ArticleBMJ open2018
Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of dermatologic research excellence: an analysis of Stanford-Elsevier Lists of the top 2% scholars worldwide (2017-2023).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Research funding challenges in Brazil: researchers' perceptions from a public institution of professional education.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Gender and Geographical Diversity in Authorship, Peer Reviewing, and Editorial Roles in theEJVES vascular forum · 2025Article
- Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research over the past 15 years.International journal of women's dermatology · 2024Article
- Trends in women's representation as lead authors in high impact journals of lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
- Dermatology Journals' Editorial Boards Require Improved Gender Equity: JMIR Dermatology's Future Directions.JMIR dermatology · 2023Article
- Diversity in high-impact psychiatric publishing: gender parity within reach?Archives of women's mental health · 2022Article
- Performance of gender detection tools: a comparative study of name-to-gender inference services.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- [Bibliometric analysis of female authorship in original articles in the journal ATENCIÓN PRIMARIA].Atencion primaria · 2021Article
- Contribution of gender on compensation of Veterans Affairs-affiliated dermatologists: A cross-sectional study.International journal of women's dermatology · 2020Article
- Reader comments.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2020Article
- Gender and race trends in academic rank of dermatologists at top U.S. institutions: A cross-sectional study.International journal of women's dermatology · 2020Article
- Representation of women as editors in dermatology journals: A comprehensive review.International journal of women's dermatology · 2020Review
- Gender Disparities in Invited Commentary Authorship in 2459 Medical Journals.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Gender workforce disparities-an ethical imperative.International journal of women's dermatology · 2019Article
- Representation of Women Among Physician Authors of Perspective-Type Articles in High-Impact Dermatology Journals.JAMA dermatology · 2019Article
- Women Leadership in Dermatology: Moving Towards Gender Equality.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-quality dermatological research by analysing the representation of female authorships from January 2008 to May 2017.
designRetrospective, descriptive study.
setting113 189 male and female authorships from 23 373 research articles published in 23 dermatological Q1 journals were analysed with the aid of the Gendermetrics Platform.
results43.0% of all authorships and 50.2% of the firstauthorships, 43.7% of the coauthorships and 33.1% of the last authorships are held by women. The corresponding female-to-male ORs are 1.41 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.45) for first authorships, 1.07 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.10) for coauthorships and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62) for last authorships. The annual growth rates are 1.74% overall and 1.45% for first authorships, 1.53% for coauthorships and 2.97% for last authorships. Women are slightly under-represented at prestigious authorships compared with men (Prestige Index=-0.11). The under-representation remains stable in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. Multiauthor articles with male key authors are only slightly more frequently cited than those with female key authors. Women publish slightly fewer papers compared with men (47.2% women hold 43.0% of the authorships). At the level of individual journals, there is a high degree of uniformity in gender-specific authorship odds. By contrast, distinct differences at country level were revealed. The prognosis for the next decades forecasts a consecutive harmonisation of authorship odds between the two genders.
conclusionsIn high-quality dermatological research, the integration of female scholars is advanced as compared with other medical disciplines. A gender gap consists mainly in the form of a career dichotomy, with many female early career researchers and few women in academic leadership positions. However, this gender gap has been narrowed in the last decade and will likely be further reduced in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.