Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 1171–1180 | Cite as

Authorship Trends Over the Past 30-Years in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering

  • Izath Nizeet Aguilar
  • Venkateswaran Ganesh
  • Rachel Mannfeld
  • Riley Gorden
  • Jennifer M. Hatch
  • Shatoria Lunsford
  • Elizabeth C. Whipple
  • Randall T. Loder
  • Melissa A. KacenaEmail author
Article

Abstract

In academia, manuscripts serve as an important component of career development. The past several years have seen heightened evaluation of the role of the gender gap in career advancement, as well as other bibliometric changes in publications. We therefore analyzed authorship and publication trends in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering over the past three decades (one complete year of manuscripts for each decade; 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016). The variables analyzed were number of authors per manuscript, numerical position of the corresponding author, number of collaborating institutions and countries, number of references, and number of citations per manuscript. The gender of both the first and corresponding authors was identified and analyzed over time and by region. Globally, the percentage of female first and corresponding authors significantly increased from 0% in 1986 to 28.6% (p = 0.003) and 20.4% (p = 0.0009), respectively, in 2016. Although there were significant differences regarding female first and corresponding author over time, they did not vary by region of origin (p = 0.5 and 0.2, respectively). Overall, these findings highlight the improvements made and the challenges that still exist related to publishing within the bioengineering field.

Keywords

Gender Female Author Bibliometric analysis Publication trends 

Abbreviations

ABME

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

BME

Biomedical Engineering

BMES

Biomedical Engineering Society

B.S.

Bachelor of Science

CLT

Cochran linear trend test

M.S.

Master of Science

Ph.D.

Doctor of Philosophy

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine (MAK, RTL), NIH T32AR065971 (INA), the Garceau Professorship Endowment and Rapp Pediatric Orthopaedic Research Fund, Riley Children’s Foundation (RTL), and the Ruth Lilly Medical Library (ECW). This work was also supported by the Ralph W. and Grace M. Showalter Research Trust (MAK).

Supplementary material

10439_2019_2222_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, J. The fourth age of research. Nature 497:557–560, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angell, M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann. Intern. Med. 104:261–262, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Athanasiou, K. A. Passing the baton to the Davis editorial office. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38:1, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beddoes, K., M. Borrego, and B. Jesiek. Mapping International Perspectives on Gender in Engineering Education Research. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharyya, N., and N. L. Shapiro. Increased female authorship in Otolaryngology over the past three decades. Laryngoscope 110:358–361, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borenstein, J. Responsible authorship in engineering fields: an overview of current ethical challenges. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17:355–364, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borenstein, J., and A. E. Shamoo. Rethinking authorship in the era of collaborative research. Account Res. 22:267–283, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brinker, A. R., J. L. Liao, K. R. Kraus, J. Young, M. Sandelski, C. Mikesell, D. Robinson, M. Adjei, S. D. Lunsford, J. Fischer, M. A. Kacena, E. C. Whipple, and R. T. Loder. Bibliometric analysis of gender authorship trends and collaboration dynamics over 30 years of Spine 1985 to 2015. Spine 43:E849–E854, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budden, A. E., T. Tregenza, L. W. Aarssen, J. Koricheva, R. Leimu, and C. J. Lortie. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23:4–6, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chesler, N. C., G. Barabino, S. N. Bhatia, and R. Richards-Kortum. The pipeline still leaks and more than you think: a status report on gender diversity in biomedical engineering. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38:1928–1935, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clement, T. Authorship Matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Sci. Eng. Ethics 20:345–361, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Commonwealth of Australia. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Going blind to see more clearly. 2017. https://www.pmc.gov.au/news-centre/domestic-policy/beta-report-going-blind-see-more-clearly. Accessed August 5, 2018.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Darling, E. S. Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity. Conserv. Biol. 29:297–299, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dickersin, K., L. Fredman, K. M. Flegal, J. D. Scott, and B. Crawley. Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example. JAMA 280:260–264, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duma, S. (ed.). Annals of Biomedical Engineering: Biomedical Engineering Society. New York: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Filardo, G., B. da Graca, D. M. Sass, B. D. Pollock, E. B. Smith, and M. A. Martinez. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994–2014). BMJ 352:i847, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer, J. P., A. E. Wininger, D. C. Scofield, A. Tucker, E. J. Kacena-Merrell, E. C. Whipple, M. A. Kacena, and R. T. Loder. Historical analysis of bibliometric trends in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics with a particular focus on sex. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 38:e168–e171, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fishman, M., W. A. Williams, II, D. M. Goodman, and L. F. Ross. Gender differences in the authorship of original research in pediatric journals, 2001–2016. J. Pediatr. 191:244–249, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fong, E. A., and A. W. Wilhite. Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE 12:e0187394, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freeman, R., and W. Huang. Strength in diversity. Nature 513:305, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garvalov, B. K. Who stands to lose from double-blind review? Nature 452:28, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gaule, P., and M. Piacentini. Chinese graduate students and U.S. scientific productivity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95:698–701, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldin, C. The Gender Gap. The Concise Encyclopaedia of Economics. Indianapolis: Library of Economics and Liberty, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gu, A., N. Almeida, J. S. Cohen, K. M. Peck, and G. A. Merrell. Progression of authorship of scientific articles in The Journal of Hand Surgery, 1985–2015. J. Hand Surg. Am. 42:291.e1–291.e6, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gumpertz, M., R. Durodoye, E. Griffith, and A. Wilson. Retention and promotion of women and underrepresented minority faculty in science and engineering at four large land grant institutions. PLoS ONE 12:e0187285, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gutierrez, C., M. Paulosky, A. Aguinaldo, and J. Gerhart. Women break an engineering barrier: while other engineering disciplines stumble, BME represents a success story in attracting American women to a male-dominated field. IEEE Pulse 8:49–53, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halperin, E. Publish or perish—and bankrupt the medical library while we’re at it. Acad. Med. 74:470–472, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holman, L., D. Stuart-Fox, and C. E. Hauser. The gender gap in science: how long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biol. 16:e2004956, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hunt, V., L. Yee, S. Prince, and S. Dixon-Fyle. Delivering Through Diversity. McKinsey & Company, 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity. Accessed November 18, 2018.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jagsi, R., E. A. Guancial, C. C. Worobey, L. E. Henault, Y. Chang, R. Starr, N. J. Tarbell, and E. M. Hylek. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35-year perspective. N. Engl. J. Med. 355:281–287, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kassis, T. How do research faculty in the biosciences evaluate paper authorship criteria? PLoS ONE 12:e0183632, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khan, F., M. M. Sandelski, J. D. Rytlewski, J. Lamb, C. Pedro, M. B. N. Adjei, S. Lunsford, J. P. Fischer, A. E. Wininger, E. C. Whipple, R. T. Loder, and M. A. Kacena. Bibliometric analysis of authorship trends and collaboration dynamics over the past three decades of Bone’s publication history. Bone 107:27–35, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Link, A. M. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 280:246–247, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGregor, C., K. P. Smith, and J. Percival. Women in biomedical engineering and health informatics and its impact on gender representation for accepted publications at IEEE EMBC 2007. In: Conference Proceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2008. pp 2881–2884.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McNutt, M. K., M. Bradford, J. M. Drazen, B. Hanson, B. Howard, K. H. Jamieson, V. Kiermer, E. Marcus, B. K. Pope, R. Schekman, S. Swaminathan, P. J. Stang, and I. M. Verma. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115:2557–2560, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mimouni, M., S. Zayit-Soudry, O. Segal, Y. Barak, A. Y. Nemet, S. Shulman, and N. Geffen. Trends in authorship of articles in major ophthalmology journals by gender, 2002–2014. Ophthalmology 123:1824–1828, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Science Foundation. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2015. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 17-306, 2017.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neill, U. Publish or perish, but at what cost? J. Clin. Invest. 118:2368, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parish, A. J., K. W. Boyack, and J. P. A. Ioannidis. Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLoS ONE 13:e0189742, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Powell, K. These labs are remarkably diverse—here’s why they’re winning at science. Nature 558:19–22, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Riesenberg, D., and G. D. Lundberg. The order of authorship: who’s on first? JAMA 264:1857, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Russell, A. F., R. T. Loder, A. S. Gudeman, P. Bolaji, P. Virtanen, E. C. Whipple, and M. A. Kacena. A bibliometric study of authorship and collaboration trends over the past 30 years in four major musculoskeletal science journals. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-018-0492-3.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Russell, A. F., M. Nguyen, M. Bhuiya, E. F. Likine, J. P. Fischer, K. Grassel, M. Groswald, R. Kabir, S. Spagna, S. Wright, E. C. Whipple, M. A. Kacena, and R. T. Loder. Comparative analysis of bibliometric, authorship, and collaboration trends over the past 30-year publication history of the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma and Injury. J. Orthop. Trauma 32:e327–e333, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sax, L. Why gender matters, revised and updated: what parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Crown Publishing, 2017.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shapiro, D. W., N. S. Wenger, and M. F. Shapiro. The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA 271:438–442, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Singh, C. D. Huge peer-review study reveals lack of women and non-westerners. Nature 561(7723):295–296, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    The World Bank. World development indicators: Population, female (% of total), 2017. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS. Accessed November 28, 2018.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Webb, T. J., B. O’Hara, and R. P. Freckleton. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends Ecol. Evol. 23:351–353, 2008; ((author reply 353–4)).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wininger, A. E., J. P. Fischer, E. F. Likine, A. S. Gudeman, A. R. Brinker, J. Ryu, K. A. Maupin, S. Lunsford, E. C. Whipple, R. T. Loder, and M. A. Kacena. Bibliometric analysis of female authorship trends and collaboration dynamics over JBMR’s 30-year history. J. Bone Miner. Res. 32:2405–2414, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yoder, B. Engineering by the Numbers. New Orleans: American Society for Engineering Education, 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Izath Nizeet Aguilar
    • 1
  • Venkateswaran Ganesh
    • 1
  • Rachel Mannfeld
    • 1
  • Riley Gorden
    • 1
  • Jennifer M. Hatch
    • 1
  • Shatoria Lunsford
    • 1
  • Elizabeth C. Whipple
    • 2
  • Randall T. Loder
    • 1
  • Melissa A. Kacena
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Ruth Lilly Medical LibraryIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringIndiana University Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations