ReviewTransplantation direct2020
Gender Disparities in Authorships and Citations in Transplantation Research.
Review in Transplantation direct, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Gender disparities in application and admission to the medical residency program in Peru: A cross sectional study from 2016 to 2023.PloS one · 2025Article
- Diversity Drives Representation: An Internal Audit of Gender Representation in Citation Practices of a Single Surgical Laboratory.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Representation of female authors in oncology: the Indian perspective.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Overcoming citation bias is necessary for true inclusivity in Plant Science.The Plant cell · 2023Article
- The state of human papillomavirus research in Africa.Public health challenges · 2023Review
- Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) in Organ Transplantation: An ESOT Survey About EDI Within ESOT as an Organization and its Educational Activities, and Transplantation Research and Science.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Article
- Diversity-related Factors in Research Mentorship and Publishing in the ACBS Community and the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.Journal of contextual behavioral science · 2022Article
- A multi-faceted approach to sex and gender equity in solid organ transplantation: The Women in Transplantation Initiative of The Transplantation Society.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Gender authorship trends in spine research publications - Research across different countries from 1976 to 2020.Brain & spine · 2022Article
- Article
- Is It Time for Operation Warp Speed in Transplant Research?Transplantation direct · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decades, there has been a rapid change in the gender ratio of medical doctors, whereas gender differences in academia remain apparent. In transplantation research, a field already understaffed with female doctors and researchers, there is little published data on the development in proportion, citations, and funding of female researchers over the past years.
methodsTo evaluate the academic impact of female doctors in transplantation research, we conducted a bibliometric analysis (01 January 1999 to 31 December 2018) of high-impact scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in this field. Web of Science data was used in combination with software R-Package "Gender," to predict gender by first names.
resultsFor this study, 15 498 (36.2% female; 63.8% male) first and 13 345 (30.2% female; 69.8% male) last author gender matches were identified. An increase in the percentage of female first and last authors is seen in the period 1999-2018, with clear differences between countries (55.1% female authors in The Netherlands versus 13.1% in Japan, for example). When stratifying publications based on the number of citations, a decline was seen in the percentage of female authors, from 34.6%-30.7% in the first group (≤10 citations) to 20.8%-23.2% in the fifth group (>200 citations), for first (
conclusionsThis is the first analysis of gender bias in scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in transplantation research. We show ongoing differences between male and female authors in citation rates and rewarded funding in this field. This requires an active approach to increase female representation in research reporting and funding rewarding.
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.