Features

How Long Are We Going to Accept Stark Gender Imbalances Across the Publishing System?

By: Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes , Mark Woodward
Pihno-Gomes A-C, Woodward M. How long are we going to accept stark gender imbalances across the publishing system? Sci Ed. 2022;45:114-117.https://doi.org/10.36591/SE-D-4504-01
October 18, 2022
Download Article
Authorship Best Practices Diversity & Inclusion Peer Review Publishing

Introduction

The underrepresentation of women at multiple levels of the publishing system has been systematically and compellingly documented across diverse scientific fields over the years.1 Overall, women account for about 1 in 3 first authors and 1 in 4 last authors of scientific papers.2,3 Although fields such as the humanities, psychology, and the social sciences have long been considered more friendly to women, in fields such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), men disproportionately publish more manuscripts and in more prestigious journals, irrespective of the specific field.4-6 Furthermore, the proportion of women has been consistently found to be lower in last authorship than in first authorship positions.7,8 This clearly illustrates the concept of the “leaking pipeline,” which describes how gender inequalities are magnified as we ascend the academic ladder. The underrepresentation of women among authors is replicated among editors and peer reviewers. For instance, our recent study in a sample of journals published by the British Medical Journal Publishing Group found that women accounted for about 1 in 3 peer reviewers and editors and 1 in 5 editors-in-chief.9 Five journals did not even have a single woman in their editorial boards. This is in keeping with previous evidence from other scientific fields and compellingly demonstrates how pervasive gender inequalities are across the publishing system.1,10-12 In the current hypercompetitive academic environment, women’s underrepresentation across the publishing system is likely to undermine their career progression in a vicious cycle where women’s disadvantage begets disadvantage. This may explain why women are less likely to obtain research grants and be promoted to senior academic positions, which may ultimately lead to dropping out from academia.13 Despite the myriad studies documenting stark gender inequalities in the publishing system over the past decades, progress has been slow, or even absent, in most scientific fields.6,7,14 It is, thus, pertinent to reflect on the underlying causes and potential solutions.

Why Are Women Underrepresented in the Publishing System?

In this scenario, it is reasonable to ask whether women truly represent half of the world population—have the demographers just got it wrong? In fact, detractors of gender equality have argued that women’s representation in the publishing system should be compared with women’s representation in the source population. Although it is, in practice, impossible to determine the source population for the authors, editors, and peer reviewers of scientific journals, considering how women’s representation has evolved in academic institutions may be instrumental to understand the root causes of women’s underrepresentation in the publishing system. Albeit to different extents and at varying pace, women have made substantial strides in education and the workplace worldwide.15,16 In academia, a recent U.S. study in the showed that women’s representation has been increasing, even if women remain broadly underrepresented.17 Indeed, the majority (64%) of tenure-track faculty are still men, with substantial heterogeneity by area of study. Women’s representation has been consistently the lowest in mathematics and computing, and natural sciences, and the highest in education and medicine/health. Importantly, this study demonstrated that women’s representation among new hires has remained flat over the past decade, and newly hired faculty are still more likely to be men, thus suggesting that gender parity in academia, and especially in STEM fields, will not be achieved without further changes in women’s representation among new faculty. Sadly, this situation is not specific to the United States. In the UK, despite an increase from 40% to 47% in women’s representation among academic staff between 2003 and 2021, women remain underrepresented, particularly in STEM fields, senior management, and professorial roles.18 

Notwithstanding the importance of promoting gender balance in academic institutions, this is not a silver bullet to fix the longstanding gender inequalities in the publishing system. Successful policies and initiatives to increase gender diversity in academic institutions, such as the Athena Scientific Women’s Academic Network (SWAN) program, which has been supporting and recognizing higher education institutions in advancing the careers of women since 2005, have not yet translated into significant improvement in women’s representation in the publishing system.19 In addition, a recent study of 1.5 million academics suggested that the relative increase of participation of women in STEM fields over the past 60 yr has not reduced the gap in women’s academic recognition and representativeness.20 The lack of substantial improvement in women’s representation among authors, editors, and peer reviewers over the past decade, in comparison to the progress made in academia and research in general, thus hints at additional causes. 

The underlying reasons for the persisting women’s underrepresentation across the publishing system are likely manifold and involve vicious cycles that have proven hard to break. On one hand, gender bias, even if unconscious, may prevent women from becoming authors of scientific papers, particularly as last authors, as these tend to be senior and/or principal investigators. This, in turn, may result in women being less likely to be invited as peer reviewers and editors, as these are typically senior experts in their fields with outstanding publication records.21 Women’s underrepresentation as peer reviewers and editors may, thus, be both a symptom and a cause of broader underrepresentation among authors and in senior positions in the academic and publishing systems as taking part in the peer review and editorial processes can be a stepping stone to senior and leadership roles, which themselves increase success in obtaining funding and high-impact publications.22,23 Therefore, gender bias can have a pervasive effect that permeates through the academic into the publishing system and vice-versa. Furthermore, affinity bias may synergise with gender bias to perpetuate women’s disadvantage. Previous studies have demonstrated that men are disproportionately overrepresented in editorial boards, and this is associated with a lower representation of women as authors and peer reviewers in comparison to men.24-26 Although association does not prove causation, editors seem to have substantial same-gender preference when selecting peer reviewers irrespective of whether they are women or men.27 Entrenched biases may, hence, underpin women’s lack of power and ability to influence even when there is apparently gender parity.

On the other hand, barriers to women’s participation in academia and research may not only reduce their ability to publish but also to accept invitations to become peer reviewers and editors. Deeply entrenched gendered roles in our contemporary societies mean that women still bear the brunt of homemaking, childcare, and other unpaid care roles.28,29 Furthermore, women undertake a greater share of internal service in academic institutions (e.g., activities related to faculty governance, faculty recruitment, evaluation and promotion, student admissions and scholarships, program supervision, development and marketing, internal awards) in comparison to men.30 Taken together, these unpaid commitments reduce women’s availability to engage with scholarly activities with unscheduled and tight deadlines. Although a recent study showed a minimal difference between women and men’s acceptance of peer review invitations (37% for women vs. 41% for men), the decline observed during the COVID-19 pandemic in acceptance rates for women, but not for men, suggests that the greater burden of caring and family responsibilities posed on women, which was exacerbated during the pandemic, may jeopardize women’s ability to commit to peer review or editorial roles.31 

What Can We Do to Fix the Longstanding Gender Imbalances in the Publishing System?

Although gender imbalances in the publishing system have been known for decades, serious commitment to stem deep-rooted gender inequalities has been lacking. This may be, at least in part, because there is no magic wand for such a complex problem. On the contrary, solutions need to be multipronged and involve multiple stakeholders, hence requiring significant investment of time and resources. On one hand, scientific journals and publishers should adopt transparent policies and practices on gender equality. These may include establishing gender quotas for editors and peer reviewers, which although controversial because invitations for these roles should be based on merit rather than gender, could have a remarkable impact on women’s representation akin to that seen in politics and business.32 Nonetheless, evidence from a researcher-led journal showed that senior editors and authors were more likely to select men than women as reviewing editors, even after correcting for the gender imbalance in the pool of reviewing editors available.33 This clearly illustrates that gender quotas should be one among many tools in the “gender equality toolkit,” which should also include providing training to editors and other editorial staff on inclusion, diversity, and unconscious bias,34 as well as ensuring digital technologies, such as algorithms used to identify potential reviewers and editors, do not discriminate against women, as has been shown for other artificial intelligence search algorithms.35 In addition, these policies and practices should be accompanied by greater transparency and accountability by making real-time data on gender statistics for submissions and publications, reviews, and editorial functions at all levels publicly available. 

On the other hand, academic institutions need to fix the longstanding “leaking pipe” in the academic ladder. This requires worldwide implementation of cross-cutting gender-friendly policies, such as the Athena SWAN program.36 Enabling women to reach their full potential and climb to top positions in their fields is key to ensure they are proportionately represented across the publishing system, particularly in positions associated with seniority and prestige. This will, in turn, trigger a virtuous cycle where women’s representation in the academic and publishing system, particularly at senior and leadership level, are mutually reinforced. More broadly, researchers and academics in all fields have a pivotal role to play in addressing barriers that hinder women’s careers. Although it is arguable that homemaking and caring responsibilities should be fairly shared between women and men, this may take generations to achieve. In the meantime, digital technology enhances work flexibility and allows people to conciliate research with other commitments, thus mitigating against the detrimental impact of gendered roles in our contemporary societies on their careers. Mentoring and role modeling may also be pivotal to empower women to breach through the glass ceiling to reach top leadership positions.37 We all have a role to play in improving gender equality within our spheres of influence by exposing discrimination, uprooting gender biases, and promoting an environment where women can thrive.38 

Conclusion

The wider benefits of gender equality for science have been compellingly demonstrated for women and men alike.39,40 Indeed, a research community that is more inclusive, diverse, and representative, and works to ensure that everyone counts, is more likely to generate research that is universally beneficial and not limited by inequalities.41 Lack of gender diversity means evidence published in the highest impact journals might be swayed in favor of topics or methods that are preferred by men and framed from their point of view, thus failing to account for the important perspective and priorities of women. It is high time that the scientific community, in general, and scientific journals/publishers in particular, adopt policies and practices that promote women’s inclusion and demonstrate accountability for steady and sustained progress towards gender equality. For as long as the academic and publishing systems are rigged against women, gender equality will remain a mirage to the detriment of science and, broadly, society welfare and wellbeing.  

References and Links

  1. Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, Birukou A, Dondio P, Grimaldo F. Peer review and gender bias: a study on 145 scholarly journals. Sci Adv. 2021;7:eabd0299. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0299 
  2. van den Besselaar P, Sandström U. Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183301 
  3. Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, Henault LE, Chang RS, Tarbell NJ, Hylek EM. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature–a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med 2006;355:281–287. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa053910 
  4. Akbaritabar A, Squazzoni F. Gender patterns of publication in top sociological journals. Sci Technol Human Values. 2021;46:555–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920941588 
  5. Teele DL, Thelen K. Gender in the journals: publication patterns in political science. PS: Polit Sci Politics. 2017;50:433–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002985 
  6. Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, Pollock BD, Smith EB, Martinez MA-M. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994–2014). BMJ. 2016;352:i847. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i847 
  7. Hart KL, Perlis RH. Trends in proportion of women as authors of medical journal articles, 2008–2018. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:1285–1287. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0907 
  8. Shen YA, Webster JM, Shoda Y, Fine I. Persistent underrepresentation of women’s science in high profile journals. bioRxiv. 2018:275362. https://doi.org/10.1101/275362 
  9. Pinho-Gomes A-C, Vassallo A, Woodward M, Peters S. Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e061054. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061054 
  10. Pinho-Gomes AC, Vassallo A, Thompson K, Womersley K, Norton R, Woodward M. Representation of women among editors in chief of leading medical journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2123026. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23026 
  11. Topaz CM, Sen S. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161357 
  12. Steinberg JJ, Skae C, Sampson B. Gender gap, disparity, and inequality in peer review. Lancet. 2018;391:2602–2603. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31141-3 
  13. Weisshaar K. Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia. Soc Forces. 2017;96:529–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox052 
  14. Holman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser CE. The gender gap in science: how long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biol. 2018;16:e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956 
  15. Carr PL, Gunn CM, Kaplan SA, Raj A, Freund KM. Inadequate progress for women in academic medicine: findings from the National Faculty Study. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015;24:190–199. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.4848 
  16. Schwanke D-A. Barriers for women to positions of power: how societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict women’s advancement to authority. Earth Com J. 2013;3. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=864 
  17. Wapman KH, Zhang S, Clauset A, Larremore DB. Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention. Nature. 2022;610:120–127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05222-x 
  18. Advance HE. Equality in higher education: statistical reports. Advance HE, 2021. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/equality-higher-education-statistical-report-2021 
  19. Xiao Y, Pinkney E, Au TKF, Yip PSF. Athena SWAN and gender diversity: a UK-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e032915. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032915 
  20. Huang J, Gates AJ, Sinatra R, Barabási AL. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117:4609–4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117 
  21. Abramo G, Aksnes DW, D’Angelo CA. Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway. J Informetr. 2021;15:101144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101144 
  22. Recognizing the involvement of early-career researchers in peer review. Nature Rev Endocrin. 2020;16:535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-020-0404-2 
  23. Reviewing as a career milestone: a discussion on the importance of including trainees in the peer review process. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1126. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02645-6 
  24. Mauleón E, Hillán L, Moreno L, Gómez I, Bordons M. Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members. Scientometrics. 2013;95:87–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0824-4 
  25. Logan D. The importance of a gender-balanced editorial team. Elsevier Connect. 2016. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/archive/editors-update/The-importance-of-a-gender-balanced-editorial-team 
  26. Pinho-Gomes AC, Vassallo A, Woodward M, Peters S. Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group. BMJ Open 2022;12:e061054. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061054 
  27. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife. 2017;6. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718 
  28. Bozzon R, Murgia A, Poggio B, Rapetti E. Work–life interferences in the early stages of academic careers:tThe case of precarious researchers in Italy. Europ Educat Res J 2017;16(2-3):332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116669364 
  29. Gaio Santos G, Cabral‐Cardoso C. Work‐family culture in academia: a gendered view of work‐family conflict and coping strategies. Gender Manage. 2008;23:442–457. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542410810897553 
  30. Guarino CM, Borden VMH. Faculty service loads and gender: are women taking care of the academic family? Res Higher Educat 2017;58:672–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2 
  31. Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Grimaldo F, García-Costa D, Farjam M, Mehmani B. Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PLoS One 2021;16:e0257919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257919 
  32. European Institute for Gender Equality. Quotas can turbocharge progress on gender balance in politics and business. 2021. [accessed October 18, 2022.] https://eige.europa.eu/news/quotas-can-turbocharge-progress-gender-balance-politics-and-business
  33. Malkinson TS, Terhune DB, Kollamkulam M, Guerreiro MJ, Bassett DS, Makin TR. Gender imbalance in the editorial activities of a researcher-led journal. bioRxiv. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.09.467796 
  34. Chang EH, Milkman KL, Gromet DM, Rebele RW, Massey C, Duckworth AL, Grant AM. The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:7778–7783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618821893 
  35. Vlasceanu M, Amodio DM. Propagation of societal gender inequality by internet search algorithms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119:e2204529119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204529119 
  36. Ovseiko PV, Taylor M, Gilligan RE, Birks J, Elhussein L, Rogers M, Tesanovic S, Hernandez J, Wells G, Greenhalgh T, et al. Effect of Athena SWAN funding incentives on women’s research leadership. BMJ. 2020;371:m3975. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3975 
  37. Laver KE, Prichard IJ, Cations M, Osenk I, Govin K, Coveney JD. A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020380 
  38. Asmal L, Lamp G, Tan EJ. Considerations for improving diversity, equity and inclusivity within research designs and teams. Psychiatry Res. 2022;307:114295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114295 
  39. Science benefits from diversity. Nature. 2018;558:5. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05326-3 
  40. Nielsen MW, Alegria S, Börjeson L, et al. Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:1740–1742. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700616114 
  41. Hawkes S, Haseen F, Aounallah-Skhiri H. Measurement and meaning: reporting sex in health research. Lancet. 2019;393:497–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30283-1 

 

Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes (ORCID: 0000-0001-9895-1493) is with the George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College of London, UK; Mark Woodward is with the George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, UK and the George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 

Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Council of Science Editors or the Editorial Board of Science Editor.