Abstract
Your article on female authorship as an indicator of gender imbalance in academic medicine in the UK is a welcome addition to the nucleus of data tracking women's progress. Change has been frustratingly slow. Although women's productivity and authorship have been a traditional means to track the status of women in these fields, 1 women's roles as editors are crucial. 2-6 Authors, reviewers and editors each have progressively more professional influence over the scientific community and ultimately scientific and health policy. Topics considered worthy of research and funding can be meaningfully influenced by journal editors’ emphasis and direction. Furthermore, a woman's career advancement and influence are likely to be affected by whether or not she has editorial appointments.
In response to low representation of women in editorial roles pertaining to clinical trials, one of us (KD) has compiled a list of 91 senior women physicians and scientists from around the world who would be excellent candidates. Dr Dickersin has circulated this list to publishers and key editors-in-chief and will send it out on request to those in a position to appoint women. We suggest that others should produce similar lists to assist those who may be having a difficult time thinking of senior women in the field.
The research conducted on this topic is frequently unfunded and, for this reason, many questions are left unanswered; information is sparse and not always up-to-date. We applaud recent funding efforts in the United States and encourage the scientific community to continue research to better understand the causes of gender imbalances in medicine and the sciences, and to rectify them. In this way we will achieve better science overall.
Footnotes
This letter expresses the opinion of the authors and not necessarily the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.