ckground Historically, women's scientific contributions have been under-recognized. We investigated whether the number of citations, a key metric used for academic promotions and scientific productivity, differs in nephrology high-impact publications on the basis of author's gender. Methods We identified randomized clinical trials from 2000 to 2021 in ten high-impact journals. We assessed author gender, citations, h-index, m-index, years of active publishing, education, and grant funding. The main predictor of interest was the gender of the first author. The main outcome was the standardized citation count for analysis of the selected publications. In addition, we evaluated standardized author citation counts using the author, rather than the article. Results Among the selected publications, women were first authors of 65 (17.1%) and men of 315 (82.9%) articles. In crude analyses, publications with male first authors had a significantly higher median number of standardized citations (14 versus 10, P = 0.01). Adjusted analyses revealed m-index (β=29.48, P ≤ 0.01) and journal impact factor (β=0.78, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the standardized citation index. By contrast, neither the gender of the first author (βmale gender=1.42, P = 0.71) nor of the last author (βmale gender=8.89, P = 0.38) were significantly associated with the standardized citations. Similarly, in adjusted analyses on the basis of author profiles, male authorship was not significantly associated with the standardized author citation number (βmale gender=−7.79, P = 0.08). Conclusions Our study highlights marked disparities in the overall number of women publishing high-impact nephrology trials and the number of articles with female scientists as first authors of high-impact trials in the nephrology literature. Although crude citation rates were lower in articles with female first authors, the gender of the first author was not independently associated with citation metrics. Addressing gender disparities in academic recognition requires nuanced approaches extending beyond authorship and a broader focus on complex factors that influence academic recognition and scientific contributions....

中文翻译：

---

引文率的性别差异：二十多年来肾脏病学高影响力期刊随机对照试验的分析


ckground 从历史上看，女性的科学贡献一直没有得到充分认可。我们调查了肾脏病学高影响力出版物的引用次数（用于学术推广和科学生产力的关键指标）是否根据作者的性别而有所不同。方法 我们在 10 种高影响力期刊中确定了 2000 年至 2021 年的随机临床试验。我们评估了作者性别、引文、h-index、m-index、活跃出版年限、教育和资助。感兴趣的主要预测因子是第一作者的性别。主要结局是用于分析所选出版物的标准化引文计数。此外，我们使用作者而不是文章来评估标准化作者的引用计数。结果 在选定的出版物中，女性是 65 篇 （17.1%） 文章的第一作者，男性是 315 篇 （82.9%） 文章的第一作者。在粗略分析中，男性第一作者的出版物的标准化引用次数中位数显著更高（14 vs 10，P = 0.01）。调整后的分析显示 m 指数 （β=29.48，P ≤ 0.01） 和期刊影响因子 （β=0.78，P < 0.001） 与标准化引文指数显著相关。相比之下，第一作者的性别 （βmale gender=1.42， P = 0.71） 和最后一作者的性别 （βmale gender=8.89， P = 0.38） 均与标准化引用不显著相关。同样，在基于作者简介的调整分析中，男性作者身份与标准化作者引文数量没有显著相关性 （βmale gender=-7.79，P = 0.08）。 结论 我们的研究强调了在肾脏病学文献中发表高影响力肾脏病学试验的女性总数和女性科学家作为高影响力试验第一作者的文章数量的显著差异。尽管女性第一作者的文章的粗引用率较低，但第一作者的性别与引文指标并不独立相关。解决学术认可方面的性别差异需要超越作者身份的细致入微的方法，并更广泛地关注影响学术认可和科学贡献的复杂因素。