Being female may not be an injurious factor in scientific publishing activities
The difference in gender distribution has long been considered as a very interesting focus for modern medicine. The investigation of Dr. Filardo and his colleagues provided new evidence continually triggering the discussion whether women still belong to the vulnerable group in medical publication. I, however, could not agree with the authors’ deduction from their observational study.
After failing to find the negative effects of many potential factors, including publishing priorities, geographic region and type of publication, on female first authorship, the authors attempted to postulate that the composition of editorial boards or different submitting patterns, even the position of female editors-in-chief, may possibly be the underlying reasons for sex bias. Ironically except for the last one, for the other two reasons, they still could not offer any direct confirming data and only rest their hopes on further investigation. In my opinion, one disproof of their conclusion is to find the numbers of rejected original research subscripts from six journals. And it is very easy to imagine that male first authors should be in the majority among the rejected papers. Then can we expect this overwhelming distribution to stem from sex discrimination or a lack of opportunities for male writers?
The above mentioned disproof can also suggest that the determining factor in gender differences in publishing activities may be the normal sex gap without assuming other items. Moreover, from their speculation, it is also very doubtful to attribute the cause of the significant difference between The BMJ and NEJM in female first authorship to sex bias. I’d rather regard it as an exception or other causes not related to gender unfairness.
Recently, from many retrospective observational analysis, sex dimorphism in outcomes after traumatic brain injuries (TBI) was demonstrated and therefore the protective effects of estrogen were proposed [1]. However, it should be argued that the defensive roles of estrogen in TBI may not arise solely from its effects on cell physiology: the social psychological effects of sex hormone (e.g. men always impulsive and women always cautious when steering automobile) should definitely not be neglected. Hence, it is predictable that trials simply administering estrogen in TBI patients would probably not yield positive results (NCT00973674; NCT00973102). Similarly, the article of Dr. Filardo produce one more sample to show the danger of misinterpretation when evaluating observational data.
1. Wigginton JG, Pepe PE, Idris AH. Rationale for routine and immediate administration of intravenous estrogen for all critically ill and injured patients. Crit Care Med 2010;38:S620-9.
Rapid Response:
Being female may not be an injurious factor in scientific publishing activities
The difference in gender distribution has long been considered as a very interesting focus for modern medicine. The investigation of Dr. Filardo and his colleagues provided new evidence continually triggering the discussion whether women still belong to the vulnerable group in medical publication. I, however, could not agree with the authors’ deduction from their observational study.
After failing to find the negative effects of many potential factors, including publishing priorities, geographic region and type of publication, on female first authorship, the authors attempted to postulate that the composition of editorial boards or different submitting patterns, even the position of female editors-in-chief, may possibly be the underlying reasons for sex bias. Ironically except for the last one, for the other two reasons, they still could not offer any direct confirming data and only rest their hopes on further investigation. In my opinion, one disproof of their conclusion is to find the numbers of rejected original research subscripts from six journals. And it is very easy to imagine that male first authors should be in the majority among the rejected papers. Then can we expect this overwhelming distribution to stem from sex discrimination or a lack of opportunities for male writers?
The above mentioned disproof can also suggest that the determining factor in gender differences in publishing activities may be the normal sex gap without assuming other items. Moreover, from their speculation, it is also very doubtful to attribute the cause of the significant difference between The BMJ and NEJM in female first authorship to sex bias. I’d rather regard it as an exception or other causes not related to gender unfairness.
Recently, from many retrospective observational analysis, sex dimorphism in outcomes after traumatic brain injuries (TBI) was demonstrated and therefore the protective effects of estrogen were proposed [1]. However, it should be argued that the defensive roles of estrogen in TBI may not arise solely from its effects on cell physiology: the social psychological effects of sex hormone (e.g. men always impulsive and women always cautious when steering automobile) should definitely not be neglected. Hence, it is predictable that trials simply administering estrogen in TBI patients would probably not yield positive results (NCT00973674; NCT00973102). Similarly, the article of Dr. Filardo produce one more sample to show the danger of misinterpretation when evaluating observational data.
1. Wigginton JG, Pepe PE, Idris AH. Rationale for routine and immediate administration of intravenous estrogen for all critically ill and injured patients. Crit Care Med 2010;38:S620-9.
Competing interests: No competing interests