Abstract
Binary gender (male or female) representation is generally considered to be balanced if each gender constitutes 40–60% of a given population [[1]]. Various authors have claimed that women are under-represented on medical journal editorial boards [[2]], including in leading anaesthetics [[3]], rheumatology [[1]], and radiology journals [[4]]. However, no study of gender representation has taken place with regards to editor-in-chief (or equivalent) positions of all leading physiotherapy and physical therapy journals.
Balanced gender representation amongst healthcare journal editors-in-chief is important for one reason alone: since there is no intrinsic difference between the two genders’ ability to excel in this role, an imbalanced gender representation would constitute an environment in which the most competent individuals are less likely to have become editors-in-chief, which would consequently harm the journals’ original and primary objective to advance healthcare knowledge.
The gender of the editor-in-chief of each physiotherapy and physical therapy journal in the Web of Science Journal Citation Report (SCIE), identified using the search terms ‘physiotherapy’ and ‘physical therapy,’ was examined. Data were collected from journal websites in August 2022. Gender was estimated using the name-to-gender inference platform Gender API, and cross-checked against pronouns and photos on institutional webpages.
16 editors-in-chief were identified across four physiotherapy journals and eight physical therapy journals (see Appendix). In total, 9 (56.25%) were male, and 7 (43.75%) were female, suggesting that editor-in-chief gender representation within physiotherapy and physical therapy journals is balanced.
However, this result does not control for gender participation differences within academic physiotherapy and physical therapy. If editors-in-chief were selected purely on merit, editor-in-chief gender representation would resemble that of the academic profession. In the UK, female physiotherapists are over-represented (76.35% female and 23.64% male in 2018) [[5]], although this imbalance may soon become less pronounced, as intakes into UK physiotherapy programmes in 2019/20 were 59% female and 41% male [[6]]. Female physiotherapists are also over-represented in the United States (65% female and 35% male in 2020) [[7]]. However, no data are publicly available regarding gender participation differences within global academic physiotherapy and physical therapy, which are required for this study’s result to be appropriately interpreted.
This analysis was also limited by its cross-sectional nature. It is unrealistic to expect a 40–60% gender-balance at all times. Instead, further research is required to establish the trend of editor-in-chief gender representation (editorial boards often renew on three-yearly cycles, so a 15-year analysis would capture the gender of five editors-in-chief) to facilitate a more contextualised interpretation.