ArticleBMJ open2021
Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis.
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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Where Are the Women in Basic Science Research? Gender Trends in Abstracts Presented at the Academic Surgical Congress.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Medical and biomedical research productivity in Bahrain: an analysis of gender differences and patterns over two decades.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Female authorship trends in a high-impact Canadian medical journal: a 10-year cross-sectional series, 2013-2023.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Enhancing health security in Africa: Collaboration between public health institutes and academia.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Article
- Review
- Scientific contribution of the Brazilian CNPq Research Productivity fellows in dentistry.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- Ethnicity and gender trends of UK authors inEClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Trends in women's representation as lead authors in high impact journals of lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
- The state of human papillomavirus research in Africa.Public health challenges · 2023Review
- 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 · 2023Observational
- Based on billions of words on the internet, people = men.Science advances · 2022Article
- Diversity in high-impact psychiatric publishing: gender parity within reach?Archives of women's mental health · 2022Article
- Gender profile of principal investigators in a large academic clinical trials group.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Relationship between research activities and individual factors among Japanese nursing researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2022Article
- Trends of research productivity across author gender and research fields: A multidisciplinary and multi-country observational study.PloS one · 2022Observational
- Evidence-based approaches for promoting gender equity in global mental health research: Study protocol for social network analysis of researchers in Nepal.SSM. Mental health · 2021Article
- Gender inequality in the global mental health research workforce: a research authorship scoping review and qualitative study in Nepal.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Profile of brazilian research productivity grant holders with a background in pediatric dentistry.Brazilian dental 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.