Gender Disparity in Movement Disorders Research Authorship: Progress and Persistent Gaps Across a Decade

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing numbers of women practising neurosciences, gender disparities persist in academic authorship. Focused evaluation of authorship patterns within movement disorders remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in women authorship across movement disorders publications in high-impact neurology journals and movement disorders-specific journals across a decade. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of movement disorder-related articles published in 2014 and 2024 in 20 neurology journals with the highest impact factor and two flagship movement disorders journals related to the International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society. Women authorship proportions were calculated overall and by article type. First-to-senior authorship representation ratios were examined, and associations with journal impact factors were explored. RESULTS: A total of 919 articles (9431 authors) were analyzed in 2024 and 755 articles (5801 authors) in 2014. Overall women authorship was 41.1% in 2024 compared with 38% in 2014 and senior (last) women authorship was 37% (2024) and 36% (2014). In 2024, women accounted for 43% of first and 31% of senior authors in Movement Disorders, compared with 41% and 27%, respectively, in 2014. A representation gap from first-to-senior authorship persisted across most journals. No clear association was observed between journal impact factor and women authorship. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past decade, women's representation in movement disorders publishing improved at first authorship levels but remained stagnant at low levels in senior authorship roles. Persistent lacuna between first and senior women authorship is an underexplored gap that may reflect a combination of structural barriers, cohort effects, and life-course factors. © 2026 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.