Ovseiko, P. V. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2020

A retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a biomedical research centre

ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research. DesignA retrospective descriptive study. SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Data2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017. Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. ResultsPublications comprised clinical research (39%, n=939), basic research (27%, n=643), and other types of research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) ({chi} 2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) ({chi}2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) ({chi} 2 91.291, P < 0.001). ConclusionsAlthough there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in biomedical research. Further research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIThis is the first study to investigate gender parity in six categories of scientific authorship: first authors, first corresponding authors, last authors and three joint authorship categories i.e. joint first authors, joint corresponding authors and joint last authors in biomedical research. C_LIO_LIThis study provides an important benchmark on gender equity in scientific authorship for other NIHR funded centres and organisations in England. C_LIO_LIThe generalisability of the findings of this study may be limited due to differences in medical specialities, research areas, institutional cultures, and levels of support to individual researchers. C_LIO_LIUsing secondary sources for determining the gender of authors may have limitations, which could be avoided by seeking relevant information from original authors and institution affiliation at the time of submission. C_LI

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective

BackgroundGiven that the complex mix of structural, cultural, and institutional factors has produced barriers for women in science, an equally complex intervention is required to understand and address them. The Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality has become a widespread means to address barriers for womens advancement and leadership in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, the United States of America, and Canada, while he European Commission is exploring the introduction of a similar award scheme across Europe. MethodsThis study analyses the design and implementation of 16 departmental Athena SWAN Silver action plans in Medical Sciences at one of the worlds leading universities in Oxford, United Kingdom. Data pertaining to the design and implementation of gender equality interventions were extracted from the action plans, analysed thematically, coded using categories from the 2015 Athena SWAN Charter Awards Handbook, and synthesised against a typology of gender equality interventions in the European Research Area. The results were further analysed against the complexity research literature framework, where research organisations are perceived as dynamic systems that adapt, interact and co-evolve with other systems. ResultsAthena SWAN is a complex contextually-embedded system of action planning within the context of universities. It depends on a multitude of contextual variables that relate in complex, non-linear ways, and dynamically adapt to constantly moving targets and new emergent conditions. Athena SWAN Silver action plans conform to the key considerations of complexity: 1) multiple actions and areas of intervention with a focus on the complex system embedded in and the local dynamics, 2) the non-linearity of interventions and the constantly emerging conditions, 3) impact in terms of contribution to change, improved conditions to foster change, and the increased probability that change can occur. ConclusionsTo enact effective sustainable gender equality structural and cultural change, it is necessary to acknowledge and operationalize complexity as a frame of reference. Athena SWAN is the single most comprehensive and systemic gender equality scheme in Europe and can be strengthened further by promoting the integration of sex and gender analysis in research and education. Gender equality policies in the wider European Research Area can benefit from exploring Athena SWANs contextually-embedded systemic approach to dynamic action planning and inclusive focus on all genders and categories of staff and students.

scientific communication and education↗