A retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a biomedical research centre
Dam, R.; Shah, S. G. S.; Milano, M. J.; Edmunds, L. D.; Henderson, L. R.; Hartley, C.; Coxall, O.; Ovseiko, P. V.; Buchan, A. M.; Kiparoglou, V.
Show abstract
ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research. DesignA retrospective descriptive study. SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Data2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017. Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. ResultsPublications comprised clinical research (39%, n=939), basic research (27%, n=643), and other types of research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) ({chi} 2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) ({chi}2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) ({chi} 2 91.291, P < 0.001). ConclusionsAlthough there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in biomedical research. Further research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIThis is the first study to investigate gender parity in six categories of scientific authorship: first authors, first corresponding authors, last authors and three joint authorship categories i.e. joint first authors, joint corresponding authors and joint last authors in biomedical research. C_LIO_LIThis study provides an important benchmark on gender equity in scientific authorship for other NIHR funded centres and organisations in England. C_LIO_LIThe generalisability of the findings of this study may be limited due to differences in medical specialities, research areas, institutional cultures, and levels of support to individual researchers. C_LIO_LIUsing secondary sources for determining the gender of authors may have limitations, which could be avoided by seeking relevant information from original authors and institution affiliation at the time of submission. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 97%
- Woman Authorship in Pre-print Versus Peer-Reviewed Oral Health-Related Publications: A Two-Year Observational Study 96%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 94%
- Conceptualizing centers of excellence: A global evidence 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Global research on syndemics: A meta-knowledge analysis (2001-2020) 95%
- Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project 95%
- A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.