An Investigation of Gender Representation and Collaboration in Academic Plastic Surgery Research

Background: Gender disparities in academic leadership positions may be influenced by several factors, including research productivity. We aimed to describe the publication gender gap in major plastic surgery journals, assess gender-related and gender-neutral research publications, and identify any potential gender disparities associated with publication characteristics. Methods: For this cross-sectional study, we reviewed all original research publications in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, and Aesthetic Surgery Journal from 2014 through 2018. Genderize.io was used to identify the gender of all authors. Each publication was classified as either gender-neutral, transgender health, women's health, or men's health-related based on the article's content. Results: Of the 12,718 authors across 2234 publications analysed, females were first authors in 30%, last authors in 17%, and all authors in 27%. Among the publications, 1782 (79.8%) were focused on gender-neutral, 419 (18.8%) on women's health, 18 (0.8%) on transgender health, and 15 (0.7%) on men's health. Male first authors were more likely to be associated with women's and transgender health articles (OR [95% CI]  =  1.4 [1.1-1.8] and OR [95% CI]  =  51.0 [47-55], p < .001) and had a higher mean number of citations compared to gender-neutral articles (p < .001). Male first authors were more likely to be associated with women's and transgender health articles (OR [95% CI]  =  1.4 [1.1-1.8] and OR [95% CI]  =  51.0 [47-55], p < .001) and had a higher mean number of citations compared to gender-neutral articles (p < .001). Conclusion: The publication gender gap persists in academic plastic surgery. The academic community should continue to prioritize addressing gender disparity from the perspective of research productivity.