Gender Distribution Associated With the Journal Wilderness & Environmental Medicine


      Publication and peer review are fundamental to career advancement in science and academic medicine. Studies demonstrate that women are underrepresented in science publishing. We evaluated the gender distribution of contributors to Wilderness & Environmental Medicine (WEM) from 2010 through 2019.


      We extracted author data from ScienceDirect, reviewer data from the WEM Editorial Manager database, and editorial board data from journal records. Gender (female and male) was classified using automated probability-based assessment with software.


      A total of 2297 unique authors were published over the 10-y span, generating 3613 authorships, of which gender was classified for 96% (n=3480). Women represented 26% (n=572) of all authors, which breaks down to 22% of all, 19% of first, 28% of second, and 18% of last authorships. Women represented 20% of peer reviewers (508/2517), 20% of reviewers-in-training (19/72), and 16% of editorial board members (7/45). The proportion of female authors, first authors, and reviewers increased over time. Women received fewer invitations per reviewer than men (mean 2.1 [95% CI 2.0-2.3] vs 2.4 [95% CI 2.3-2.5]; P=0.004), accepted reviews at similar rates (mean 73 vs 71%; P=0.214), and returned reviews 1.4 d later (mean 10.4 [CI 9.5-11.3] vs 9.0 d [95% CI 8.5-9.6]; P=0.005).


      While female representation increased over the study period, women comprise a minority of WEM authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members. Gender equity could be improved by identifying and eliminating barriers to participation, addressing any potential bias in review processes, implementing strategies to increase female-authored submissions, and increasing mentorship and training.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Wilderness & Environmental Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Mentzelopoulos S.D.
        • Zakynthinos S.G.
        Research integrity, academic promotion, and attribution of authorship and nonauthor contributions.
        JAMA. 2017; 318: 1221-1222
        • Jagsi R.
        • Guancial E.A.
        • Worobey C.C.
        • Henault L.E.
        • Chang Y.
        • Starr R.
        • et al.
        The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35-year perspective.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 281-287
        • Kaji A.H.
        • Meurer W.J.
        • Napper T.
        • Nigrovic L.E.
        • Mower W.R.
        • Schriger D.L.
        State of the journal: women first authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members at Annals of Emergency Medicine.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2019; 74: 731-735
        • Lennox M.G.
        • Li M.
        • Wang X.
        • Pien L.C.
        • Lang D.M.
        Patterns of North American women authorship in two allergy/immunology journals: 1997-2017.
        J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019; 7: 2156-2160
        • Jordan C.J.
        • Carlezon Jr., W.A.
        Neuropsychopharmacology (NPP): Gender balance in journal function.
        Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019; 44: 4-8
        • Jordan C.J.
        • Carlezon Jr., W.A.
        NPP (Neuropsychopharmacology): update on gender balance in journal function.
        Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019; 44: 2145-2148
        • Goldstone K.
        • Edgley C.
        • Mehta S.
        • Leslie K.
        Peer review for the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia in 2016 and 2017: a retrospective analysis by reviewer and author gender.
        Can J Anaesth. 2020; 67: 336-342
        • Lundine J.
        • Bourgeault I.L.
        • Clark J.
        • Heidari S.
        • Balabanova D.
        The gendered system of academic publishing.
        Lancet. 2018; 391: 1754-1756
        • Pinho-Gomes A.C.
        • Vassallo A.
        • Thompson K.
        • Womersley K.
        • Norton R.
        • Woodward M.
        Representation of women among editors in chief of leading medical journals.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4e2123026
        • Lerback J.
        • Hanson B.
        Journals invite too few women to referee.
        Nature. 2017; 541: 455
        • National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering
        Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering.
        The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2007
        • Clark J.
        • Horton R.
        What is the Lancet doing about gender and diversity?.
        Lancet. 2019; 393: 508-510
        • Chang A.Y.
        • Cesare N.
        Handing the microphone to women: changes in gender representation in editorial contributions across medical and health journals 2008-2018.
        Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020; 9: 269-273
        • Neumayer L.
        • Kaiser S.
        • Anderson K.
        • Barney L.
        • Curet M.
        • Jacobs D.
        • et al.
        Perceptions of women medical students and their influence on career choice.
        Am J Surg. 2002; 183: 146-150
        • Nielsen M.W.
        • Alegria S.
        • Börjeson L.
        • Etzkowitz H.
        • Falk-Krzesinski H.J.
        • Joshi A.
        • et al.
        Opinion: gender diversity leads to better science.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017; 114: 1740-1742
        • Díaz-García C.
        • González-Moreno A.
        • Sáez-Martínez F.J.
        Gender diversity within R&D teams: its impact on radicalness of innovation.
        Innovation. 2013; 15: 149-160
        • Dai Y.
        • Byun G.
        • Ding F.
        The direct and indirect impact of gender diversity in new venture teams on innovation performance.
        Entrep Theory Pract. 2019; 43: 505-528
        • Reza N.
        • Tahhan A.S.
        • Mahmud N.
        • DeFilippis E.M.
        • Alrohaibani A.
        • Vaduganathan M.
        • et al.
        Representation of women authors in international heart failure guidelines and contemporary clinical trials.
        Circ Heart Fail. 2020; 13e006605
        • Smith E.S.
        • McKay A.K.A.
        • Ackerman K.E.
        • Harris R.
        • Elliott-Sale K.J.
        • Stellingwerff T.
        • et al.
        Methodology review: a protocol to audit the representation of female athletes in sports science and sports medicine research.
        Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2022; 32: 114-127
        • Wais K.
        Gender prediction methods based on first names with genderizeR.
        The R Journal. 2016; 8: 17-37
      1. Schlein SM, Pollock NW, Polukoff NE, Brown AB, Byrne A, Keyes LE. Gender equity in membership, leadership, and award recognition in the Wilderness Medical Society. Wilderness Environ Med. 2022 (in press).

        • Feyer T.
        Women, Please Speak Out. The New York Times. Feb 16, 2020.
        (Available at:)
        • Amrein K.
        • Langmann A.
        • Fahrleitner-Pammer A.
        • Pieber T.R.
        • Zollner-Schwetz I.
        Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals.
        Gend Med. 2011; 8: 378-387
        • Hutchinson D.
        • Das P.
        • Lall M.D.
        • Hill J.
        • Fares S.
        • Khosa F.
        Emergency medicine journal editorial boards: analysis of gender, h-index, publications, academic rank, and leadership roles.
        West J Emerg Med. 2021; 22: 353-359
        • Gottlieb M.
        • Krzyzaniak S.M.
        • Mannix A.
        • Parsons M.
        • Mody S.
        • Kalantari A.
        • et al.
        Sex distribution of editorial board members among emergency medicine journals.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2021; 77: 117-123
        • Keller T.
        • Wilson M.
        • Chung K.
        • Andrilla C.H.A.
        • Evans D.V.
        • Cawse-Lucas J.
        Gender differences in authorship of family medicine publications 2022-2017.
        Fam Med. 2021; 53: 416-422
        • Tai R.H.
        • Qi Liu C.
        • Maltese A.V.
        • Fan X.
        Career choice. Planning early for careers in science.
        Science. 2006; 312: 1143-1144
        • Kang J.
        • Hense J.
        • Scheersoi A.
        • Keinonen T.
        Gender study on the relationships between science interest and future career perspectives.
        Int J Sci Educ. 2019; 41: 80-101
        • Farkas A.H.
        • Bonifacino E.
        • Turner R.
        • Tilstra S.A.
        • Corbelli J.A.
        Mentorship of women in academic medicine: a systematic review.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2019; 34: 1322-1329
        • Shannon G.
        • Jansen M.
        • Williams K.
        • Cáceres C.
        • Motta A.
        • Odhiambo A.
        • et al.
        Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: where are we at and why does it matter?.
        Lancet. 2019; 393: 560-569
        • Budden A.E.
        • Tregenza T.
        • Aarssen L.W.
        • Koricheva J.
        • Leimu R.
        • Lortie C.J.
        Double-blind review favors increased representation of female authors.
        Trends Ecol Evol. 2008; 23: 4-6
        • Mahajan U.V.
        • Wadhwa H.
        • Fatemi P.
        • Xu S.
        • Shan J.
        • Benzil D.L.
        • et al.
        Does double-blind peer review impact gender authorship trends? An evaluation of two leading neurosurgical journals from 2010 to 2019.
        J Neurosurg. 2020; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Bernard C.
        Editorial: gender bias in publishing: double-blind reviewing as a solution?.
        eNeuro. 2018; 5 (e0225–18.2018)