of knowledge, the humanities are the most biased (20.97), discarding the subgroup of Linguistics, which has the least bias at all levels (9.90), and the field of science and engineering, which also have the least influence (13.46). Those results support the assumption that the bias in academic texts (doctoral theses) is due to unconscious issues: otherwise, it would not depend on the field, age, gender, and would occur in any field in the same proportion. The innovation provided by this research lies mainly in the ability to detect, within a textual document in Spanish, whether the use of language can be considered non-inclusive, based on a CNN that has been trained in the context of the doctoral thesis. A significant no. of documents have been used, using all accessible doctoral theses from Spanish universities of the last 40 years; this dataset is only manageable by data mining systems, so that the training allows identifying the terms within the context effectively and compiling them in a novel dictionary of non-inclusive terms.
    26. 26
      Gabster, B. P.; van Daalen, K.; Dhatt, R.; Barry, M. Challenges for the female academic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020, 395, 1968– 1970,  DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31412-4
      26
      Challenges for the female academic during the COVID-19 pandemic
      Gabster, Brooke Peterson; van Daalen, Kim; Dhatt, Roopa; Barry, Michele
      Lancet (2020), 395 (10242), 1968-1970CODEN: LANCAO; ISSN:0140-6736. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      Science and innovation benefit from diversity. However, as the global community fights COVID-19, the productivity and scientific output of female academics are disproportionately affected, leading to loss of women's scientific expertise from the public realm.
    27. 27
      Broderick, N. A.; Casadevall, A. Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally. eLife 2019, 8, e36399  DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36399
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    28. 28
      Thébaud, S.; Taylor, C. J. The Specter of Motherhood: Culture and the Production of Gendered Career Aspirations in Science and Engineering. Gender & Society 2021, 35, 395– 421,  DOI: 10.1177/08912432211006037
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    29. 29
      Wood, L.; Hoefer, S.; Kammer-Kerwick, M.; Parra-Cardona, J. R.; Busch-Armendariz, N. Sexual Harassment at Institutions of Higher Education: Prevalence, Risk, and Extent. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 4520– 4544,  DOI: 10.1177/0886260518791228
      29
      Sexual Harassment at Institutions of Higher Education: Prevalence, Risk, and Extent
      Wood Leila; Hoefer Sharon; Kammer-Kerwick Matt; Parra-Cardona Jose Ruben; Busch-Armendariz Noel
      Journal of interpersonal violence (2021), 36 (9-10), 4520-4544 ISSN:.
      Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem on college campuses. Across eight academic campuses, 16,754 students participated in an online study that included questions about sexual harassment victimization by a faculty/staff member or by a peer since enrollment at their Institution of Higher Education (IHE). Utilizing an intersectional theory and hurdle models, this study explored the effects of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, age at enrollment, student status, and time spent at institution on students' risk for peer- and faculty/staff-perpetrated sexual harassment victimization, as well as the extent of victimization for students who experience harassment. Across institutions, 19% of students reported experiencing faculty/staff-perpetrated sexual harassment and 30% reported experiencing peer-perpetrated sexual harassment. Hypotheses related to intersectional impacts were partially supported, with most significant findings in main effects. Time at institution was found to increase both risk and extent of victimization of both types of harassment. Traditional undergraduate students, non-Latinx White students, female students, and gender and sexual minority students were found to be at increased risk for harassment. Being female increases the odds of experiencing both faculty/staff and peer sexual harassment by 86% and 147%, respectively. Latinx students and students with an ethnicity other than White reported less victimization, but those who reported sexual harassment faced greater extent of harassing behaviors. A discussion of these findings for institutional program planning and policy is explored.
    30. 30
      Kmec, J.; Are, A. motherhood penalties and fatherhood bonuses warranted? Comparing pro-work behaviors and conditions of mothers, fathers, and non-parents. Soc. Sci. Res. 2011, 40, 444– 459,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.11.006
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    31. 31
      Krapf, M.; Ursprung, H.; Zimmermann, C. Parenthood and Productivity of Highly Skilled Labor: Evidence from the Groves of Academe; Federal Resarve Bank of St. Louis: 2014.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    32. 32
      Correll, S.; Benard, S.; Paik, I. Is There a Motherhood Penalty?. Am. J. Sociol. 2007, 112, 1297– 1339,  DOI: 10.1086/511799
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    33. 33
      Ross, M. B.; Glennon, B. M.; Murciano-Goroff, R.; Berkes, E. G.; Weinberg, B. A.; Lane, J. I. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature 2022, 608, 135– 145,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
      33
      Women are credited less in science than men
      Ross, Matthew B.; Glennon, Britta M.; Murciano-Goroff, Raviv; Berkes, Enrico G.; Weinberg, Bruce A.; Lane, Julia I.
      Nature (London, United Kingdom) (2022), 608 (7921), 135-145CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:1476-4687. (Nature Portfolio)
      Abstr.: There is a well-documented gap between the obsd. no. of works produced by women and by men in science, with clear consequences for the retention and promotion of women1. The gap might be a result of productivity differences2-5, or it might be owing to women's contributions not being acknowledged6,7. Here we find that at least part of this gap is the result of unacknowledged contributions: women in research teams are significantly less likely than men to be credited with authorship. The findings are consistent across three very different sources of data. Anal. of the first source-large-scale administrative data on research teams, team scientific output and attribution of credit-show that women are significantly less likely to be named on a given article or patent produced by their team relative to their male peers. The gender gap in attribution is present across most scientific fields and almost all career stages. The second source-an extensive survey of authors-similarly shows that women's scientific contributions are systematically less likely to be recognized. The third source-qual. responses-suggests that the reason that women are less likely to be credited is because their work is often not known, is not appreciated or is ignored. At least some of the obsd. gender gap in scientific output may be owing not to differences in scientific contribution, but rather to differences in attribution.
    34. 34
      Sarsons, H. Recognition for Group Work: Gender Differences in Academia. Am. Econ. Rev. 2017, 107, 141– 145,  DOI: 10.1257/aer.p20171126
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    35. 35
      Dung, S. K.; López, A.; Barragan, E. L.; Reyes, R.-J.; Thu, R.; Castellanos, E.; Catalan, F.; Huerta-Sánchez, E.; Rohlfs, R. V. Illuminating Women’s Hidden Contribution to Historical Theoretical Population Genetics. Genetics 2019, 211, 363– 366,  DOI: 10.1534/genetics.118.301277
      35
      Illuminating Women's Hidden Contribution to Historical Theoretical Population Genetics
      Dung Samantha Kristin; Lopez Andrea; Barragan Ezequiel Lopez; Reyes Rochelle-Jan; Thu Ricky; Castellanos Edgar; Catalan Francisca; Rohlfs Rori V; Huerta-Sanchez Emilia; Huerta-Sanchez Emilia; Huerta-Sanchez Emilia
      Genetics (2019), 211 (2), 363-366 ISSN:.
      While productivity in academia is measured through authorship, not all scientific contributors have been recognized as authors. We consider nonauthor "acknowledged programmers" (APs), who developed, ran, and sometimes analyzed the results of computer programs. We identified APs in Theoretical Population Biology articles published between 1970 and 1990, finding that APs were disproportionately women (P = 4.0 × 10(-10)). We note recurrent APs who contributed to several highly-cited manuscripts. The occurrence of APs decreased over time, corresponding to the masculinization of computer programming and the shift of programming responsibilities to individuals credited as authors. We conclude that, while previously overlooked, historically, women have made substantial contributions to computational biology. For a video of this abstract, see: https://vimeo.com/313424402.
    36. 36
      Feldon, D. F.; Peugh, J.; Maher, M. A.; Roksa, J.; Tofel-Grehl, C. Time-to-Credit Gender Inequities of First-Year PhD Students in the Biological Sciences. CBE─Life Sciences Education 2017, 16, ar4,  DOI: 10.1187/cbe.16-08-0237
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    37. 37
      Williams, W. M.; Ceci, S. J. National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2015, 112, 5360– 5365,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112
      37
      National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track
      Williams, Wendy M.; Ceci, Stephen J.
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2015), 112 (17), 5360-5365CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
      National randomized expts. and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biol., engineering, economics, and psychol. at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main expt., 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women vs. men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non-math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up expts., 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technol., engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.
    38. 38
      Ceci, S. J.; Williams, W. M. Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1532,  DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532
      38
      Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men
      Ceci Stephen J; Williams Wendy M
      Frontiers in psychology (2015), 6 (), 1532 ISSN:1664-1078.
      Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males.
    39. 39
      Peterson, D. A. M.; Biederman, L. A.; Andersen, D.; Ditonto, T. M.; Roe, K. Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. PLoS One 2019, 14, e0216241
      39
      Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching
      Peterson, David A. M.; Biederman, Lori A.; Andersen, David; Ditonto, Tessa M.; Roe, Kevin
      PLoS One (2019), 14 (5), e0216241CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)
      Student evaluations of teaching are widely believed to contain gender bias. In this study, we conduct a randomized expt. with the student evaluations of teaching in four classes with large enrollments, two taught by male instructors and two taught by female instructors. In each of the courses, students were randomly assigned to either receive the std. evaluation instrument or the same instrument with language intended to reduce gender bias. Students in the anti-bias language condition had significantly higher rankings of female instructors than students in the std. treatment. There were no differences between treatment groups for male instructors. These results indicate that a relatively simple intervention in language can potentially mitigate gender bias in student evaluation of teaching.
    40. 40
      NIH Research Grants: Awards by Gender and Percentage to Women. (October 4),
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    41. 41
      Nittrouer, C. L.; Hebl, M. R.; Ashburn-Nardo, L.; Trump-Steele, R. C. E.; Lane, D. M.; Valian, V. Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2018, 115, 104– 108,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708414115
      41
      Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities
      Nittrouer, Christine L.; Hebl, Michelle R.; Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie; Trump-Steele, Rachel C. E.; Lane, David M.; Valian, Virginia
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2018), 115 (1), 104-108CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
      Colloquium talks at prestigious universities both create and reflect academic researchers' reputations. Gender disparities in colloquium talks can arise through a variety of mechanisms. The current study examines gender differences in colloquium speakers at 50 prestigious US colleges and universities in 2013-2014. Using archival data, we analyzed 3,652 talks in six academic disciplines. Men were more likely than women to be colloquium speakers even after controlling for the gender and rank of the available speakers. Eliminating alternative explanations (e.g., women declining invitations more often than men), our follow-up data revealed that female and male faculty at top universities reported no differences in the extent to which they (i) valued and (ii) turned down speaking engagements. Addnl. data revealed that the presence of women as colloquium chairs (and potentially on colloquium committees) increased the likelihood of women appearing as colloquium speakers. Our data suggest that those who invite and schedule speakers serve as gender gatekeepers with the power to create or reduce gender differences in academic reputations.
    42. 42
      Chatterjee, P.; Werner, R. M. Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles. JAMA Network Open 2021, 4, e2114509– e2114509,  DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    43. 43
      Huang, J.; Gates, A. J.; Sinatra, R.; Barabási, A.-L. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2020, 117, 4609– 4616,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914221117
      43
      Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines
      Huang, Junming; Gates, Alexander J.; Sinatra, Roberta; Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2020), 117 (9), 4609-4616CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
      There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are underrepresented in most scientific disciplines and publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender differences in performance through a bibliometric anal. of academic publishing careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines. We find that, paradoxically, the increase of participation of women in science over the past 60 years was accompanied by an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact. Most surprisingly, though, we uncover two gender invariants, finding that men and women publish at a comparable annual rate and have equiv. career-wise impact for the same size body of work. Finally, we demonstrate that differences in publishing career lengths and dropout rates explain a large portion of the reported career-wise differences in productivity and impact, although productivity differences still remain. This comprehensive picture of gender inequality in academia can help rephrase the conversation around the sustainability of women's careers in academia, with important consequences for institutions and policy makers.
    44. 44
      Cotton, A. D.; Seiple, I. B. Examining Gender Imbalance in Chemistry Authorship. ACS Chem. Biol. 2021, 16, 2042– 2046,  DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.1c00142
      44
      Examining gender imbalance in chemistry authorship
      Cotton, Adam D.; Seiple, Ian B.
      ACS Chemical Biology (2021), 16 (11), 2042-2046CODEN: ACBCCT; ISSN:1554-8929. (American Chemical Society)
      Despite decades of progress toward a more equitable society, gender representation in the sciences continues to be heavily skewed toward men. We were interested in gender representation in chem. through the lens of scientific publishing. Publications are a central academic currency and are crit. for funding, recruiting, and promotion in academia. Here we report the results of an anal. that compared the percentage of female first and last authors across 10 chem., 3 chem. biol., and 3 general journals over the past 15 years. We show that women are substantially underrepresented in chem. authorship even when compared to their relative populations in academia and are not predicted to achieve parity within the next 50 years at the current rate in any journal. Our findings highlight the need for changes to the publishing process to achieve a more equitable publishing environment.
    45. 45
      Misra, J.; Lundquist, J.; Holmes, E.; Agiomavritis, S. The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work. American Association of University Professors 2011.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    46. 46
      Guarino, C. M.; Borden, V. M. H. Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?. Research in Higher Education 2017, 58, 672– 694,  DOI: 10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    47. 47
      Casad, B. J.; Franks, J. E.; Garasky, C. E.; Kittleman, M. M.; Roesler, A. C.; Hall, D. Y.; Petzel, Z. W. Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. J. Neurosci. Res. 2021, 99, 13– 23,  DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24631
      47
      Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM
      Casad, Bettina J.; Franks, Jillian E.; Garasky, Christina E.; Kittleman, Melinda M.; Roesler, Alanna C.; Hall, Deidre Y.; Petzel, Zachary W.
      Journal of Neuroscience Research (2021), 99 (1), 13-23CODEN: JNREDK; ISSN:0360-4012. (Wiley-Blackwell)
      Recently there is widespread interest in women's underrepresentation in science, technol., engineering, and mathematics (STEM); however, progress toward gender equality in these fields is slow. More alarmingly, these gender disparities worsen when examg. women's representation within STEM departments in academia. While the no. of women receiving postgraduate degrees has increased in recent years, the no. of women in STEM faculty positions remains largely unchanged. One explanation for this lack of progress toward gender parity is neg. and pervasive gender stereotypes, which may facilitate hiring discrimination and reduce opportunities for women's career advancement. Women in STEM also have lower social capital (e.g., support networks), limiting women's opportunities to earn tenure and learn about grant funding mechanisms. Women faculty in STEM may also perceive their academic climate as unwelcoming and threatening, and report hostility and uncomfortable tensions in their work environments, such as sexual harassment and discrimination. Merely the presence of gender-biased cues in phys. spaces targeted toward men (e.g., "geeky" decor) can foster a sense of not belonging in STEM. We describe the following three factors that likely contribute to gender inequalities and women's departure from academic STEM fields: (a) numeric underrepresentation and stereotypes, (b) lack of supportive social networks, and (c) chilly academic climates. We discuss potential solns. for these problems, focusing on National Science Foundation-funded ADVANCE organizational change interventions that target (a) recruiting diverse applicants (e.g., training search committees), (b) mentoring, networking, and professional development (e.g., promoting women faculty networks); and (c) improving academic climate (e.g., educating male faculty on gender bias).
    48. 48
      Chisholm, S.; Ceyer, S.; Friedman, J.; Chisholm, S.; Hopkins, N.; Friedman, J.; Kleitman, D.; Hewitt, J.; Matthews, J.; Hodges, K.; Potter, M.; Rizzoli, P.; Leigh Royden, L.; Silbey, R.; Stubbe, J. A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT ; 1999.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    49. 49
      Massen, J. J. M.; Bauer, L.; Spurny, B.; Bugnyar, T.; Kret, M. E. Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 12927,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13491-0
      49
      Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists
      Massen Jorg J M; Bauer Lisa; Spurny Benjamin; Bugnyar Thomas; Kret Mariska E; Kret Mariska E
      Scientific reports (2017), 7 (1), 12927 ISSN:.
      Humans are considered to be highly prosocial, especially in comparison to other species. However, most tests of prosociality are conducted in highly artificial settings among anonymous participants. To gain a better understanding of how human hyper-cooperation may have evolved, we tested humans' willingness to share in one of the most competitive fields of our current society: academia. Researchers were generally prosocial with 80% sharing a PDF of one of their latest papers, and almost 60% willing to send us their data. Intriguingly, prosociality was most prominent from male to male, and less likely among all other sex-combinations. This pattern suggests the presence of male-exclusive networks in science, and may be based on an evolutionary history promoting strong male bonds.
    50. 50
      Corsini, A.; Pezzoni, M.; Visentin, F. What makes a productive Ph.D. student?. Research Policy 2022, 51, 104561
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    51. 51
      Rainey, K.; Dancy, M.; Mickelson, R.; Stearns, E.; Moller, S. Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education 2018, 5, 10,  DOI: 10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6
      51
      Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM
      Rainey Katherine; Dancy Melissa; Mickelson Roslyn; Stearns Elizabeth; Moller Stephanie
      International journal of STEM education (2018), 5 (1), 10 ISSN:.
      BACKGROUND: Women and students of color are widely underrepresented in most STEM fields. In order to investigate this underrepresentation, we interviewed 201 college seniors, primarily women and people of color, who either majored in STEM or started but dropped a STEM major. Here we discuss one section of the longer interview that focused on students' sense of belonging, which has been found to be related to retention. In our analysis, we examine the intersections of race and gender with students' sense of belonging, a topic largely absent from the current literature. RESULTS: We found that white men were most likely to report a sense of belonging whereas women of color were the least likely. Further, we found that representation within one's STEM sub-discipline, namely biology versus the physical sciences, impacts sense of belonging for women. Four key factors were found to contribute to sense of belonging for all students interviewed: interpersonal relationships, perceived competence, personal interest, and science identity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that students who remain in STEM majors report a greater sense of belonging than those who leave STEM. Additionally, we found that students from underrepresented groups are less likely to feel they belong. These findings highlight structural and cultural features of universities, as well as STEM curricula and pedagogy, that continue to privilege white males.
    52. 52
      Kosciw, J.; Clark, C.; Truong, N.; Zongrone, A. The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/NSCS19-FullReport-032421-Web_0.pdf (April 2022),
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    53. 53
      Cech, E. A.; Waidzunas, T. J. Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabe0933  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe0933
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    54. 54
      Lebovitz, L.; Swaan, P. W.; Eddington, N. D. Trends in Research and Graduate Affairs in Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy, Part 3: Underrepresented Minorities. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2020, 84, 7641,  DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7641
      54
      Trends in Research and Graduate Affairs in Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy, Part 3: Underrepresented Minorities
      Lebovitz Lisa; Swaan Peter W; Eddington Natalie D
      American journal of pharmaceutical education (2020), 84 (5), 7641 ISSN:.
      Objective. To examine the landscape of research and graduate affairs nationally and within schools and colleges of pharmacy. This report, part 3 of a three-part series, focuses on underrepresented minority (URM) faculty members and students, with a focus on recruitment and retention. Findings. There has been a substantial increase in recruitment of Asian faculty members by schools of pharmacy over the last 10 years, but there has been only minimal changes in the numbers of Black and Hispanic faculty numbers, which reflects the challenges in recruitment and retention of URM faculty members. Consistently low enrollment of Black and Hispanic graduate students over a 10-year period demonstrates that pharmacy schools could improve their stated diversity initiatives and goals. Despite an overall increase in PhDs conferred over the last 10 years, international students continue to receive the majority of degrees conferred. Graduation rates of Black and Hispanic students have remained low, suggesting that continued and sustained efforts are needed to recruit, support, and graduate URM students. Summary. Pharmacy schools must make a focused investment and effort toward increasing the diversity of their graduate enrollees by modeling their recruitment, enrollment, and retention strategies after national programs and best practices. Because there is a direct link between the number of faculty role models and the recruitment of students, pharmacy schools must enhance the recruitment, retention, and success of URM faculty members. Further, pharmacy schools should provide inclusion training to encourage better communication with URM advisees.

  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.3c00328.

    • Link to the list of male and female names used for analysis as well as the number of authors omitted for each journal because their gender could not be identified; tables with number and percentages of total authorship, editorial board, differences in authorship by journal, publications by publishing house, and authorship across 2017–2021 with respect to gender; table of statistics for the relationship between JIF and authorship in 2021 providing the number, percentage, average, Pearson’s coefficient, Spearman’s correlation, and P-value for this relationship with respect to gender groupings; tables related to the multilevel modeling and projections to parity between male and female authorship; the number, percentage, and average for all relationships as well as the differences per year; the methods for analysis (PDF)

    • Excel file featuring the list of male and female names used for analysis (XLSX)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.