Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34213560›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles.

Paula Chatterjee, Rachel M Werner

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 143 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed
–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

143 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Mindful attention promotes control of brain network dynamics for self-regulation and discontinues the past from the present.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Large language model-based evaluation of the impact of gender in medical research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Interest in cardiothoracic surgery: are women more interested today?Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026
    Review

83 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Paula ChatterjeeDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Rachel M WernerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Women are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently. Objective: To evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021. Exposures: Primary and senior authors' genders. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of citations per article. Results: Among 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.

Indexed as

Journal Impact FactorCross-Sectional StudiesHealthcare DisparitiesHumansPublishing

Identifiers

PMID34213560
PMCPMC8254129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.