Bias in Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Workplaces.

Obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) face similar types of biases in the workplace as any people in society. In this first of three articles exploring this issue, we present the stories from ob-gyns who describe their experiences dealing with these biases. These stories serve to personalize the issue and to encourage us to personally face bias in the workplace to build our own resilience and strength, to support those who are personally attacked or diminished, and to develop workplace cultures that are inclusive, diverse, and strong.

Use of the STROBE Checklist to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of Observational Research in Obstetrics.

Objective: To evaluate observational research manuscripts submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology to determine the level of adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and highlight specific areas that could be improved.

Methods: A scoring system based on the STROBE checklist was developed and validated for consistency by volunteer medical students or doctors. Using this scoring system, we performed a cross-sectional analysis on 198 observational research manuscripts submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology from 2008 to 2016.

Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

Objective: To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories.

Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender.

Background: Reports indicate that there are gender-based differences in aspects of the peer-review process.

Methods: This is an analysis of editorial board members' reviews of original research submissions based on gender using the web-based management program, Editorial Manager, from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2008. We evaluated recommendations of editorial board members for acceptance/rejection using a four-tier system, agreement with editor's final decision, turnaround time from review request to submission, and editors' grades of reviews on a 5-point scale.