Female authorship in the revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica: Analysis for the period 1997-2017

5Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives. To explore female authorship trends among the articles published in the Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública between 1997 and 2017, as well as its association with characteristics of the research teams. Materials and Methods. We conducted a bibliometric analysis. We evaluated time trends of several forms of female participation in authorship, including “privileged authorship roles” (first author, corresponding author and senior author) and the proportion of female authors (out of the total number of authors). We compared female authorship according to the participation of medical doctors and authors from non-Peruvian institutions. Results. We analysed 1606/1621 articles; 46.3% were original articles. 63.5% had at least one female author, whilst 92.8% had at least one male author. A woman was the first, corresponding or senior author in 29.6%, 27.8% and 26.9% of the articles, respectively. 33% of authors per article were female (median). These figures did not considerably vary between the start and end of the study period. For original articles, female authorship was less likely if medical doctors were listed in the privileged authorship roles and more likely, if authors from non-Peruvian institutions were. Editorial processing times were longer when a woman served a privileged authorship role. Conclusions. Women served privileged authorship roles in less than a third of all articles. Apparently, these gaps have not improved over time. The composition of the research team predicts female authorship.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

García-Aguilar, D., Heredia-Mimbela, I., & Pereyra-Elías, R. (2019). Female authorship in the revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica: Analysis for the period 1997-2017. Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Publica, 36(4), 601–609. https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2019.364.4488

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free