(026) Ten Years of Authorship by Women in Sexual Medicine Journals: Are We Making Progress?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Women are historically underrepresented in Urology, but the demographics are slowly changing. As of 2023, only 10.9% of urology attendings are women; however, women represent 37% of the accepted residency class of 2028. With increasing representation of women in urology, we hypothesized this would reflect in women’s authorship patterns in published manuscripts. Objective We sought to identify if the increasing representation of women in urology is reflected in first or last authorship in sexual medicine journals. Methods All manuscripts published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine and Sexual Medicine from 2013 to 2023 were reviewed. Original research manuscripts were included; manuscripts submitted under Psychology subsections, Paraphilia subsections, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, communications, commentaries, replies, and those involving psychometrics were excluded. Single author manuscripts were classified under first author for the analysis. First and last authors were identified and internet search was performed to best determine gender, relying on, in order of preference: listed pronouns, picture, or traditionally masculine versus feminine name. We recognize this method of determining gender identity based on conventional gender presentations is imperfect and may not represent the full spectrum of gender diversity of the included authors. Institutional information was also collected. Chi-square analyses and odds ratio were performed to compare authorship patterns. Results 2156 manuscripts met criteria, 1717 from Journal of Sexual Medicine and 439 from Sexual Medicine. From 2013-2023, women composed 44.1% (951/2156) of first authors and 32.5% (691/2156) of last authors. Overall, first authorship by women increased from 2013 (110/271, 41%) to 2023 (59/104, 57%) (p<0.005) [Figure 1]. In 2022 and 2023, women were the majority of first authors (50.3% and 56.7%, respectively). Manuscripts with women as first authors were more likely to have women as last authors (OR: 1.64, CI: 1.45-1.86, p<0.0001). In the US and Canada, the majority of first (61.1%, 214/350) and last (61.6%, 157/254) authors who are women came from public rather than private institutions, but this was non-significant. First authors who are women predominantly came from North America (38.6%), Europe (36.3%), Asia (17.7%), South America (3.9%), Australia/New Zealand (2.6%), followed by Africa (0.9%); last authors who are women had a similar breakdown by continent. The greatest percentage of authorship by women came from Australia/New Zealand with 50.8% (32/63) of first authors and 45% (27/60) of last authors. The largest disparity was seen in Africa with 22.2% (10/45) of first authors and a mere 16.3% (7/43) of last authors being women. Conclusions Authorship by women in sexual medicine journals is increasing over time, with positive trends observed in both first and last authorship. The effect is more pronounced in first authorship as compared to last, possibly reflecting the increasing numbers of trainees who are women. Manuscripts with women as first authors are correlated with last authors who are women, supporting a positive relationship in gender concordant mentorship. Disclosure No.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,048 | 0,143 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».