Cargando…

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE: Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar, Dam, Rinita, Milano, Maria Julia, Edmunds, Laurel D, Henderson, Lorna R, Hartley, Catherine R, Coxall, Owen, Ovseiko, Pavel V, Buchan, Alastair M, Kiparoglou, Vasiliki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7993305/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33757940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037935
_version_ 1783669537287176192
author Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar
Dam, Rinita
Milano, Maria Julia
Edmunds, Laurel D
Henderson, Lorna R
Hartley, Catherine R
Coxall, Owen
Ovseiko, Pavel V
Buchan, Alastair M
Kiparoglou, Vasiliki
author_facet Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar
Dam, Rinita
Milano, Maria Julia
Edmunds, Laurel D
Henderson, Lorna R
Hartley, Catherine R
Coxall, Owen
Ovseiko, Pavel V
Buchan, Alastair M
Kiparoglou, Vasiliki
author_sort Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement 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. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study. SETTING: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). DATA: Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gender 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. RESULTS: Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (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 (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors. CONCLUSIONS: Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7993305
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79933052021-04-19 Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar Dam, Rinita Milano, Maria Julia Edmunds, Laurel D Henderson, Lorna R Hartley, Catherine R Coxall, Owen Ovseiko, Pavel V Buchan, Alastair M Kiparoglou, Vasiliki BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review OBJECTIVE: Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement 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. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study. SETTING: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). DATA: Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gender 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. RESULTS: Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (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 (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors. CONCLUSIONS: Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7993305/ /pubmed/33757940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037935 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar
Dam, Rinita
Milano, Maria Julia
Edmunds, Laurel D
Henderson, Lorna R
Hartley, Catherine R
Coxall, Owen
Ovseiko, Pavel V
Buchan, Alastair M
Kiparoglou, Vasiliki
Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
title Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
title_full Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
title_fullStr Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
title_full_unstemmed Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
title_short Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis
title_sort gender parity in scientific authorship in a national institute for health research biomedical research centre: a bibliometric analysis
topic Medical Publishing and Peer Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7993305/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33757940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037935
work_keys_str_mv AT shahsyedghulamsarwar genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT damrinita genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT milanomariajulia genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT edmundslaureld genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT hendersonlornar genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT hartleycatheriner genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT coxallowen genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT ovseikopavelv genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT buchanalastairm genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis
AT kiparoglouvasiliki genderparityinscientificauthorshipinanationalinstituteforhealthresearchbiomedicalresearchcentreabibliometricanalysis