Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35396011›Full record

ArticleComparative medicine2022

Gender of Authors in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science in 2 Peer-Reviewed U. S. Journals.

Steven M Niemi, Debra L Hickman, Robin Crisler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Steven M NiemiBoston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Debra L HickmanPurdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana;, Email: hickmand@purdue.edu.
Robin CrislerSchool of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Periodicals as TopicAnimalsAuthorshipFemaleHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35396011
PMCPMC9084570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.