Advertisement

Gender diversity among editorial boards of radiology-related journals

      Highlights

      • Women are underrepresented in a wide range of radiology-related journals.
      • The female proportion in editorial boards has increased compared to historical data.
      • Our results suggest that there is no gender bias as the IF of a journal increases.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To investigate gender diversity in editorial boards among a wide range of radiology-related journals, the trend in time, and its association with the journal's impact factor (IF).

      Method

      The Journal Citation Reports website was searched for radiology-related journals journals with IF>2.0. Gender of the editor-in-chief and all editorial board members as listed on each journal's official website were determined. Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's rho test were used for statistical analyses. Current data were compared to historical data.

      Results

      Fifty-seven radiology-related journals were included. The names of 4176 persons were extracted. A woman was in charge as the only editor-in-chief in 5 of 57 journals (8.8%). Median percentage of female editorial board members was 21.5% (range 3.2%–52.0%). Female editorial board members were in the majority in only two journals, with proportions of 51.4% and 52.0%. IFs between journals with female and male editors-in-chief were not significantly different (median 3.00, range 2.21–7.82 vs. median 3.31, range 2.02–10.98; P = 0.951). There was no significant association between percentage of female editorial board members and a journal's IF (Spearman's rho = −0.019, P = 0.889). The proportion of women has increased compared to historical data.

      Conclusion

      Women are underrepresented in a wide range of radiology-related journals. Comparison with historical data shows that the proportion of women on editorial boards has increased. Nevertheless, gender composition of the editorial board shows no association with IF. This suggests similar gender bias exists across a broad spectrum of high impact factor journals, with no added bias in journals with higher IF.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kubik-Huch R.A.
        • Vilgrain V.
        • Krestin G.P.
        • et al.
        Women in radiology: gender diversity is not a metric-it is a tool for excellence.
        Eur Radiol. 2020; 30: 1644-1652https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06493-1
        • Hamidizadeh R.
        • Jalal S.
        • Pindiprolu B.
        • et al.
        Influences for gender disparity in the radiology societies in North America.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211: 831-838https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.19741
        • Qamar S.R.
        • Khurshid K.
        • Jalal S.
        • et al.
        Gender disparity among leaders of Canadian academic radiology departments.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214: 3-9https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20992
        • Surawicz C.M.
        Women in leadership: why so few and what to do about it.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2016; 13: 1433-1437https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.026
        • Battaglia F.
        • Shah S.
        • Jalal S.
        • et al.
        Gender disparity in academic emergency radiology.
        Emerg Radiol. 2019; 26: 21-28https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-018-1642-7
        • Qamar S.R.
        • Khurshid K.
        • Jalal S.
        • et al.
        Academic musculoskeletal radiology: influences for gender disparity.
        Skeletal Radiol. 2018; 47: 381-387https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2836-x
      1. Journal citation reports (InCites).
        https://jcr.clarivate.com/
        Date accessed: May 18, 2020
        • Piper C.L.
        • Scheel J.R.
        • Lee C.I.
        • Forman H.P.
        Representation of women on radiology journal editorial boards: a 40-year analysis.
        Acad Radiol. 2018; 25: 1640-1645https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.03.031
        • Jalilianhasanpour R.
        • Charkhchi P.
        • Mirbolouk M.
        • Yousem D.M.
        Underrepresentation of women on radiology editorial boards.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 115-120https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.08.017
        • Abdellatif W.
        • Shao M.
        • Jalal S.
        • et al.
        Novel geographic thematic study of the largest radiology societies globally: how is gender structure biased within editorial boards?.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 11: 1-6https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20965
        • Garfield E.
        The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.
        JAMA. 2006; 295: 90-93https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90
        • Citrome L.
        Impact factor? Shmimpact factor!: the journal impact factor, modern day literature searching, and the publication process.
        Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007; 4: 54-57
        • Krampl
        Journal citation reports.
        J Med Libr Assoc. 2019; 107: 280-283https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.646
        • Fersht A.
        The most influential journals: impact factor and Eigenfactor.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106: 6883-6884https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903307106
      2. Gender Checker.
        • Gooding G.A.
        The status of women radiologists: membership on editorial boards and participation in upper echelons of radiologic societies.
        Radiology. 1983; 147: 595-599https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.147.2.6836141
        • Morton M.J.
        • Sonnad S.S.
        Women on professional society and journal editorial boards.
        J Natl Med Assoc. 2007; 99: 764-771
        • Amrein K.
        • Langmann A.
        • Fahrleitner-Pammer A.
        • Pieber T.R.
        • Zollner-Schwetz I.
        Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals.
        Gend Med. 2011; 8: 378-387https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genm.2011.10.007
        • Kennedy B.L.
        • Lin Y.
        • Dickstein L.J.
        Women on the editorial boards of major journals.
        Acad Med. 2001; 76: 849-851https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200108000-00021
        • Jagsi R.
        • Tarbell N.J.
        • Henault L.E.
        • Chang Y.
        • Hylek E.M.
        The representation of women on the editorial boards of major medical journals: a 35-year perspective.
        Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168: 544-548https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.5.544
        • Campbell J.C.
        • Yoon S.C.
        • Grimm L.J.
        Authorship and impact of gender-specific research in major radiology journals.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 240-243https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.08.024
        • Clark J.
        • Zuccala E.
        • Horton R.
        Women in science, medicine, and global health: call for papers.
        Lancet. 2017; 390: 2423-2424https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32903-3
        • Clark J.
        • Horton R.
        What is the lancet doing about gender and diversity?.
        Lancet. 2019; 393: 508-510https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30289-2
        • Grzybowski A.
        The journal impact factor: how to interpret its true value and importance.
        Med Sci Monit. 2009; 15SR1-4
        • Fersht A.
        The most influential journals: impact factor and Eigenfactor.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106: 6883-6884https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903307106
        • Bradshaw C.J.
        • Brook B.W.
        How to rank journals.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0149852https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149852
        • Paulus F.M.
        • Cruz N.
        • Krach S.
        The impact factor fallacy.
        Front Psychol. 2018; 9: 1487https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487