Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33757940›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

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

Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, Rinita Dam, Maria Julia Milano, Laurel D Edmunds, Lorna R Henderson, Catherine R Hartley, Owen Coxall, Pavel V Ovseiko, Alastair M Buchan, Vasiliki Kiparoglou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Authorship and citation trends in dementia research: A path to equitable career development for scientists.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013-2019.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah *NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK Sarwar.Shah@ouh.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5713-3686
Rinita Dam *Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4620-7088
Maria Julia MilanoRadcliffe Department of Medicine, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Laurel D EdmundsRadcliffe Department of Medicine, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9677-3742
Lorna R HendersonNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8778-1740
Catherine R HartleyBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3495-1053
Owen CoxallBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Pavel V OvseikoRadcliffe Department of Medicine, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3504-2177
Alastair M BuchanRadcliffe Department of Medicine, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2918-5200
Vasiliki KiparoglouNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9886-7902
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveScientific 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.

designDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.

settingNIHR 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 measuresGender 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.

resultsPublications 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.

conclusionsAlthough 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.

Indexed as

AuthorshipBiomedical ResearchBibliometricsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective Studieschange managementeducation & training (see medical education & training)health policynatural science disciplinesorganisational developmentstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID33757940
PMCPMC7993305
OpenAlexW3137555952

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.