Prevalence of Female Authorship in Pharmacy Publishing

Conflicts of interest: This study was not funded. The authors have no financial relationships relevant to the contents of this study to disclose.

Abstract

Objective

Data from previous studies have shown that female representation as first authors in pharmacy journals has increased, but a comprehensive analysis of their representation as senior authors is limited. We evaluated the prevalence of first and senior authorship by women in high-impact pharmacy journals.

Study Design

A descriptive observational study of female authorship in the 10 highest-impact pharmacy journals.

Methods

Using the 2022 SCImago Journal Rank, we identified the top 10 highest-impact pharmacy journals for first and senior authorship by women. Non–English-language articles, meeting abstracts, and corrections to existing articles were excluded. The primary outcome was the prevalence of first and senior (last) female authorship. Secondary outcomes included female first and last authorship collaboration, article type or category, practice setting, author credentials, and funding. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Of the 1681 articles meeting inclusion criteria, 1251 (74.4%) had a female first and/or senior author, with more articles including a woman as first author than as senior author (58.5% vs 46.3%, respectively). Less than one-third (30.5%) of articles included women in both the first and senior author positions (ie, female-to-female collaboration). Among female-authored articles, the largest share originated from academic teaching settings (24.3%), and the most common article type was original research (50.6%). The most common degree held by female authors was a PharmD, followed by a PhD, and 32.8% of female-authored articles involved funding.

Conclusions

Although the overall prevalence of female authorship in the 10 highest-impact pharmacy journals exceeds the representation of women in the pharmacy, medical, and pharmaceutical science workforces, a disparity persists between first and senior female authorship, highlighting concerns about career advancement and research progression. Our findings indicate limited collaboration between female first and senior authors, suggesting missed mentorship opportunities and a critical area for improvement.

Introduction

The profession of pharmacy has a pivotal role in the ever-changing landscape of health care. As health care itself evolves and adapts, the pharmacy profession continues to transform by leveraging new technologies and clinical advancements to better serve patients. Pharmacy has a long history of adapting to health care needs, transitioning from the apothecary to a modern, clinical, patient-centered practice.¹ The composition of the workforce has also evolved. Despite female apothecaries being recorded in the US since Colonial times, pharmacy and its related pharmaceutical science disciplines have been male dominated for most of history.² The late 19th century, however, marked a pivotal shift as professionalization processes increased women’s access to the pharmacy profession, with female enrollment in US university pharmacy programs steadily increasing throughout the 20th century.² As of 2022, women accounted for 59.6% of pharmacists, 59.9% of biological scientists, and 46.5% of medical scientists nationwide.³

The rise in female representation in the pharmaceutical workforce has brought to the forefront discussions about career advancement, scholarship, and mentorship. Health care is guided and shaped by evidence-based medicine derived from insightful research conducted and published by leading clinicians and scientists. The order of authorship provides insight into the contributions provided by each author. The first author typically contributes most of the project work, and the senior, or last, author oversees the research content and is often a highly accomplished professional.⁴ The senior author may also serve as a mentor to guide the first author throughout the research process.

Gender equity studies on female authorship in scholarly papers indicate that women are disproportionately middle authors, suggesting a less dominant role in research.⁵ In pharmacy literature specifically, publishing statistics have primarily focused on tracking the prevalence of female first authorship. For instance, Hoover et al showed that female first authorship was 52.7% in pharmacy literature from 2007 through 2017.⁶ Other studies, however, suggest continued gender differences in authorship. Weaver et al found significant gender disparities among pharmacists designated as fellows of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (FCCM), with male FCCM pharmacists publishing articles earlier in their careers and having a higher number of publications than their female counterparts.⁷ Given the lack of data on the trajectory of women in senior research and author roles and on collaboration trends between female first and senior authors, this study aimed to quantify the prevalence of female first and senior authorship in the 10 highest-impact pharmacy journals in 2022.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational study of publications in the 10 pharmacy journals with the highest impact factors, based on the 2022 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). SJR is an online, publicly available portal that ranks scientific journals using data sourced from the Scopus database.⁸ Journals are grouped into 27 major thematic areas and 313 specific subject categories.⁸ To identify qualifying journals for 2022, we used the following search criteria: health professions, pharmacy, all regions/countries, journals and 2022. The portal automatically lists journals by impact factor. We selected the 10 journals with the highest impact factor based on our search parameters (Table 1). We then used the website for each identified journal to obtain the table of contents for each issue published in 2022. Articles published in a language other than English, meeting abstracts, and corrections to existing articles were excluded.

Demographic data collected for the first and senior author included author sex, geographic region of practice site by country, type of practice setting where the research was conducted, article category, author credentials, and research funding. Author sex and credentials were confirmed via the authors’ institutional website biographies, LinkedIn, and the authors’ ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) profiles. We manually reviewed the journals to determine article type based on its journal classification and to identify the practice setting applicable to the article’s contents and funding. Articles applicable to or research conducted in multiple practice settings were categorized as “nonspecific.” Data were organized in Microsoft Excel version 16.95 (Microsoft Corporation) and analyzed using R version 4.3.0 (R Project for Statistical Computing) and RStudio version 2023.03.1+446 (Posit Software, PBC). Data are presented as counts with corresponding percentages.

The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of first and senior (last) female authorship. Secondary outcomes assessed among articles with a first and/or senior female author included collaboration between female first and last authors, article type or category, practice setting, funding, and author credentials.

Results

Of the 1801 articles published in the included journals in 2022,⁸ 1681 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Among these articles, 1251 (74.4%) had a woman in the first and/or senior author position, with a total of 1763 female authors. The proportion of articles with female authorship ranged from 44.8% to 86.5% across the journals (Table 1). Approximately 58.5% (n = 984) of the articles had a female first author, 46.3% (n = 779) had a senior female author, and 30.5% (n = 512) had both first and senior female authors. A total of 739 (44.0%) articles had either a first or senior female author, but not both. Specifically, 472 (28.1%) articles had a female first author only—including 74 (4.4%) single-author articles—and 267 (15.9%) articles had a female senior author only. Of the 1251 female-authored articles, 410 (32.8%) were funded.

Regarding qualifications, the female authors listed a total of 2373 professional degrees, with 71.1% listing a single degree and 28.9% listing multiple degrees. The most common degree was a PharmD, followed by a PhD. Women with a PharmD and/or another professional pharmacy degree wrote nearly 50% of the total 1681 eligible articles and more than 60% of the 1251 female-authored articles (Table 2). Women with a PhD authored 28.6% of the total eligible articles and 38.5% of the total female-authored articles. Combined, almost two-thirds of eligible articles and nearly 90% of female-authored articles were written by a woman with a PharmD, other professional pharmacy degree, and/or a PhD. See Table 2 for the remaining degrees held by female authors.

Female-authored articles were primarily original research (68.0%). Within this category, 389 articles had both a first and senior female author. The next most common category was “other”—comprising case reports, briefs, commentaries, short reports, and study protocols—at approximately 15.2% of female-authored articles, followed by review articles at 8.2%. Within the review category, more than one-third (36.9%) of articles had both a first and senior female author. All remaining article types accounted for less than 10% of the total (Figure).

Female-authored articles were produced across 7 specific practice settings (Table 3). Excluding the 34.6% of articles that did not specify a setting, the highest concentration of female-authored articles originated within academic teaching settings (24.3%). Laboratory or nonclinical settings accounted for 4.6% of female-authored papers.

Discussion

This is the first study to our knowledge to evaluate first and senior female publishing in pharmacy literature across all practice settings. Unlike previous studies, this study evaluated both first and senior female authors and did not limit authorship to pharmacists only. Limiting the scope to pharmacist-authored articles would have underrepresented the number of female authors in this body of literature because many authors had multiple degrees (with an average of 1.3 per author) but not all reported a pharmacy-related degree or PhD. In fact, more than one-fourth of eligible articles and more than one-third of female-written articles were authored by women without a PharmD or other professional pharmacy degree.

Nearly three-fourths of all eligible articles had a woman as a first and/or senior author. This exceeds the proportion of women in the pharmacy, medical, and pharmaceutical science workforces.³ However, this observation alone does not provide insight into the specific contributions of female authors, nor does it account for the fact that not all were pharmacists, social pharmacy professionals, or pharmaceutical scientists. Nevertheless, our data are supported by Hoover et al’s findings: The prevalence of female first authorship is consistent with women in the pharmacy, research, and adjacent workforces.⁶ Although female senior authorship was only slightly lower than the female workforce in applicable disciplines, it trailed female first authorship by 12.2%. This disparity raises concerns about career advancement and research progression for female pharmacists, scientists, and other scholarly contributors. Although female senior authors were more prevalent than female first authors among those with a PhD or an MD, the reverse was true for all other degree categories.

A 2024 study by Kwiek and Szymula found that women in scientific disciplines, specifically biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, were 23.3% more likely than men to “leave science”(defined in the study as “stopping publication activity”) after 10 years.⁹ Although the specific drivers of this are unclear, the data underscore a persistent sex-based gap in scientific career longevity.⁹ Because career progression—through mentorship and gained experience—is crucial to developing the expertise needed to be a senior author, the lower prevalence of female senior authorship in this study may reflect the fact that women are less likely to continue publishing in pharmacy literature over time.

Our findings suggest limited female-to-female collaboration and mentorship between first and senior female authors, with only 30.5% of articles featuring both a first and a senior female author. Excluding those papers with only 1 author (ie, no senior author or other author; n = 74), 1177 articles involved authorship collaboration that included at least 1 woman (in the first or senior author position), but the majority of these articles (56.5%) involved male-female collaboration. It is unknown whether, or to what extent, the lower overall prevalence of female senior authors contributes to the low rate of female author collaborations; however, based on our findings, the prevalence of female author collaboration (ie, women as both first and senior authors) is inconsistent with the prevalence of female senior authorship overall. Notably, we saw a higher proportion of articles with a female first and male senior author than a male first and female senior author, suggesting that even when female senior authors are available to collaborate, they are less frequently paired with male junior researchers than male senior authors are paired with female junior researchers.

Research on female-only mentoring is limited. A 2021 commentary by Biehle et al highlighted how discussing shared experiences in a women-only mentoring circle supported female pharmacy faculty members in navigating challenges and fostered relationships that were rewarding both personally and professionally.¹⁰ Further research is needed to understand how these shared challenges, such as gender stereotypes and pressure to choose between career and family,¹⁰ impact female publication rates and to identify the best ways to support female authors.

Although empirical data on female-only mentoring are scarce, the benefits of these programs—particularly in traditionally male-dominated fields—are well recognized. Million Women Mentors, launched in 2014, connected 1 million STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) mentors¹¹ with female mentees within 4 years, underscoring the demand for mentorship that advances women’s careers and, in turn, their respective fields.¹²

High female enrollment in pharmacy schools highlights the critical need and continued importance of accessible, targeted mentoring. For the 2022-2023 academic year, pharmacy schools awarded 66.4% of first professional degrees and 52.7% of PhDs to women.¹³ Despite these statistics and a rising number of women in faculty positions, Sagraves et al found that only 37.3% of department heads in 2021 were women.¹⁴ This persistent gap is recognized in academia, as evidenced by published literature emphasizing that men in pharmacy education have a responsibility not only to mentor female colleagues but also to support their safety and success.¹⁵ Because women continue to make up the majority of pharmacy graduates,¹³ future trend studies may eventually show greater gender equity in senior faculty roles.

Conclusion

Although the overall prevalence of female first and/or senior authorship appears to exceed female representation in the pharmacy, medical, and pharmaceutical science workforces,³ a notable 12.2% decline was observed in female senior authors vs first authors, and only 30.5% of articles had women in both roles—underscoring concerns about career advancement and research progression. These data corroborate findings that women are less likely to continue publishing in pharmacy literature over time,⁹ highlighting a critical need for targeted mentorship and collaborative opportunities. Further research should examine the drivers of these disparities to inform strategies for achieving greater gender parity in authorship.

REFERENCES 

1. Pearson GJ. Evolution in the practice of pharmacy—not a revolution! CMAJ. 2007;176(9):1295-1296. doi:10.1503/cmaj.070041

2. Gallagher TC. From family helpmeet to independent professional: women in American pharmacy, 1870-1940. Pharm Hist. 1989;31(2):60-77.

3. Labor force statistics from the current population survey: household data annual averages: 11. employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Updated January 25, 2023. Accessed February 10, 2025. https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2022/cpsaat11.htm

4. Bhattacharya S. Authorship issue explained. Indian J Plast Surg. 2010;43(2):233-234. doi:10.4103/0970-0358.73482

5. Ni C, Smith E, Yuan H, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. The gendered nature of authorship. Sci Adv. 2021;7(36):eabe4639. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe4639

6. Hoover RM, Aré A, Ludvigson K, Nguyen E. Trends in women’s authorship in pharmacy literature. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2019;59(3):356-360. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2019.02.001

7. Weaver P, Sherman K, Smith KE, et al. Publication rate and impact stratified by gender among pharmacists designated fellow in the American College of Critical Care Medicine. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2023;63(1):178-181. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2022.08.018

8. Rankings: health professions, pharmacy, journals, 2022. SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Accessed February 12, 2025. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3611&area=3600&type=j&year=2022

9. Kwiek M, Szymula L. Leaving science-attrition of biologists in 38 OECD countries. FEBS Lett. 2025;599(6):799-812. doi:10.1002/1873-3468.70028

10. Biehle L, Crowl A, Park HC, Vos S, Franks AM. The power of peer mentoring to support women pharmacy faculty personally and professionally. Am J Pharm Educ. 2021;85(2):8471. doi:10.5688/ajpe8471

11. Beard K. Million Women Mentors launched to fill the gap of women in STEM fields. US News & World Report. January 9. 2014. Accessed March 13, 2025. https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2014/01/09/million-women-mentors-launched-to-fill-the-gap-of-women-in-stem-fields

12. STEMconnector. What it actually takes to mentor over a million women and girls in STEM. Million Women Mentors. October 3, 2018. Accessed March 13, 2025. https://mwm.stemconnector.com/what-it-actually-takes-to-mentor-over-a-million-women-and-girls-in-stem/

13. Academic pharmacy’s vital statistics. American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. Accessed March 15, 2025. https://www.aacp.org/article/academic-pharmacys-vital-statistics

14. Sagraves R, Chase P, Speedie MK. Women CEO deans of US schools and colleges of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2022;86(5):8784. doi:10.5688/ajpe8784

15. Hill LG, Laguado SA. Guidance for male mentors to support the safety and success of female mentees. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(10):7533. doi:10.5688/ajpe7533