Are Female Radiation Oncologists Still Underrepresented in the Published Literature? An Analysis of Authorship Trends During the Past Decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We examined whether female authorship, traditionally underrepresented in the radiation oncology (RO) literature, has improved during the past decade, and whether the introduction of double-blind peer review (where reviewers are blinded to author names and vice-versa) improved female authorship rates. Methods We analyzed authorship lists during a 10-year period (2007-2016) from the 2 highest impact-factor RO journals: The International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) and Radiotherapy and Oncology (R&O). From each journal, 20 articles per year were randomly selected. Gender trends of the first, second, last, and collaborating authors (defined as all other positions), were analyzed. A one-sample proportion test was used to compare US female senior authorship (2012-2016) with the 2015 benchmark for female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%). Results Across 400 articles, the mean ± standard deviation percentage of female authors was 30.9% ± 22.0% with 34.8% of first, 36.7% of second, and 25.4% of last authors being female. The total percentage of female authors per year increased from 2007 to 2016 ( P = .005), with no significant increase in the percentage of first ( P = .250), second ( P = .063), or last ( P = .213) female authors. Double-blind peer review was associated with an increase in the mean percentage of female authors (2007-2011: 27.4% vs 2012-2016: 34.0%; P = .012). The proportion of US female senior authors in the latter period (27.6%) and the proportion of female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%) were not significantly different ( P = .570). Conclusions Although the percentage of female authors in RO has increased during the past decade, this did not correspond to a higher representation of women in high-profile authorship positions. Introduction of double-blind peer review was associated with a rise in female authorship. The proportion of female US senior authors and academic radiation oncologists is similar, suggesting that senior authorship rates are approaching appropriate levels in the United States.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".