According to a new study from scholars at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, there is an underrepresentation of women authors in articles published in Veterinary Surgery – the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS), the European College of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS), and the Veterinary Endoscopy Society.
Using a sample of 2,881 papers published in Veterinary Surgery between 2002 and 2003, the study authors determined 36 percent of all authors were women, with women representing 43 percent of first authors, 37 percent of second authors, and 28 percent of last authors. During this time period, the proportion of women authors fluctuated significantly, ranging from a minimum of 29 percent in 2010 to a maximum of 60 percent in 2022. The representation of women last authors also ranged from a minimum of 10 percent in 2002 to a maximum of 36 percent in 2023.
Women represent just 34 percent of all ECVS members, while the ACVS is relatively gender-balanced, with women representing 48 percent of all members. However, gender representation among these associations varies widely by age. Representation in both associations is gender-balanced for members under the age of 45, while older members are significantly more likely to be men.
In a closer examination of gender representation in veterinary surgery publications, the authors developed a model to determine the interaction between year of publication, author order, and surgical emphasis. From 2002 onward, each year slightly increased the odds of a first author being a woman, but decreased the odds of a woman being a second or last author. Among surgical disciplines, women were particularly underrepresented in publications regarding small animal orthopedics. Interestingly, no gender disparities were found in large animal surgery publications. While the authors caution this could be due to the smaller volume of papers in this discipline, their finding could reflect genuine gender equity in large animal surgery.
“Promoting equity demands systemic reforms to how academic contributions are evaluated, how training is delivered, how editorial and peer-review processes are conducted, and how workplace cultures support or constrain inclusive participation,” the authors conclude.
They add that, “by addressing not just individual behaviors but also the systems that shape opportunity, we can work towards a more inclusive and representative veterinary research community.”