Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
BC Women's Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 25;12(2):e057854. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057854.
To assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women's physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women's reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment.
A prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women's reproductive physiology results.
Tertiary academic medical centre.
All clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status.
Women were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women's health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors.
Sex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women's health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in peer review.
评估一般医学期刊（无同行评审）编辑拒稿的两个临床研究手稿是否与作者性别或女性生理学主题有关。鉴于科学和医学领域存在与女性相关的偏见以及编辑委员会的态度，我们的假设是，女性作者提交的关于女性生殖、非疾病主题的研究论文在编辑评估中会受到不同的对待。
对五个主要的英文普通医学杂志在拒稿后两期的出版物、作者性别和主题进行前瞻性调查。被拒稿的手稿（随后在影响力较低的期刊上发表）描述了由国家拨款机构资助的、基于人群样本的研究，由知名机构的知名女性科学家撰写，描述了创新性的女性生殖生理学结果。
三级学术医疗中心。
评估每个主要普通医学杂志在拒稿日期后的两期中发表的所有临床研究的第一/资深作者性别。评估出版物主题是否具有性别相关的人群相关性，是关注疾病还是生理学，以及其资金来源。评估拒稿信的编辑性别和地位。
女性作为原始研究作者的代表性不足；男性作为资深作者的占 84%，作为第一作者的占 69%。虽然大多数主题都与两性有关，但没有与女性健康相关的非疾病重点的出版物。大多数（80%）的拒稿信似乎是由排名较低的女性编辑撰写的。
主要普通医学杂志的临床研究编辑决策需要考虑性别/性别因素。提高普通医学杂志出版中性别平等的建议：（1）设立编辑委员会性别冠军，有权倡导对女性健康/生理学有重要意义的表现良好的研究论文；（2）设立编辑拒稿裁决委员会来审查作者的质疑；（3）在同行评审中实现性别均等。
