Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.