bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–10–11
fifteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Neurointerventional publication metrics by rank, specialty and gender: The impact of academic age and mega-authorship.
  2. [Priorities in Indicators and Factors Emphasized in Research Evaluation among Members of the Japanese Society for Hygiene: A Web-based Descriptive Study].
  3. Trends in Retraction of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Research.
  4. Bibliometric analysis of international, English-language publication activity in anesthesiology, pain medicine, and intensive and emergency medicine over a 10-year interval.
  5. Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.
  6. Biomedical Publishing Metrics as a Barrier to Knowledge Dissemination.
  7. Mapping Global Research on Microplastics in Dental Science: Scientometric Trends, Collaborations, and Future Directions.
  8. Impact, Not Impact "Factor": Strategies to Maintain Anesthesia & Analgesia As the World's Most Cited Anesthesia Journal in the New Online Format.
  9. Taxonomic Bias Persists in Ecology and Evolution Research Despite Decades of Concern.
  10. Benchmarking European Nursing Research Published in 2020 in Leading Nursing Journals: A Bibliometric Study.
  11. Trends in authorship in medical teacher: A 20-year review of regionality and gender indicates slow and unsteady progress.
  12. A Bibliometric Review of Bibliometric Studies Published in Cardiology Journals.
  13. Why research on science communication needs more meta-analyses.
  14. Are Keynote and Invited Speakers at State Behavior Analytic Conferences Experts on Their Presentation Topics?
  15. Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.
  1. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2026 Sep 23. pii: S0363-0188(26)00166-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Neurointerventional publication metrics by rank, specialty and gender: The impact of academic age and mega-authorship.
    Estelle Schurink, Mahla Radmard, Philippe Gailloud, David M Yousem.
       BACKGROUND: Bibliometric measures are used to compare neurointerventional faculty trained in neurosurgery, radiology and neurology, but the comparability of citation-weighted metrics across these pathways is not established.
    OBJECTIVE: To provide national bibliometric data for academic neurointerventional faculty and to determine whether academic age and mega-authored research distort cross-specialty comparison.
    METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 423 neurointerventional faculty at 148 institutions. Scopus data were retrieved in July 2026. Academic age was defined as 2026 minus year of first publication. Specialties were compared unadjusted, adjusted for academic-age tertile, and in multivariable models exploring academic age, rank and gender. Mega-authored publications (>25 authors) were identified and models refitted excluding them.
    RESULTS: Median academic age differed by specialty (radiology 24, neurosurgery 20, neurology 18 years; p < 0.001). Output rose steeply with rank (median publications 34, 70 and 160; p < 0.001), which accounted for more variance than academic age. Unadjusted, specialties were indistinguishable on citations (p = 0.698) and h-index (p = 0.177); after age adjustment both differed (p = 0.005, p = 0.028) in favor of neurosurgery over radiology with differences concentrated among assistant professors. Mega-authored publications accounted for a median 44.9% of citations in neurology, 10.6% in neurosurgery and 4.7% in radiology (p < 0.001); excluding them abolished neurology's adjusted citation advantage. Women (9.5%) recorded fewer last-author publications after adjustment (0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.90).
    CONCLUSIONS: Citation-weighted bibliometrics are not comparable across neurointerventional faculty. Academic age and mega-authorship each independently distort them, and both must be accounted for before h-index or citation counts are used in career assessment.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Interventional; Neurology; Neuroradiology; Neurosurgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2026.09.008
  2. Nihon Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2026 ;81
    [Priorities in Indicators and Factors Emphasized in Research Evaluation among Members of the Japanese Society for Hygiene: A Web-based Descriptive Study].
    Akira Minoura, Keisuke Kuwahara, Yuhei Shimada, Makoto Kondo, Hiroko Fukushima, Takehiro Sugiyama.
       OBJECTIVES: Researcher evaluation is closely linked to research funding, promotion, and research continuity. In this study, we aimed to identify the indicators emphasized by Japanese hygiene researchers in research evaluation and to provide insights for improving research evaluation systems.
    METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a subset of a previously reported dataset. We conducted a web-based survey among Japanese medical researchers from December 2022 to January 2023. Among them, in this study, we focused on researchers belonging to the Japanese Society for Hygiene and collected attitudes of research evaluations. Researchers were asked to rate the importance of researcher evaluation indicators (e.g., number of articles, journal impact factor, number of citations, research funding obtained, and originality) using a five-point scale, and the results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
    RESULTS: Responses from 85 participants were analyzed. The factors considered most important were the number of articles published in English journals (95.2%) and the originality of the research topic (91.7%). The impact factor of the journal (63.5%) and the number of citations (64.7%) were also highly evaluated. On the other hand, the number of articles published in Japanese journals and award history were considered relatively less important.
    CONCLUSIONS: Hygiene is an academic field with a high degree of social implementation, and it is essential to introduce multifaceted evaluations that include academic indicators, policy contributions, contributions to community health, and human resource development. Japanese hygiene researchers emphasize the importance of both quantitative indicators (e.g., number of papers) and qualitative indicators (e.g., contribution to science). Research evaluation systems need to adopt a multifaceted approach rather than relying on a single indicator.
    Keywords:  Evaluations of research; Japanese; Japanese Society for Hygiene; Medical researchers; Social medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1265/jjh.26003
  3. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2026 Oct 09. pii: S1051-0443(26)01145-0. [Epub ahead of print] 109134
    Trends in Retraction of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Research.
    Paul Soliman, Luke Jones, Mary Serpe, Meaghan Dendy Case, Nicholas Voutsinas.
      Retractions play an important role in maintaining the integrity of vascular and interventional radiology (VIR) literature, yet their causes and trends remain uncharacterized. A search of PubMed, Embase, and the Retraction Watch Database in April 2026 identified 142 retracted VIR articles published since 2000. The leading reasons for retraction were peer-review manipulation (21.1%), intrinsic study errors (14.8%), and submission duplication (11.3%), although 40% of notices did not specify a reason. Most articles originated from China (69%) and addressed interventional oncology (35.2%). Retractions rose sharply in recent years, with 64.7% occurring between 2023 and 2026. The median time from publication to retraction was 14.8 months, and most articles were retracted within two years. Journal impact factor ranged widely (0.60-78.50) and was not associated with time to retraction. These findings highlight peer-review manipulation as a prominent mechanism of misconduct and reaffirm the importance of rigorous peer review and editorial screening.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2026.109134
  4. Minerva Anestesiol. 2026 Sep;92(9): 879-889
    Bibliometric analysis of international, English-language publication activity in anesthesiology, pain medicine, and intensive and emergency medicine over a 10-year interval.
    Linus H Kutup, Eike S Debus, Reinhart T Grundmann.
       BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to clarify how English-language publication activity in anesthesiology, intensive care medicine, and pain medicine has evolved in publishing countries over a 10-year period, considering not only publication volume but also scientific impact and shifting research methodologies.
    METHODS: A bibliometric analysis of 20,741 publications indexed in PubMed for the time periods 2008/09 and 2018/19 was performed across 30 journals. Journals were selected based on their impact factor (IF) in 2019. Publications were analyzed for total number, cumulative impact factors (CIF) - representing the sum of individual journal impact factors multiplied by the number of publications in each journal - study type, country of origin, and country output per million inhabitants.
    RESULTS: From 2008/09 to 2018/19, total publication volume declined by 6.9% from 10,740 to 10,001, while CIF increased by 25.4% from 42,441.2 to 53,219.1. Clinical (Observational) studies were most frequent; meta-analyses and registry studies rose markedly (216.1% and 125.3%, respectively), while experimental studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) declined (-51.9% and -29.7%, respectively). The United States led in both publication count (2008/09: 3,267; 2018/19: 4,250) and CIF (2008/09: 14,256.4; 2018/19: 24,421.9). When adjusted to population, smaller countries including Denmark (2008/09: 31.1; 2018/19: 80.7), Switzerland (2008/09: 23.6; 2018/19: 42.1), and the Netherlands (2008/2009: 26.3; 2018/2019: 34.9) ranked highest. Germany - the only leading country showing declining publication output at 7.0% - demonstrated a concerning trend, while China (+83.6%) and Canada (+69.4%) showed exceptional growth.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a decline in publication volume alongside increased citation activity in high impact anesthesiology and intensive care medicine journals, largely driven by the dominance of clinical studies and a growing prevalence of meta-analyses and registry studies, suggesting a shift in research priorities. Reduced publication numbers likely result from increasing journal selectivity and redistribution of research output toward open-access and non-specialty journals. The country ranking is dominated by the USA and other English-speaking nations, which can be attributed to the English-language literature analyzed. However, smaller nations like Denmark and Switzerland lead in population-based ranking, revealing critical insights into research infrastructure and institutional support.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.26.19721-1
  5. Rheumatol Int. 2026 Oct 09. pii: 282. [Epub ahead of print]46(10):
    Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.
    Dinara Yerlanova, Olena Zimba, Umida Khojakulova, Bekaidar Nurmashev, Ainur B Qumar, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit.
      The aim of this study is to analyze the dynamics of scientific integrity in the literature by analyzing bibliometric characteristics, temporal trends, and reasons for retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain. This cross-sectional study analyzed publications retrieved in the Scopus database using the keywords "pregnancy" and "pain" and tagged as "retracted". Publication year, retraction year, country, journal, subject area, keywords, citation counts, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and reasons for retraction were evaluated. Temporal trends were examined using linear regression, and the correlation between citation counts and AAS was analyzed using Spearman's rho test. A total of 55 retracted publications were examined. A significant upward trend over time was identified (β = 0.36; p = 0.017). These retractions originated from 17 countries, notably from Egypt (n = 19) and China (n = 14). The primary reason for retraction was data integrity issues (n = 20), followed by peer review problems (n = 13) and duplication (n = 9). The median citation count was 8 (0-80), and the median AAS score was 0 (0-659). A positive, significant correlation between citation numbers and AAS scores was reported (rho = 0.35; p = 0.008). Retractions have grown over time, mainly due to data integrity and peer review-publication processes. Citations and digital visibility of retracted studies, especially in clinical contexts, need careful monitoring. The results highlight the importance of rigorous research design, data transparency, and editorial oversight in upholding scientific integrity.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Pain; Peer review; Pregnancy; Retraction notice; Retraction of publication; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-026-06319-6
  6. Cureus. 2026 Sep;18(9): e115765
    Biomedical Publishing Metrics as a Barrier to Knowledge Dissemination.
    Brian W Rotenberg, Douglas Chepeha.
      The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is an outdated biomedical metric that hinders knowledge dissemination. Relying on citation counts creates a skewed, easily manipulated system with a temporal lag that ignores global equity. Frontline clinicians consume research to improve care but rarely generate citations, meaning the JIF cannot capture real-world clinical utility. To ensure rankings reflect true value, publishers must adopt a multi-dimensional matrix prioritizing usage-based Altmetrics, such as verified downloads and views, to instantly measure global clinical application.
    Keywords:  altmetric score; citation index; eigenfactor; journal impact factor; publishing metrics; pubmed indexed research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.115765
  7. Int J Dent. 2026 ;2026 6506257
    Mapping Global Research on Microplastics in Dental Science: Scientometric Trends, Collaborations, and Future Directions.
    Fran Espinoza-Carhuancho, Ivan Calderon-Cortez, Mabel Huaman-De la Cruz, Felipe Lozano-Castro, Justiniano Sotomayor Camayo, Victor Velasquez-Rimachi, Frank Mayta-Tovalino.
       Aim: To analyze the global scientific production on microplastics in dentistry by evaluating publication performance, impact indicators, collaboration networks, thematic evolution, and core publication sources.
    Materials and Methods: A scientometric study was conducted based on publications indexed in the Scopus database. Publications indexed between January 1, 2020 and January 17, 2026, were retrieved in accordance with the Reporting and Measurement Items for Bibliometric or Scientometric Studies in Health Sciences (RAMIBS) guideline. We examined various document types written in all languages; records were exported from Scopus in CSV format and analyzed using SciVal for bibliometric indicators. We also analyzed the records that were exported from Scopus in CSV format and analyzed using SciVal (Elsevier) and R version 4.5.2 in RStudio with the bibliometrix package for data cleaning, normalization, and bibliometric analyses. Variables examined included author, affiliation, country, scholarly output, citations, views, journal quartiles, distribution of themes according to Bradford's law, collaborative networks, thematic factor analysis, and the temporal evolution of the themes studied.
    Results: The analysis identified 75 publications from 45 sources with an average citation per article of 10.7 citations per article. These publications had an average age of 2.6 years, were written by 317 authors, and demonstrated a total rate of 21.3% in terms of the number of international collaborations. There was a predominance of original articles (42) and review articles (28) among these publications, which were published in core journals following the distribution of publications according to the Bradford law of distribution. The authors operated in relatively sparse collaboration networks with little local collaboration with other authors, while at the same time international collaboration showed a relatively dispersed network, with India occupying a prominent position based on country-level collaboration indicators. Thematic analysis identified co-occurring themes linking microplastics, dentistry, environmental pollution, and carbon footprint.
    Conclusion: Research on micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in dentistry is an emerging and interdisciplinary field with relatively limited international collaboration.
    Keywords:  bibliometrics; dentistry; microplastic; nanoplastics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1155/ijod/6506257
  8. Anesth Analg. 2026 Oct 09.
    Impact, Not Impact "Factor": Strategies to Maintain Anesthesia & Analgesia As the World's Most Cited Anesthesia Journal in the New Online Format.
    Jaideep J Pandit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000008311
  9. Ecol Evol. 2026 Oct;16(10): e74450
    Taxonomic Bias Persists in Ecology and Evolution Research Despite Decades of Concern.
    Pietro Pollo, Michael M Kasumovic.
      Scientific hyperfocus on certain organisms slows innovation and hinders the generality of ecological and evolutionary inference. Yet, the extent of taxonomic bias in this research field and its potential changes over time remain poorly quantified. By assessing 1,383,803 papers and 612 journals, we show that ecology and evolution research is strongly taxonomically biased. We found that the prevalence of studies on vertebrates in the literature as a whole (but not within some pockets of ecology and evolution) has remained similar since the early 2000s, when the first studies of taxonomic bias were published. We also observed that studies on vertebrates, relative to those on invertebrates, were more prevalent in higher impact journals and, within journals, received more citations and mentions in the media. However, classifying animals into more specific groups led to context-dependent temporal and attention patterns. We propose a series of urgent targeted actions to ameliorate taxonomic imbalances in ecology and evolution.
    Keywords:  journal citation indicator; journal impact factor; knowledge imbalance; research bias; research impact; taxonomic chauvinism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.74450
  10. Acta Med Acad. 2026 Oct 03.
    Benchmarking European Nursing Research Published in 2020 in Leading Nursing Journals: A Bibliometric Study.
    Marija Janeš, Daniel Rehlicki, Andrea Vukša, Josip Strčić, Livia Puljak.
       OBJECTIVE: Nursing research plays a critical role in advancing evidence-based practice and improving patient outcomes. This study analysed the geographical distribution, methodological characteristics, reporting practices, and funding patterns of European nursing research published in Q1 nursing journals in 2020.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was conducted on original articles published in the first quartile (Q1) of the 2020 Journal Impact Factor. Inclusion required at least one author to be affiliated with an institution in one of the 46 Council of Europe member states. The study assessed author affiliations, units of analysis, participant types, research design, reporting, and funding.
    RESULTS: Of the 4911 identified records, 1618 articles met the inclusion criteria. The United Kingdom had the most author affiliations (N=420; 20%). Seven countries appeared in at least 5% of the articles, whereas 15 out of 46 European countries were not represented at all. Most studies focused on people (N=1236; 76%) and were primary research (N=1304; 81%), with observational designs being the most common. Only 38% of articles mentioned a reporting guideline, with PRISMA cited most frequently (N=220; 14%). Funding was predominantly non-commercial (N=739; 46%).
    CONCLUSION: The study revealed notable geographic imbalances in European nursing research and a strong reliance on observational designs, highlighting the need for methodological diversity and more inclusive research participation across Europe.
    Keywords:  Benchmarking Studies; Bibliometric Analysis; Europe; Nursing Research; Research Design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.518
  11. Med Teach. 2026 Oct 08. 1-9
    Trends in authorship in medical teacher: A 20-year review of regionality and gender indicates slow and unsteady progress.
    David Hope, Jennifer Cleland.
       INTRODUCTION: Publishing in medical education journals contributes to global discussions on how to train health professionals and, at an individual level, is important for career advancement. However, some groups are under-represented in medical education scholarship - especially those from the 'global south' and, historically, women. To examine this further, we carried out a bibliometric analysis of twenty years of Medical Teacher data to identify geographic and gender differences in representation among the journal authorship, and to identify any visible impacts of relevant editorial policy changes.
    METHODS: We used OpenAlex, a citation recording tool, to extract all publications from Medical Teacher between 1st January 2006 and 31st December 2025, for a total of 5,590 total records. We then applied the United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD) definition of 'global north' (GN) membership to identify the location of authors and used genderize.io to predict the gender of first authors. We then examined trends (in percentages) over time for geographic region and gender.
    RESULTS: The share of authors from the global south, and the share of first authors who are women, has been rising slowly for twenty years. However, progress is both localised and unsteady: much of the increase in global south authorship is driven by Asia (and within that, Singapore), and a gap remains whereby GN publications are more likely to have women as first authors. Since 2019, women are the majority of first authors.
    DISCUSSION: Progress in diversifying medical education scholarship is being made, but it is slow, geographically localised, and does not seem responsive to journal policies to increase fairness and representation. However, the analysis here shows that such bibliometric reviews can be done in a cost-effective and routinised way, allowing journals to iterate on their attempts to expand diversity with evidence.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; diversity and Inclusion; equality; fairness; global South
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2026.2740177
  12. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2026 Oct 04. pii: S0146-2806(26)00221-5. [Epub ahead of print] 103480
    A Bibliometric Review of Bibliometric Studies Published in Cardiology Journals.
    Amal H Mohamed, Fatimah M Madkhaly, Doaa Abdulwahab Mohammed Ayish, Fatma Ayish, Etedal Ahmed A Ibrahim, Wafa Ibrahim, Abuzer Abdalla, Khalid Musa Fadlelmula Awadlseid, Suad Elsayed Abdelmotalb Elsaman, Yasir Osman Hassan Babiker, Hind Ali Osman, Mehreen Zafar.
       BACKGROUND: Bibliometric research in cardiology has expanded alongside the growing volume and diversity of cardiovascular research.
    OBJECTIVE: To systematically map bibliometric studies published in cardiology journals and identify the major diseases, clinical areas, interventions, technologies, and emerging themes receiving bibliometric attention.
    METHODS: Scopus was searched in August 2026 using bibliomet in the Title field and cardio in the Source Title field, followed by selection of cardiology-related journals.
    RESULTS: A total of 203 publications were identified, comprising 136 articles (67.0%) and 67 reviews (33.0%). Output increased substantially after 2021, reaching a peak of 41 publications in 2023, followed by 38 in 2024 and 32 in 2026. Hu, Y. was the most prolific author (n=8), while the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences was the leading institution (n=35). China accounted for 148 publications, followed by the United States (17), Pakistan (8), Canada (6), India (5), Spain (5), and Turkey (5). Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine published the most studies (n=80), while the National Natural Science Foundation of China was the leading funding source (n=54). The identified literature covered diverse cardiovascular diseases, procedures, interventions, technologies, and emerging themes. Early studies emphasized productivity, citations, journals, research groups, and geographical patterns, whereas recent studies increasingly examined specific diseases, mechanisms, therapies, imaging, and surgery. Emerging areas included artificial intelligence, molecular research, genetics, exosomes, non-coding RNAs, and environmental factors.
    CONCLUSION: Overall, bibliometric research has shifted toward specialized, technology-driven, molecular, and interdisciplinary cardiovascular topics.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Cardiovascular research; Research trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2026.103480
  13. Public Underst Sci. 2026 Oct 09. 9636625261489946
    Why research on science communication needs more meta-analyses.
    Niels G Mede, Mike S Schäfer, Elisa Tedaldi.
      Research on science communication has expanded and diversified. Correspondingly, an increasing number of literature reviews, handbooks, and bibliometric studies have taken stock of the field's accumulated knowledge. However, it is still difficult to identify robust, consolidated answers to key questions on science communication-answers that may help scholars, practitioners, and decision-makers. Meta-analyses-the statistical aggregation of empirical results across multiple studies to determine average effect sizes-can provide some of those answers, complementing existing knowledge syntheses and addressing their shortcomings. Yet, meta-analyses in research on science communication are rare, whereas other disciplines are much closer to establishing a culture of meta-analyses and demonstrate the usefulness of meta-analyses for specific aspects of science communication research within and beyond our discipline. We therefore propose a meta-analytical research agenda of science communication scholarship and argue that it will increase the impact of our field in the social sciences and society.
    Keywords:  meta-analysis; research agenda; review; science communication; synthesis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625261489946
  14. Behav Anal Pract. 2026 Sep;19(3): 877-888
    Are Keynote and Invited Speakers at State Behavior Analytic Conferences Experts on Their Presentation Topics?
    Margaret Ayres Boggs, John T Rapp, Jennifer L Cook, Sarah M Richling, Raeesa Mohamed.
      Board Certified Behavior Analysts® (BCBA®s) must acquire 32 continuing education units (CEUs) every two years. One way BCBAs obtain CEUs is by attending their state chapter conferences, which feature keynote speakers and invited speakers who disseminate information in their respective areas of presumed scientific expertise. This study evaluated 735 CEU presentations provided by keynote and invited speakers at state conferences in the United States for 2021, 2022, and 2023. For each keynote and invited presentation, researchers used Google Scholar to count the speakers' (a) peer-reviewed publications on their presentation topic and (b) total peer-reviewed publications. In part, the results across all three years indicate that 31% of speakers had zero topic-specific publications. Notably, the percentage of speakers with zero topic-specific publications concerningly increased across the three years. Results also indicate nearly 40% of speakers with zero topic-specific publications did not have any peer-reviewed publications. We discuss the potential implications of the findings and suggest actions for offsetting the current trend.
    Keywords:  Continuing education; Dissemination; Expertise; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01051-2
  15. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2027 Jan;62 101298
    Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.
    Lucie Houdou, Angela Besserer, Maike Trommer, Audrey Larnaudie, Charles Raynaud, Véronique Vendrely, Stéphane Supiot, Yasmine El Houat, Anne Larrouy, Amandine Ruffier, Anne Laprie, Florence Huguet, Wassila Benhabib-Boukhelif.
       Introduction: Despite rising numbers of women in radiation oncology (RO), they remain under-represented in academic leadership and research. This narrative review assesses gender disparities in academic RO.
    Materials and methods: PubMed/MEDLINE and Europe PMC were searched in August 2026 for articles published from 2000 onwards, with additional domain-specific and country-specific searches. Of 1629 records, 1035 were screened on title and abstract after removal of duplicates and preprints, 657 were assessed in detail, and 108 that reported primary, gender-disaggregated data on radiation oncologists or trainees were included, together with three authorship analyses that report the radiation oncology journals separately. Because outcome definitions and academic structures differ across countries, the synthesis is narrative.
    Results: The "leaky pipeline" was a consistent finding: women hold a smaller share of senior posts than of the workforce in every country with data. Across United States National Cancer Institute-designated centres, 24.6% of men versus 15.5% of women held full professorships (p = 0.001), and women were 11.8% of chairs at those centres. Women held 18.9% of full professorships in Germany in 2024. Crude bibliometric differences were attenuated or abolished by stratification for rank. Men were 76% of 340 National Institutes of Health-funded RO principal investigators, and women were twice as likely as men to treat breast malignancies (risk ratio 2.01, 95% CI 1.75-2.50). In France, 65% of female respondents perceived gender as a career barrier. Coverage is uneven: 82 of 108 studies are North American, none from Africa.
    Conclusion: Disparities persist across countries. The evidence is observational and cannot establish mechanisms; corrective programmes report outcomes, none controlled. Differences are associations, not causal effects; no data were identified for Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe or most of Asia. A national survey with SFRO, SFjRO and FORce is needed.
    Keywords:  Academic medicine; Diversity, equity and inclusion; Gender disparities; Radiation oncology; Women
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2026.101298
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒10‒12 at 2:46.