ReviewBJPsych open2025
Representation of women in scientific subjects: overview of systematic reviews investigating career progress in academic publishing with a focus on mental health.
Review in BJPsych open, 2025. 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From first to last author: evaluation of women's career progression in mental health publishing in one institution.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen's authorship position in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine research reflects career progression, especially the transition from first to last (usually senior) author. Employment of women in mental health sciences has increased, and so should have had an impact on the change to senior author position.
aimsTo identify if first or last women's authorship has changed, and mental health has better representation.
methodWe investigated women's authorship position in a systematic review and meta-analyses, following PRISMA guidelines and using random-effects regression analyses.
resultsWe identified 149 studies with sampling periods from 1975 to 2020 (excluding potential COVID-19 pandemic effects) that showed a large variation of women authors, and found an average proportion for first (26.2%) and last (16.1%) author position. In mental health (psychology and psychiatry), there was a higher representation, with 40% first author and 36.7% last author position, whereas medicine was 25.9% and 19.5%, respectively. The rate of change for psychology and psychiatry women authors was also higher every 10 years: 8.56% (95% CI 6.44-10.69%) for first and 6.86% (95% CI 4.57-9.15%) for last author, and rate was 2.35% higher for first author and 2.65% higher for last author than in medicine. Different methods of classifying gender and identification method did not affect our results.
conclusionsAlthough mental health topics seem to fare better, our comprehensive review highlighted that the proportions of women first compared with last authors shows the same leaky pipeline as in other analyses, so we cannot be complacent about gender equality and career progression.
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.