A Cross-Sectional Study on the Representation of Women as Editors in MEDLINE-Indexed Occupational Health and Safety...

Despite progress, gender gaps persist in editorial leadership. This study explores the extent of women's representation on editorial boards of occupational health and safety journals indexed in MEDLINE and discusses the potential implications of underrepresentation for scientific discourse and research visibility.

This study presents a cross-sectional analysis of MEDLINE-indexed occupational health and safety (OSH) journals to assess gender representation across editorial roles and examine associations with journal characteristics using Spearman correlation. Objectives include: (i) quantifying female participation across editorial positions, (ii) examining associations with journal characteristics (e.g., impact factor, editor-in-chief gender), and (iii) identifying barriers to women's inclusion. A structured search of the NLM Catalog was conducted on May 16, 2024 using MeSH terms for "occupational health" and "occupational medicine." Eligible journals had OSH as their primary focus and publicly listed editorial boards. Data on editorial roles were extracted manually and analyzed using the Composite Editorial Board Diversity Score. All data were independently verified. No direct contact was made, and ethical approval was not required as only publicly available data were used.

Among 1215 editors across 32 journals, women comprised 39%. Female representation rose with journal impact factor (Spearman r = 0.591, P < 0.001) but did not increase with a female editor-in-chief (r = -0.207). These results highlight persistent underrepresentation that is unlikely to be resolved by individual leadership alone.

This study reveals underrepresentation of women on OSH journal editorial boards, raising concerns of bias and limited perspectives, indicating that appointing women to top roles alone does not yield gender-equitable boards and that systemic measures remain necessary. Persistent underrepresentation likely reflects structural barriers; interpretations are noncausal given the cross-sectional design. Addressing these gaps is vital for promoting equity and inclusivity in occupational health research.