The “Gender Gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature — A 35-Year Perspective
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. METHODS: Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. RESULTS: The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Female academics continue to lag behind in terms of key output criteria, such as citations and visibility.
“Female academics continue to lag behind in terms of key output criteria, such as citations and visibility33–37.”
From Scientific publications that use promotional language in the abstract receive more citations and public attention (2025) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles
Chatterjee, P., & Werner, R. M. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action
Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giz053 · Cited by 351 · see citing works
Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature
Hsiehchen, D., Hsieh, A., & Espinoza, M. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.5000 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Stavrova, O., Kleinberg, B., Evans, A. M., & Ivanović, M. (2025) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00293-8 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jagsi, R., Guancial, E. A., Worobey, C. C., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y., Starr, R., Tarbell, N. J., & Hylek, E. M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Boston University (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2006-07-20
- Volume
- 355
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 281-287
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2032688904
- Cited by
- 870
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 53.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Keywords
- gender gap, women in medicine, authorship, medical journals, obstetrics and gynecology, surgical research, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine
- MeSH terms
- Authorship, Career Choice, Faculty, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Periodicals as Topic, Physicians, Women, United States, Bibliometrics, Sex Distribution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review