Transplantation proceedings · 2026
Transplanting Change: The Slow Progress of Gender Equity in Editorial Leadership.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rampersad Christie, Villemure-Poliquin Noemie, Selzner Nazia, Tsien Cynthia, Shwaartz Chaya
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in academic medicine, including journal editorships, are well-documented, but field-specific evaluation is essential to identify and address inequities. Solid organ transplantation, a diverse and multidisciplinary field, reflects broader imbalances, yet editorial board distributions remain understudied. We examined gender distribution, temporal trends, and predictors of female editorship in high-impact transplantation journals.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the top 20 transplantation journals by 2024 Scimago Journal Rank. Editor gender, specialty, geographic location, and journal characteristics were extracted from public sources. Gender was determined through web searches and validated software. Female representation among editors-in-chief in 2024 was compared to 2014. Predictors of female editorship were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 1479 editors, 31% were female, including 3/24 (13%) editors-in-chief and 29/90 (32%) chief/deputy editors. Female editors-in-chief was unchanged from 2014 to 2024 (10% vs 13%, p = .99). Physicians comprised 80% of editors, with lower female representation than non-physicians (28% vs 46%, p < .001). Female editorship was lowest among surgeons (16%) and highest in allied health (77%). Most editors (94%) were from high-income countries, with no difference between high- and middle-income countries (p = .99), and none from low-income countries. Odds of female editorship were lower for surgeons (OR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.49) and higher for allied health (OR: 6.50; 95% CI: 2.71, 18.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Female representation on transplant editorial boards aligns with workforce proportions but remains notably lower among editors-in-chief, stable over the past decade. Targeted policies, mentorship, and tracking gender-metrics are critical to promote equity in academic transplantation.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the top 20 transplantation journals by 2024 Scimago Journal Rank. Editor gender, specialty, geographic location, and journal characteristics were extracted from public sources. Gender was determined through web searches and validated software. Female representation among editors-in-chief in 2024 was compared to 2014. Predictors of female editorship were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 1479 editors, 31% were female, including 3/24 (13%) editors-in-chief and 29/90 (32%) chief/deputy editors. Female editors-in-chief was unchanged from 2014 to 2024 (10% vs 13%, p = .99). Physicians comprised 80% of editors, with lower female representation than non-physicians (28% vs 46%, p < .001). Female editorship was lowest among surgeons (16%) and highest in allied health (77%). Most editors (94%) were from high-income countries, with no difference between high- and middle-income countries (p = .99), and none from low-income countries. Odds of female editorship were lower for surgeons (OR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.49) and higher for allied health (OR: 6.50; 95% CI: 2.71, 18.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Female representation on transplant editorial boards aligns with workforce proportions but remains notably lower among editors-in-chief, stable over the past decade. Targeted policies, mentorship, and tracking gender-metrics are critical to promote equity in academic transplantation.