Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study

Background and objective: There is persistent men-dominated gender disparity in medical academia. Predominance of men in the editorial makeup of medical journals might contribute to this inequity. This retrospective study (2014–2019)sought to evaluate gender representation in reviewers...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Roxanna Wang, Robin Roberts, James C Fredenburgh, Mary Cushman, Jeffrey I Weitz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: European Association of Science Editors 2022-07-01
Series:European Science Editing
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ese.arphahub.com/article/80709/download/pdf/
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850172329501392896
author Roxanna Wang
Robin Roberts
James C Fredenburgh
Mary Cushman
Jeffrey I Weitz
author_facet Roxanna Wang
Robin Roberts
James C Fredenburgh
Mary Cushman
Jeffrey I Weitz
author_sort Roxanna Wang
collection DOAJ
description Background and objective: There is persistent men-dominated gender disparity in medical academia. Predominance of men in the editorial makeup of medical journals might contribute to this inequity. This retrospective study (2014–2019)sought to evaluate gender representation in reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial boards in 15 leading medical journals from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.Methods: We surveyed lists of reviewers, editors, and editorial board members from seven journals of internal medicine, a specialty dominated by men; three journals  of obstetrics and gynaecology and two of paediatrics, specialties dominated by women; and three journals of psychiatry, a gender-balanced specialty. Information from publicly available resources was used to infer gender, and the percentages of women were calculated. Trends over time were characterized by changes in these percentages from year to year through the linear regression line fitted to the data for each journal.Results: Journals of women-dominated specialties had significantly higher proportions of women reviewers than those of men-dominated or gender-balanced specialties, with mean percentages (95% confidence interval) of 45.8% (40.5%–51.1%), 28.0% (22.3%–33.7%), and 33.8% (27.6%–40.1%), respectively (p <0.001). The proportion of women editors and editorial board members showed no statistically significant differences across the three specialties, and the percentage of women reviewers, editors, and editorial board members increased only slightly over time.Conclusion: These results suggest that the fifteen journals are yet to achieve gender parity in their reviewers, editors, and editorial board members, and continued efforts are needed to achieve gender balance in those three groups of medical academia.
format Article
id doaj-art-cf786be9d857482f86f60ae95ad2ea3d
institution OA Journals
issn 2518-3354
language English
publishDate 2022-07-01
publisher European Association of Science Editors
record_format Article
series European Science Editing
spelling doaj-art-cf786be9d857482f86f60ae95ad2ea3d2025-08-20T02:20:06ZengEuropean Association of Science EditorsEuropean Science Editing2518-33542022-07-014811010.3897/ese.2022.e8070980709Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective studyRoxanna Wang0Robin Roberts1James C Fredenburgh2Mary Cushman3Jeffrey I Weitz4Thrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster UniversityThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteDepartment of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, University of VermontDepartment of Medicine, McMaster UniversityBackground and objective: There is persistent men-dominated gender disparity in medical academia. Predominance of men in the editorial makeup of medical journals might contribute to this inequity. This retrospective study (2014–2019)sought to evaluate gender representation in reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial boards in 15 leading medical journals from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.Methods: We surveyed lists of reviewers, editors, and editorial board members from seven journals of internal medicine, a specialty dominated by men; three journals  of obstetrics and gynaecology and two of paediatrics, specialties dominated by women; and three journals of psychiatry, a gender-balanced specialty. Information from publicly available resources was used to infer gender, and the percentages of women were calculated. Trends over time were characterized by changes in these percentages from year to year through the linear regression line fitted to the data for each journal.Results: Journals of women-dominated specialties had significantly higher proportions of women reviewers than those of men-dominated or gender-balanced specialties, with mean percentages (95% confidence interval) of 45.8% (40.5%–51.1%), 28.0% (22.3%–33.7%), and 33.8% (27.6%–40.1%), respectively (p <0.001). The proportion of women editors and editorial board members showed no statistically significant differences across the three specialties, and the percentage of women reviewers, editors, and editorial board members increased only slightly over time.Conclusion: These results suggest that the fifteen journals are yet to achieve gender parity in their reviewers, editors, and editorial board members, and continued efforts are needed to achieve gender balance in those three groups of medical academia.https://ese.arphahub.com/article/80709/download/pdf/Composition of editorial boardsgender bias in me
spellingShingle Roxanna Wang
Robin Roberts
James C Fredenburgh
Mary Cushman
Jeffrey I Weitz
Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study
European Science Editing
Composition of editorial boards
gender bias in me
title Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study
title_full Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study
title_fullStr Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study
title_short Trends in the proportion of women as reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of 15 North American and British medical journals from 2014 to 2019: A retrospective study
title_sort trends in the proportion of women as reviewers editors and editorial board members of 15 north american and british medical journals from 2014 to 2019 a retrospective study
topic Composition of editorial boards
gender bias in me
url https://ese.arphahub.com/article/80709/download/pdf/
work_keys_str_mv AT roxannawang trendsintheproportionofwomenasreviewerseditorsandeditorialboardmembersof15northamericanandbritishmedicaljournalsfrom2014to2019aretrospectivestudy
AT robinroberts trendsintheproportionofwomenasreviewerseditorsandeditorialboardmembersof15northamericanandbritishmedicaljournalsfrom2014to2019aretrospectivestudy
AT jamescfredenburgh trendsintheproportionofwomenasreviewerseditorsandeditorialboardmembersof15northamericanandbritishmedicaljournalsfrom2014to2019aretrospectivestudy
AT marycushman trendsintheproportionofwomenasreviewerseditorsandeditorialboardmembersof15northamericanandbritishmedicaljournalsfrom2014to2019aretrospectivestudy
AT jeffreyiweitz trendsintheproportionofwomenasreviewerseditorsandeditorialboardmembersof15northamericanandbritishmedicaljournalsfrom2014to2019aretrospectivestudy