Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Trends and comparison...
  3. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)
CCBYNC Open access
Research

Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)

BMJ 2016; 352 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i847 (Published 02 March 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;352:i847
  1. Giovanni Filardo, director of epidemiology1,
  2. Briget da Graca, senior medical writer2,
  3. Danielle M Sass, supervisor of epidemiology research1,
  4. Benjamin D Pollock, epidemiology intern1,
  5. Emma B Smith, student3,
  6. Melissa Ashley-Marie Martinez, student4
  1. 1Department of Epidemiology, Office of the Chief Quality Officer, Baylor Scott & White Health, 8080 North Central Expressway, Dallas, TX 75206, USA
  2. 2Center for Clinical Effectiveness, Office of the Chief Quality Officer, Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas
  3. 3Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
  4. 4University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA
  1. Correspondence to: G Filardo giovanfi{at}baylorhealth.edu
  • Accepted 27 January 2016

Abstract

Objective To examine changes in representation of women among first authors of original research published in high impact general medical journals from 1994 to 2014 and investigate differences between journals.

Design Observational study.

Study sample All original research articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for one issue every alternate month from February 1994 to June 2014.

Main exposures Time and journal of publication.

Main outcome measures Prevalence of female first authorship and its adjusted association with time of publication and journal, assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model that accounted for number of authors, study type and specialty/topic, continent where the study was conducted, and the interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent. Estimates from this model were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios against the mean across the six journals, with 95% confidence intervals and P values to describe the associations of interest.

Results The gender of the first author was determined for 3758 of the 3860 articles considered; 1273 (34%) were women. After adjustment, female first authorship increased significantly from 27% in 1994 to 37% in 2014 (P<0.001). The NEJM seemed to follow a different pattern, with female first authorship decreasing; it also seemed to decline in recent years in The BMJ but started substantially higher (approximately 40%), and The BMJ had the highest total proportion of female first authors. Compared with the mean across all six journals, first authors were significantly less likely to be female in the NEJM (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.89) and significantly more likely to be female in The BMJ (1.30, 1.01 to 1.66) over the study period.

Conclusions The representation of women among first authors of original research in high impact general medical journals was significantly higher in 2014 than 20 years ago, but it has plateaued in recent years and has declined in some journals. These results, along with the significant differences seen between journals, suggest that underrepresentation of research by women in high impact journals is still an important concern. The underlying causes need to be investigated to help to identify practices and strategies to increase women’s influence on and contributions to the evidence that will determine future healthcare policies and standards of clinical practice.

Footnotes

  • Contributors: GF was involved in the study concept and design, data analysis and interpretation, and drafting the manuscript. BdG did the literature search and was involved in the study design, data interpretation, and drafting the manuscript. DMS was involved in data collection and management and in revising the manuscript. BDP was involved in data collection and analysis, generating figures and tables, and drafting the manuscript. EBS and MAM were involved in data collection and revising the manuscript. GF is the guarantor.

  • Funding: This work was funded in part by the Bradley Family Endowment to the Baylor Health Care System Foundation. The funder played no role in this study, and the research team operated independently.

  • Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: all authors had financial support from Bradley Family Endowment to the Baylor Health Care System Foundation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

  • Ethical approval: Not needed.

  • Transparency declaration: The lead author (the manuscript’s guarantor) affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

  • Data sharing: The study dataset is available from the corresponding author on request.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) 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 and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

View Full Text
Back to top