Gender Diversity in the Editorial Boards of Global Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS

Asian Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1007/s41649-024-00298-1

Seema Rawat, Pratyush Kumar, Lovish Wadhwa

{"title":"Gender Diversity in the Editorial Boards of Global Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals","authors":"Seema Rawat, Pratyush Kumar, Lovish Wadhwa","doi":"10.1007/s41649-024-00298-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Gender representation in academic and professional settings is crucial for diversity and inclusivity. Editorial boards of scholarly journals shape research priorities, influencing global knowledge flow. In obstetrics and gynecology, with a focus on women’s health, board composition is of particular significance. This paper explores gender representation in international obstetrics and gynecology journal editorial boards, addressing potential disparities. The study adopts a cross-sectional design, analyzing the gender composition of editorial boards in global obstetrics and gynecology journals. A comprehensive search strategy identified relevant journals, using databases and manual searches. Inclusion criteria ensured journals’ language of use and disciplinary scope within obstetrics and gynecology. Ethical considerations prioritized privacy and confidentiality, with data extracted systematically. Genderize.io aided in gender determination of the board members. At the time of writing, among 1175 editorial members from 20 journals, 44.8% are females. Representation varies across roles: editor-in-chief (27.27% female), deputy/executive positions (43.33% female), senior/specialized positions (50.66% female), wider/general positions (45.89% female), nonacademic positions (36% female), external academic positions (19.56% female), honorary/founding positions (33.33% female), and administrative positions (31.03% female). This study contributes a comprehensive analysis of gender representation in obstetrics and gynecology journal editorial boards. Persistent disparities across roles underscore the need for targeted interventions to foster diversity and equity. Ethical considerations emphasize the importance of addressing these disparities for social justice and research integrity. Recommendations to guide journals in fostering inclusive editorial practices, contributing to a more equitable landscape in obstetrics and gynecology research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"43 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-024-00298-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gender representation in academic and professional settings is crucial for diversity and inclusivity. Editorial boards of scholarly journals shape research priorities, influencing global knowledge flow. In obstetrics and gynecology, with a focus on women’s health, board composition is of particular significance. This paper explores gender representation in international obstetrics and gynecology journal editorial boards, addressing potential disparities. The study adopts a cross-sectional design, analyzing the gender composition of editorial boards in global obstetrics and gynecology journals. A comprehensive search strategy identified relevant journals, using databases and manual searches. Inclusion criteria ensured journals’ language of use and disciplinary scope within obstetrics and gynecology. Ethical considerations prioritized privacy and confidentiality, with data extracted systematically. Genderize.io aided in gender determination of the board members. At the time of writing, among 1175 editorial members from 20 journals, 44.8% are females. Representation varies across roles: editor-in-chief (27.27% female), deputy/executive positions (43.33% female), senior/specialized positions (50.66% female), wider/general positions (45.89% female), nonacademic positions (36% female), external academic positions (19.56% female), honorary/founding positions (33.33% female), and administrative positions (31.03% female). This study contributes a comprehensive analysis of gender representation in obstetrics and gynecology journal editorial boards. Persistent disparities across roles underscore the need for targeted interventions to foster diversity and equity. Ethical considerations emphasize the importance of addressing these disparities for social justice and research integrity. Recommendations to guide journals in fostering inclusive editorial practices, contributing to a more equitable landscape in obstetrics and gynecology research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

全球妇产科学期刊编辑委员会的性别多样性。

学术和专业环境中的性别代表性对多样性和包容性至关重要。学术期刊编辑委员会决定研究重点，影响全球知识流动。在以妇女健康为重点的妇产科，董事会组成具有特别重要的意义。本文探讨了国际妇产科期刊编委会的性别代表性，解决了潜在的差异。本研究采用横断面设计，分析全球妇产科学期刊编委会的性别构成。综合搜索策略确定相关期刊，使用数据库和人工搜索。纳入标准确保了期刊在妇产科的使用语言和学科范围。伦理考虑优先考虑隐私和机密性，系统地提取数据。Genderize。IO协助确定董事会成员的性别。在撰写本文时，来自20家期刊的1175名编辑成员中，女性占44.8%。不同角色的代表性各不相同：总编辑（女性占27.27%）、副/行政职位（女性占43.33%）、高级/专业职位（女性占50.66%）、更广泛/一般职位（女性占45.89%）、非学术职位（女性占36%）、外部学术职位（女性占19.56%）、荣誉/创始职位（女性占33.33%）和行政职位（女性占31.03%）。本研究对妇产科期刊编辑委员会的性别代表性进行了全面分析。角色之间持续存在的差异突出表明，需要采取有针对性的干预措施，以促进多样性和公平性。伦理方面的考虑强调了解决这些差异对社会公正和研究诚信的重要性。建议指导期刊培养包容性编辑实践，促进妇产科研究更公平的环境。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Asian Bioethics Review Multiple-

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

3.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.