KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The ‘diversity factor’ has been proposed as a new, more equitable metric for assessing journal quality and the impact of health research.
• The index takes into account the diversity of the authors, study participants, and departmental affiliations to promote a wider range of perspectives in research.

The impact factor remains the dominant metric among researchers for assessing journal and (indirectly) research paper quality, despite multiple calls for it to be superseded by alternative measures. Recently, a novel metric claimed the spotlight in an MIT News article. The article describes a study by Dr Jack Gallifant et al., published in PLOS Global Public Health, which suggests that the impact factor misses the mark in capturing a paper’s impact on health. The researchers argue that, for a more accurate understanding of impact, journal metrics should take into account the diversity of the authors and of the study participants. They propose a novel metric, termed the ‘diversity factor’.

The index is comprised of 3 key components:

• author demographics: the gender and geographic location of the authors
• participant demographics: the gender, ethnicity, race, language, geographic location, and age of the individuals enrolled in the study
• departmental affiliation: papers with authors from different disciplines (eg, doctors, nurses, and engineers) score more highly than papers with authors from a single field.

After settling on the metric’s components, the group used the database OpenAlex to extract metadata relating to the authors of over 100,000 medical papers, from around 7,500 journals, published in the last 20 years. A considerable number of the papers retrieved were not open access, meaning that participant demographics could not be included in the final analysis. However, as the researchers predicted, most papers did not perform well against the new metric, even when considering author information alone. Specifically, there was significant underrepresentation of female authors and of authors from low- or middle-income countries. The group hope that by quantifying and tracking diversity in this way, over time, those working in health research would be prompted to drive progress against these measures.

So, why exactly is a lack of diversity a problem for global health outcomes? Ultimately, it boils down to ‘blind spots’ in medical knowledge, explains Dr Leo Anthony Celi, senior author of the paper:

“What happens when all of the authors involved in a project are alike is that they’re going to have the same blind spots. They’re all going to see the problem from the same angle. What we need is cognitive diversity, which is predicated on lived experiences.”

Dr Celi believes that stakeholders within medical publishing — including journals, academic institutions, funding bodies, and even the media — are accountable for the inequity seen in health research. As such, each must play their part in diversifying medical research publications. To this end, Dr Celi calls for the diversity factor to prompt discussions within the medical research community and provide a first step towards a more equitable evaluation of the true impact of research.

————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Gender inequity persists in medical research and medical publishing.
• As we mark International Women’s Day 2023, we sum up recent posts from The Publication Plan on studies, guidelines, and initiatives from groups striving for change.

In 2023, International Women’s Day calls on us all to #EmbraceEquity. This theme challenges us to think about the key differences between equity and equality and to consider why “equal opportunities are no longer enough”. In other words, why we should aim for equal outcomes, rather than equal resources. At The Publication Plan, we’ve reported on a number of studies, guidelines, and initiatives that aim to shine a light on gender bias and pave the way to gender equity in medical publishing.

As we’ve reported, gender gaps currently persist at each level of medical publishing and in fact worsened as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Research participation and reporting: Historically, medical research focused on white males, leaving other groups underrepresented. In an interview with The Publication Plan, Shirin Heidari (lead author of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research [SAGER] guidelines) outlined why she believes that sex and gender differences are still not given enough consideration.
• Authorship and citations: An analysis of over 5,500 papers found that those authored by women were less likely to be cited, particularly if both the first and final authors were women.
• Peer review and editorial boards: An analysis of the British Medical Journal publishing group found that fewer than 1 in 3 peer reviewers were women, potentially influenced by greater ‘invisible workloads’ shouldered by women in academia and lower visibility among the pool of senior researchers considered for peer review roles. The same study reported that women accounted for only 1 in 5 Editors in Chief.

So, how do we move towards a more equitable landscape? A number of groups have proposed ideas and recommendations:

• The SAGER guidelines provide a means to report both sex and gender-related dimensions in research.
• A group of female and nonbinary scholars have made recommendations for improving equity and social justice in medical publishing.
• Altmetrics may provide a tool to help overcome the gender bias that continues to affect career progression in academic research.
• Good Publication Practice 2022 highlights the importance of inclusivity in research, authorship, and publication planning.
• Publishers have launched a global initiative to track equity, diversity, and inclusion parameters in publications, with the ultimate aim of improving diversity and representation.

International Women’s Day calls for us all to take action to drive gender parity – we look forward to seeing how collaborative approaches in medical publishing help us to reach this goal.

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The rate of new research projects initiated in 2020 decreased versus the start of the pandemic, disproportionally affecting female scientists and those with young children.
• The amount of time spent on research has almost returned to
  pre-pandemic levels.

The ongoing, global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is well documented, but how has the scientific community been affected in the long term? Dr Jian Gao and colleagues surveyed almost 7,000 US- and European-based scientists in April 2020 and again in January 2021 to assess the long-term effects of the pandemic on their work.

The proportion of scientists not initiating a new research project tripled from 9% in 2019 to 27% in 2020. Although the impact was consistent across different scientific fields, the survey found that female scientists and those with young children were disproportionately affected, echoing previous reports that gender inequality has been exacerbated during the pandemic. A third of survey respondents worked on COVID-19-related research in 2020 and saw no change in pre-pandemic productivity, reflecting the widespread response to the pandemic within the scientific community.

How has this impact on research affected the publication output of scientists? Using the Dimensions dataset, Dr Gao and colleagues analysed rates of new co-authorships in 2019 versus 2020. Unsurprisingly, new co-authorships on COVID-19-related papers increased by 40%. Conversely, new co-authorships on non-COVID-19-related papers decreased by around 5%. The latest figures also suggest the time scientists are spending on research is returning to normal, with only minor differences in total work time in 2021 versus pre-pandemic, compared with the sharp decline reported in 2020.

It is clear from this survey that scientists are still being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although the impact of the pandemic appears to have lessened over time, it is clear from this survey that scientists are still being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer new research projects being initiated. As these effects are likely to be long-lasting, action from institutional leaders and funders is needed to avoid serious effects on research.

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• In an analysis of >5,500 papers from top medical journals, articles with female primary and senior authors attracted half as many citations as did similar articles authored by men.
• Fewer citations may unfavourably impact female researchers’ career progression.

A study published in JAMA  Network Open has highlighted large gender disparities in academic medicine research, finding that papers authored by females receive significantly fewer citations than those authored by males.

Drs Paula Chatterjee and Rachel Werner evaluated citation data for 5,554 articles published in 5 prestigious medical journals between 2015–2018, using Genderize to assign gender to authors’ names. They found that original research articles with female primary or senior authorship attracted a third or a quarter fewer median citations than those with men as primary or senior authors, respectively. The trend was more pronounced when women wrote together as primary and senior authors – these articles had approximately half as many median citations as those with male primary and senior authors.

Dr Chatterjee suggests that gender bias in citations is likely unintentional and due to the higher visibility of men in the medical field and on social media. 

These patterns can have considerable impact on a researcher’s career progression. Because citations are often used as a measure of an article’s importance and an indicator of a researcher’s productivity, women may be at a disadvantage if their work is less widely disseminated. Gender disparities in academic medicine are well acknowledged; females have reported that they are less likely to be promoted, even when accomplishing the same research output as men of a similar career stage. Peer recognition, of which citations are one measure, is a key component of professional advancement for researchers.

Dr Chatterjee suggests that gender bias in citations is likely unintentional and due to the higher visibility of men in the medical field and on social media. The authors offered three suggestions for how to address this:

• Women should be encouraged to publish their research as open access; articles published without paywalls tend to receive more citations.
• Editors should measure and track the diversity of authors publishing in their journals and ensure equal promotion.
• Academic institutions should invest in mentoring female researchers and promote the increased representation of women.

While female representation in academic medicine has been increasing since 2009, the study highlights the ongoing barriers to career progression and recognition faced by women in the field.

—————————————————–

Sunday 8 March marked this year’s International Women’s Day (IWD), an annual, global event to celebrate the achievements of women and to call for changes to bring about gender parity. This year’s theme is #EachforEqual and draws on the concept of ‘collective individualism’: while we are all responsible for our own actions, we have the ability to make a substantial impact on society by working together as part of a larger group.

‘Celebrate women’s achievement. Raise awareness against bias. Take action for equality.’

Following hot on the heels of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science last month, these events highlight that there is some way to go to achieve gender equality within science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM). In fact:

• Fewer than 30% of research positions are held by women.
• Women publish at a lower rate than men.
• Women are less frequently suggested as peer reviewers by both authors and editors.
• Disproportionately few women hold the highly-regarded first or last positions in authorship lists.
• In academia, the number of women leading top universities has increased for the first time since 2017; however, 81% of these institutions continue to be led by men.

Despite the ongoing challenges, many positive insights have been shared by medical publications professionals to mark this year’s event. For example:

• Wiley published a series of inspirational interviews with successful women in research.
• The Future Science Group encouraged discussions on equality in science with a panel of scientists via a Twitter chat (#TalkIWD20).
• In a BMJ Opinion article, Prof Ramani Moonesinghe and colleagues describe two equal opportunity initiatives that they have been involved in within the field of anaesthesia and suggest five steps to help address inequality.
• Dr Carina Dowson et al discussed the culmination of a project celebrating 100 women in healthcare leadership in another BMJ Opinion piece.

Change may not happen in a day, but the #EachforEqual campaign runs throughout the year. Why not show your support by joining the conversation via #IWD2020 and #EachforEqual?

——————————————————–

Summary by Debbie Sherwood BSc from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsors, Aspire Scientific Ltd and NetworkPharma Ltd

The World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Global Gender Gap Report 2018 predicts that if current trends continue, the overall global gender gap will not be closed for 108 years. More encouragingly, the education-specific gender gap should close in 14 years. Indeed, statistics for 2016–2017 show that a record 53% of doctoral degrees in the United States were awarded to women, including 70.3% of degrees in health sciences. However, substantially more men than women received doctoral degrees in the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering, indicating that there is still a way to go to reach gender parity in STEM education.

In medical research, issues of gender bias persist. Alongside inequalities in more traditional publication metrics such as citations and authorship, a recent analysis of biomedical awards over the past 50 years has highlighted that despite a five-fold improvement, women win only 30% of awards and are less likely to receive recognition for their research than for non-research activities, such teaching or advocacy. Over 40% of women with full-time scientific jobs leave the sector or go part time after having their first child (compared with 23% of men) and women are less likely than men to give talks at academic conferences or meetings. In a recent study published in The Lancet, when funders relied on peer review assessing the scientist, male investigators were 1.4 times more likely to receive funding than female investigators, while proposals were funded in approximately equal proportions when review was project focused.

However, action is being taken to address gender inequality, for example through proposals to reduce gender disparities at universities. Researchers recently searched through 20 years of acknowledgments identifying women who made ‘important but unrecognised’ contributions in genetics. Meanwhile a British physicist has dedicated her time to improving the representation of women scientists and engineers on Wikipedia.

What will you do? While IWD occurs annually, the global campaign theme continues year-round to encourage action. Get involved by striking the #BalanceforBetter pose and join the #IWD2019 conversation.

——————————————————–

Summary by Beatrice Tyrrell, DPhil from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsors, Aspire Scientific Ltd and NetworkPharma Ltd

11 February 2019 marks the 4th International Day of Women and Girls in Science, an event led by United Nations (UN)-Women and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The day promotes the involvement of women and girls in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Gender bias in medical publishing is an issue we’ve covered several times; from under-representation of women as authors and editors, to bias in the selection of peer reviewers. Reports indicate that this lack of gender parity begins early in academic publishing careers and currently only 28% of the world’s researchers are women. Gender bias also affects rates of ‘prestigious’ authorships — such as final or corresponding author, or authorship of articles published in high impact factor journals — and women are less likely than men to win awards for their research.

The UN and UNESCO highlight that addressing gender parity in STEM not only promotes full and equal access for women and girls but, through their increased inclusion, can ‘unlock innovation’ in the field. This theme is also emphasised by The Lancet in a new issue in their Lancet Women series. This year, the UN is holding a two-day forum entitled ‘Investment in Women in Science for Inclusive Green Growth’, to highlight the role that women and girls can play in achieving sustainable development goals, discuss best practice for investment in women in this area, and hear the perspectives of advocates for women and girls in science from around the world.

Get involved! Take a look at the A–Z of ways to take action now. Online, follow the ongoing movement @WomenScienceDay and join the conversation using #WomenInScience, #ChooseScience and #February11.

——————————————————–

Summary by Beatrice Tyrrell, DPhil from Aspire Scientific

——————————————————–

With thanks to our sponsors, Aspire Scientific Ltd and NetworkPharma Ltd

Women are responsible for some of the most important medical and scientific breakthroughs in history, but gender bias continues to be a significant problem within STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine). The view is similar in medical publishing, with women publishing at lower rates, less likely to be peer reviewers or last name authors (especially in high-tier journals), and under-represented at senior levels of medical research.

Thursday 8th March is International Women’s Day 2018 (#IWD2018). This global event aims to celebrate women’s achievements and accelerate gender parity (which is currently estimated as over 217 years away!). This year’s theme is #PressforProgress and medical, science, and publications professionals across the globe are getting involved. Here are just some of the places you can find out more:

• International Women’s Day: reflections from three women in science (Cancer Research UK)
• International Women’s Day: why is it important to FSG? (Future Science Group)
• International Women’s Day: women that pressed for progress (BMC Blog Network)
• Women who changed the word (Nobel Prize)
• International Women’s Day 2018 (Fishawack)
• Celebrating International Women’s Day: who is your inspirational hero? (Future Science Group)
• Opinion: how to tackle the childcare–conference conundrum (PNAS)
• International Women’s Day (epgonline)
• When computers were human: the black women behind NASA’s success (The New Scientist)
• Male Champions of Change
• International Women’s Day 2018 – supporting equity in the physical sciences (Nature)

With events being held worldwide and a multitude of discussions taking place online, you can join the conversation via #IWD2018 and #PressforProgress.

Meaningful change takes more than a day though — how will you press for progress in your field?

——————————————————–

By Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers