Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29654022›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships.

Michael H K Bendels, Michelle Cathrin Dietz, Dörthe Brüggmann, Gerhard Maximilian Oremek, Norman Schöffel, David A Groneberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Reader comments.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Gender workforce disparities-an ethical imperative.International journal of women's dermatology · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael H K BendelsDivision of Computational Medicine, Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Michelle Cathrin DietzDivision of Computational Medicine, Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Dörthe BrüggmannDivision of Computational Medicine, Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Gerhard Maximilian OremekDivision of Computational Medicine, Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Norman Schöffel *Division of Computational Medicine, Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
David A Groneberg *Division of Computational Medicine, Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AuthorshipBibliometricsDermatologyFemaleHumansJournal Impact FactorMalePeriodicals as TopicPublishingRetrospective StudiesSex Factorscareercitationsodds ratioprestigeproductivity

Identifiers

PMID29654022
PMCPMC5905741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.