Author gender representation of journal reviews and editorials on lymphoma (2017-22)

Gender inequity in academic medicine is a well recognised problem that marginalises a crucial talent pool and ultimately diminishes innovation, collaboration, and progress.1Fine C Sojo V Women's value: beyond the business case for diversity and inclusion.Lancet. 2019; 393: 515-516Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar, 2Powell K These labs are remarkably diverse – here's why they're winning at science.Nature. 2018; 558: 19-22Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar The international Women in Lymphoma (WiL) alliance, founded in 2019, consists of over 930 members globally from more than 50 countries.3Trotman J LaCasce A Osborne W et al.Women in Lymphoma: a 4-year journey in promoting gender equity.Hematol Oncol. 2023; (published online May 23.)https://doi.org/10.1002/hon.3183Crossref Scopus (1) Google Scholar WiL is led by a steering committee of 23 members representing nine countries from five global regions. Recognising gender parity in lymphoma practice despite the under-representation of women in lymphoma leadership, WiL is committed to advocacy and promotion of equal gender representation in all lymphoma academic and clinical leadership settings. A key priority is to analyse gender data related to academic presentations and publishing. Here, we report gender composition among authors of lymphoma-related journal reviews, commentaries, and editorials across eight high-profile journals from Jan 1, 2017, to Sept 30, 2022 (table). We selected the most prominent clinically oriented internal medicine, oncology, and haematology journals that have published at least one lymphoma review, commentary, or editorial during the study period, including the official journals of the American Medical Association (JAMA and JAMA Oncology), American Society of Clinical Oncology (Journal of Clinical Oncology), and the American Society of Hematology (Blood). These specific types of articles are most commonly requested by journal editorial boards of accomplished experts, but the process of author selection lacks transparency due to the solicited nature of the articles and, unlike The Lancet Group, few academic medical journals have specific gender diversity targets.4Clark J Horton R What is The Lancet doing about gender and diversity?.Lancet. 2019; 393: 508-510Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar, 5Narasimhan SD A commitment to gender diversity in peer review.Cell. 2019; 179: 1-2Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google ScholarTableAuthorship composition according to gender for lymphoma-specific articles from Jan 1, 2017, to Sept 30, 2022Journal circulation and impact factor*Journal circulation numbers and latest impact factors were obtained directly from journal websites. The Lancet Group of journals publish journal circulation numbers for the entire group; therefore, journal circulation numbers for their individual journals (ie, The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, and The Lancet Haematology) are not available.Number of lymphoma articlesTotal number of authorsFemale authorsArticles with at least one female authorArticles with at least one male authorArticles with all female authorsArticles with all male authorsAll articlesAll..6071121345 (31%)274 (45%)478 (79%)129 (21%)333 (55%)Reviews..155494145 (29%)90 (58%)136 (89%)19 (12%)65 (42%)Commentaries and editorials..452627200 (32%)184 (41%)342 (76%)110 (24%)268 (59%)General medicalNew England Journal of Medicine>1 000 000; 158·5..............All..14301 (3%)1 (7%)14 (100%)013 (93%)Review..7151 (7%)1 (14%)7 (100%)06 (86%)Commentaries and editorials..715007 (100%)07 (100%)The LancetNA; 168·9..............All..9177 (41%)7 (78%)6 (66%)3 (33%)2 (22%)Reviews..262 (33%)2 (100%)2 (100%)00Commentaries and editorials..7115 (45%)4 (57%)5 (71%)3 (43%)2 (29%)Journal of The American Medical Association>1 600 000; 120·7..............All..263 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)Reviews..0NANANANANANACommentaries and editorials..263 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)OncologyThe Lancet OncologyNA; 51·1..............All..367123 (32%)14 (39%)32 (89%)4 (11%)22 (61%)Reviews..2198 (42%)2 (100%)2 (100%)00Commentaries and editorials..345215 (29%)12 (35%)30 (88%)4 (12%)22 (65%)Journal of Clinical Oncology (official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology)>30 000; 45·3..............All..426720 (30%)18 (43%)33 (79%)9 (21%)24 (57%)Reviews..18388 (21%)6 (33%)16 (89%)2 (11%)12 (67%)Commentaries and editorials..242912 (41%)12 (50%)17 (71%)7 (29%)12 (50%)Journal of The American Medical Association Oncology86 000; 28·4..............All..12276 (23%)5 (42%)12 (100%)07 (58%)Reviews..6143 (21%)2 (33%)6 (100%)04 (67%)Commentaries and editorials..6133 (23%)3 (50%)6 (100%)03 (50%)HaematologyThe Lancet HaematologyNA; 24·7..............All..7716161 (38%)37 (48%)50 (65%)20 (26%)40 (52%)Reviews..65026 (52%)6 (100%)4 (67%)2 (33%)0Commentaries and editorials..7111135 (32%)31 (44%)53 (75%)18 (25%)40 (56%)Blood (official journal of the American Society of Hematology)16 000; 20·3..............All..415742224 (30%)191 (46%)323 (78%)92 (22%)224 (54%)Reviews..11435297 (28%)71 (62%)99 (87%)15 (13%)43 (38%)Commentaries and editorials..301390127 (33%)120 (40%)224 (74%)77 (26%)181 (60%)Data are n or n (%). NA=not available.* Journal circulation numbers and latest impact factors were obtained directly from journal websites. The Lancet Group of journals publish journal circulation numbers for the entire group; therefore, journal circulation numbers for their individual journals (ie, The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, and The Lancet Haematology) are not available. Open table in a new tab Data are n or n (%). NA=not available. We collected author gender data for all lymphoma-specific reviews, commentaries, and editorials not including original research from eight leading general medicine, oncology, and haematology journals during the study period (table). Author gender was identified from their published institutional or speaker biographies and personal knowledge of the authors. Lymphoma-specific articles were defined as those exclusively or primarily pertaining to lymphoma, either in general or a specific histology. Broader haematological cancer articles were excluded, even if lymphoma was included in the content. The article type was defined as follows: review articles included all articles which provided an overview or summary of a topic, such as those called “reviews”, “how I treat”, “spotlight”, “oncology grand rounds”, and “perspective” articles on lymphoma-specific topics. Commentaries and editorials included any article that provided expert comment on a specific original research article referenced by the commentary and published as an original research manuscript. Authors who were represented in more than one article were counted as separate unique occurrences for every article that they coauthored. Our findings show that across all article types, in all eight journals analysed, women comprised the minority of authors. Women represented 345 (31%) of 1121 authors across 607 articles. Whereas 79% (range 50–100%) of articles included at least one male author, only 45% (7–78%) included at least one female author. 55% of the analysed articles were written exclusively by men, whereas 21% were all-women. Moreover, only 12% of review articles, arguably the most authoritative articles and where editorial preferences exert strong influence, were written exclusively by women compared with 42% all-men authorship. In one journal, a single female author (of a review) was included over the 5-year study period (among 30 total authors). In summary, despite an extensive pool of outstanding female scientists and clinical leaders and diversity policy implementation from leading journals such as The Lancet, less than one-third of invited lymphoma authors at top journals are women. WiL remain committed to reporting the data and supporting evidence-based strategies to reduce unconscious bias and achieve gender parity in all aspects of academia.6Mousa M Boyle J Skouteris H et al.Advancing women in healthcare leadership: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of multi-sector evidence on organisational interventions.EClinicalMedicine. 2021; 39101084Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar Evidence-based approaches that can change these outcomes include: recognising that implicit (and explicit) attitudes and beliefs can decrease bias over time, developing role-based transparent policies and selection processes, and tracking inclusion data for editorial positions and all assignments of published articles.7Charlesworth TES Banaji MR Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: IV. Change and stability from 2007 to 2020.Psychol Sci. 2022; 33: 1347-1371Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 8Boulware LE Corbie G Aguilar-Gaxiola S et al.Combating structural inequities – diversity, equity, and inclusion in clinical and translational research.New Engl J Med. 2022; 386: 201-203Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar, 9Silver JK Poorman JA Reilly JM Spector ND Goldstein R Zafonte RD Assessment of women physicians among authors of perspective-type articles published in high-impact pediatric journals.JAMA Netw Open. 2018; 1e180802Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar We appreciate the attention of editorial boards to this important issue and are committed to working collaboratively towards gender equity in the near future. EAH is an editorial board member for Blood and Blood Advances. JT, CC, and AL are editorial board members for Blood. SMS is an Associate Editor for Haematologica and an editorial board member for Cancer. The Correspondence was written on behalf of, and approved by, the Women in Lymphoma Steering Committee (full list of members is available in the appendix). We declare no competing interests. Download .pdf (.05 MB) Help with pdf files Supplementary appendix