ABSTRACT
Purpose Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. Therefore, to better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution.
Method In 2020, the authors conducted a case study of authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals using a publicly accessible dataset.
Results The authors of the present study identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD=2.51, Median=4, Range=1-22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M=1.80 in 1999; M=5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n=2047; 50.5%) than males (n=2005; 49.5%) across all author positions (Pearson X2=22.02, p<.001). Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries (LMIC). Authors from the United States (n=366; 38%), Canada (n=233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n=180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from the University of Toronto (n=55, 6%) and the Mayo Clinic (n=31, 3%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n=753; 78%) included authors at top 200 ranked institutions.
Conclusions Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses in medical education.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was received for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This preprint is a bibliometric analysis of published studies and does not include humans.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This study utilized the following publicly available data set: Maggio LA, Costello J, Norton C, Driessen EW, Artino AR. Knowledge synthesis in medical education: A bibliometric analysis [data set]. 2020. Zenodo: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3990481.
