Gender representation in science publication: evidence from Brain Communications

Area of Science:

• Neuroscience
• Neurology
• Psychiatry
• Bibliometrics
• Gender Studies in Science

Background:

• Persistent underrepresentation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) necessitates continued awareness and understanding.
• Academic publications are crucial for quantifying gender disparities in science and identifying potential biases.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze the gender distribution of authors and reviewers in the journal *Brain Communications* from 2019 to 2021.
• To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender representation in scientific publications.
• To assess potential gender bias in the peer review and editorial decision-making processes.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 796 manuscripts received by *Brain Communications* between 2019 and 2021.
• Gender determination for 7721 authors and 4492 reviewers.
• Comparison of representation across authorship positions (first, middle, last) and reviewer roles.
• Examination of trends before and after COVID-19 restrictions.

Main Results:

• Women constituted 35.3% of all authors and 31.3% of invited reviewers.
• Women were more represented in first authorship (42.4%) compared to last authorship (24.9%).
• A further decrease in the representation of women authors and reviewers was observed following COVID-19 restrictions.
• No significant difference in manuscript acceptance rates based on author gender was found, indicating no bias in review or editorial decisions.

Conclusions:

• While women are better represented in early-career author positions, significant underrepresentation persists, particularly in senior authorship.
• The COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated existing gender disparities in scientific publishing.
• *Brain Communications* demonstrates no evidence of gender bias in its peer review and editorial decision-making processes.