ArticleComparative medicine2022
Gender of Authors in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science in 2 Peer-Reviewed U. S. Journals.
Article in Comparative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple recent surveys have examined the prevalence of female first or senior authors on publications for various scientific and medical disciplines. First and senior authorships are significant achievements for purposes of professional advancement, especially in academia. Such surveys can also provide information regarding diversity and inclusion. In this report, we present the findings of a survey performed to assess how frequently female contributors were first or senior authors in 2 of the most widely-circulated peer-reviewed journals of laboratory animal medicine and science in the United States; data were collected at 3 time points over a recent 20-y span. These data were then compared against estimated populations of potential female authors, as determined from membership rolls in the American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners and the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. Survey results suggest that female authors increased their representation as influential authors over time, in contrast to representation trends reported for other disciplines. However, whether this increase has mirrored the increase in women overall in the veterinary profession during this time span is unknown. In an era of greater attention and sensitivity to equity and inclusion, this survey is offered as a starting point for further conversation within the field of laboratory animal medicine and science.
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.