A96 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY AUTHORSHIP AND EDITORIAL BOARDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Women are numerically under-represented in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. Aims To characterize the gender distribution of first and senior authors and editorial board members of the highest impact factor journals in gastroenterology and hepatology. Methods Using Clarivate Journal Citation Report 2019, the 28 highest ranked journals within gastroenterology and hepatology were selected for review, along with the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. Publications between January 1 to December 31, 2019 were included. Gender of board members and authors was identified using publicly available data. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated using SPSS to assess for a relationship between editorial board, first author, and senior author gender as well as impact factor. Results Of 29 journals assessed with a median impact factor of 5.55 (IQR 3.72–9.10), 357 journal issues and 8036 articles were reviewed. Three journals were headed by female chief editors, constituting 7.7% of all editors-in-chief (3/39). In total, females made up 17.1% of editorial board members (n=584). Of 8036 first authors, 2547 (31.7%) were female. Of 7335 senior authors, 1390 (19.3%) were female. There were no statistically significant correlations between impact factor and gender. Chief editor gender did not significantly correlate with gender distribution of editorial boards, first or senior authors. There was a significant positive correlation between male-dominated editorial boards and male first and senior authorship, versus a significant negative correlation between male-dominated editorial boards and female first and senior authorship. A positive correlation exists for the same gender between first and senior authors. Conclusions Although gender distribution of female first and senior authorship approaches current distributions in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, editor-in-chief positions and editorial board membership on journals continue to be occupied by men in higher proportions. Future endeavors such as diversity statements and mentorship may help to balance these distributions in the future. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".