↓ Skip to main content

Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
63 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
twitter
439 tweeters
facebook
16 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)
Published in
British Medical Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmj.i847
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Filardo, Briget da Graca, Danielle M Sass, Benjamin D Pollock, Emma B Smith, Melissa Ashley-Marie Martinez, Filardo, Giovanni, da Graca, Briget, Sass, Danielle M, Pollock, Benjamin D, Smith, Emma B, Martinez, Melissa Ashley-Marie

Abstract

 To examine changes in representation of women among first authors of original research published in high impact general medical journals from 1994 to 2014 and investigate differences between journals.  Observational study.  All original research articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for one issue every alternate month from February 1994 to June 2014.  Time and journal of publication.  Prevalence of female first authorship and its adjusted association with time of publication and journal, assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model that accounted for number of authors, study type and specialty/topic, continent where the study was conducted, and the interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent. Estimates from this model were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios against the mean across the six journals, with 95% confidence intervals and P values to describe the associations of interest.  The gender of the first author was determined for 3758 of the 3860 articles considered; 1273 (34%) were women. After adjustment, female first authorship increased significantly from 27% in 1994 to 37% in 2014 (P<0.001). The NEJM seemed to follow a different pattern, with female first authorship decreasing; it also seemed to decline in recent years in The BMJ but started substantially higher (approximately 40%), and The BMJ had the highest total proportion of female first authors. Compared with the mean across all six journals, first authors were significantly less likely to be female in the NEJM (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.89) and significantly more likely to be female in The BMJ (1.30, 1.01 to 1.66) over the study period.  The representation of women among first authors of original research in high impact general medical journals was significantly higher in 2014 than 20 years ago, but it has plateaued in recent years and has declined in some journals. These results, along with the significant differences seen between journals, suggest that underrepresentation of research by women in high impact journals is still an important concern. The underlying causes need to be investigated to help to identify practices and strategies to increase women's influence on and contributions to the evidence that will determine future healthcare policies and standards of clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 439 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 98 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 14%
Researcher 14 14%
Unspecified 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 13%
Student > Master 13 13%
Other 36 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 35%
Unspecified 26 25%
Social Sciences 16 16%
Psychology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 20 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 848. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,928
of 13,756,520 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#164
of 44,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234
of 267,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#9
of 984 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,756,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 44,975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 984 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.