ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
A systematic analysis of the gender disparities in oncology journal editorial boards.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite growing emphasis on equity and diversity, women remain underrepresented in academic leadership roles, especially on the editorial boards of scientific journals. The composition of editorial boards plays a major role in shaping the peer-review process, research dissemination, and academic advancement. While gender disparities have been documented in many specialties, the data from oncology journals remain scarce.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 310 oncology journals indexed in the InCites Journal Citation Reports. Data were manually extracted from journal websites between April and May 2025.Variables included the number and gender of editorial board members and editors-in-chief, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) quartile, SCIE/ESCI indexing, journal and publisher continent, professional society affiliation.
resultsAmong 21,065 editorial board members, 5,592 (26.5%) were women, with representation among editors-in-chief even lower at 89 out of 378 (23.5%). Female representation was highest in Q1 journals (30.5%) and lowest in Q4 journals (17.9%) (p < 0.001). Geographical disparities were prominent: women represented 49.5% of editorial board members in U.S.-based journals, compared to 10.1% in Asia and 1.5% in Australia (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, absence of a female editor-in-chief (OR:2.77, 95%CI:1.61-4.75; p < 0.001) and lack of professional association affiliation (OR:1.78, 95%CI: 1.11-2.85; p = 0.017) were independently associated with gender disparity.
conclusionGender disparities remain prominent across oncology journal editorial boards, particularly in leadership roles and journals affiliated with Asia. Effective strategies are needed to increase efforts to promote equity in academic leadership, as well as improve transparency in the editorial selection process so inclusivity and diverse perspectives can be integrated into oncology research.
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.