Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Jun 15:9:e58807.
doi: 10.7554/eLife.58807.

COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected

Jens Peter Andersen  1 , Mathias Wullum Nielsen  2 , Nicole L Simone  3 , Resa E Lewiss  4 , Reshma Jagsi  5   6
Affiliations
Comparative Study

COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected

Jens Peter Andersen et al. Elife. .

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.

Keywords: COVID-19; bias; bibliometrics; gender; human; human biology; medicine; meta-research; publishing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JA, MN, NS No competing interests declared, RL Founder of TIME'S UP Healthcare, a non-profit initiative that advocates for safety and equity in healthcare; advisor for FeminEM.org, a website that supports the careers of women in medicine. RJ Has stock options as compensation for her advisory board role in Equity Quotient, a company that evaluates culture in health care companies; has received personal fees from Amgen and Vizient and grants for unrelated work from the National Institutes of Health, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, the Komen Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium; has a contract to conduct an investigator-initiated study with Genentech; has served as an expert witness for Sherinian and Hasso and Dressman Benzinger LaVelle; uncompensated founding member of TIME'S UP Healthcare; member of the Board of Directors of ASCO.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. COVID-19 papers have fewer female authors than papers from 2019 published in the same journals.
(a–c) Observed (bars) and estimated (crosses and error-bars) proportions of women among authors of 1,893 US papers on COVID-19 and 85,373 papers published in the same journals in 2019. The bars show differences in the observed proportions of women in the first-author position (a), the last-author position (b), and any author position (c), for papers published in 2020 COVID-19 papers (blue bars) versus papers from the same journals in 2019 (orange bars). All three panels suggest a decrease in the observed proportion of women. The crosses and error bars show the adjusted means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from mixed regression models with scientific journal as random effect parameter. (d–f) Adjusted means (crosses) and 95% CIs (error bars) derived from mixed regression models for the proportion of women in the first-author position (d), last-author position (e) and any author position (f), for papers published in 2019 (left-most crosses and error bars in each panel), papers published in March and April 2020 (middle), and papers published in May 2020 (right). For all models, there is a drop in March and April, followed by a partial resurgence in May. However, the uncertainty of the estimates make these comparisons inconclusive. See Supplementary file 1 for details of the mixed regression models used to estimate adjusted means and 95% CIs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Andersen JP, Schneider JW, Jagsi R, Nielsen MW. Gender variations in citation distributions in medicine are very small and due to self-citation and journal prestige. eLife. 2019;8:e45374. doi: 10.7554/eLife.45374. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Association of American Medical Colleges Medical students selected years. 2015. [June 16, 2020];2019 https://www.aamc.org/system/files/reports/1/2015table1.pdf
    1. Clark J, Zuccala E, Horton R. Women in science, medicine, and global health: call for papers. The Lancet. 2017;390:2423–2424. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32903-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crawley MJ. The R Book. John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
    1. Derrick GE, Jaeger A, Chen P-Y, Sugimoto CR, Van Leeuwen TN, Larivière V. Models of parenting and its effect on academic productivity: preliminary results from an international survey. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Scientometrics & Infometrics International Society for Informetrics and Scientometrics.2019.

Publication types