Gender distribution of editors and authors of reference textbooks in anatomic pathology: further edits are required

• Published in: Modern pathology Vol. 35; no. 12; pp. 1784 - 1790
• Main Authors: Parra-Herran, Carlos, Khani, Francesca, Wobker, Sara E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Elsevier Inc 01.12.2022; Nature Publishing Group US; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Authorship; Editors; Female; Gender; Humans; Kidney transplantation; Laboratory Medicine; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Pathologists; Pathology; Women; United States > US
• ISSN: 0893-3952; 1530-0285; 1530-0285
• DOI: 10.1038/s41379-022-01153-0

Compared to other medical specialties, pathology has a significant number of women in the academic workforce (43%). Gender disparities, particularly those disadvantaging women, are a reality in academic medicine with documented inequalities in salary, leadership opportunities, and faculty promotion. One important element of academic advancement is the recognition obtained when serving as editor or main author of reference textbooks. We aimed to document the gender distribution of editors/authors in anatomic pathology by surveying 205 subspecialty publications over a 20-year period. Gender of each editor/author was recorded after surveying their institutional or other professional biographies. When biography was non-contributory, gender was extracted from the National Provider Identifier Database. A total of 462 editors/authors were identified: 275 (59.5%) men and 187 (40.5%) women. This distribution was similar to the 2015 (39% women) and 2019 (43.4% women) Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) benchmark for US academic pathologists. The gender distribution in each of the main anatomic pathology subspecialties was estimated by surveying the websites of 20 North American academic pathology departments (totaling 1893 listed individuals). Compared to this benchmark, some subspecialties had more men in editor/author roles than their representation in academic departments including Dermatopathology (observed vs expected difference, Δ = 41.3%), Genitourinary Pathology (Δ = 29.4%), Renal & Transplant Pathology (Δ = 22.4%) and Head & Neck Pathology (Δ = 21.6%). Other subspecialties had more women in editor/author roles than their representation in academic departments including Molecular Pathology (Δ = 31.4%), Gastrointestinal Pathology (Δ = 21.4%), and Bone & Soft Tissue Pathology (Δ = 19.4%). Editors/authors of multiple (>1) publications were frequent and skewed gender representation in most specialties. The overall gender distribution of editor/author roles is similar to that of the US pathology workforce. However, significant disparities exist in certain subspecialties affecting both women and men. This landscape can guide efforts by editors, publishers, and academic institutions to bring equity to the academic field by providing fair editorial and authorship opportunities to academic pathologists.