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.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: As awareness of climate change increases, the relevance of environmental education in dietary choices gains prominence. Although diversely defined, food literacy (FL) is increasingly recognized as the ability to make food choices with an awareness of environmental sustainability. This study aims to conduct a pilot implementation and assess the effectiveness of a program developed to improve FL among university students. SUBJECTS/METHODS: The study spanned from August 2022 to February 2023, involving 92 participants (42 in the intervention group and 50 in the control group). Over 11 weeks, the program included cooking classes, local farm visits, and environmental impact lectures developed through extensive literature reviews and interviews with students and experts. FL was measured using a 33-item survey along with basic sociodemographic factors. After the intervention, both groups participated in qualitative interviews. All statistical analyses were carried out in Stata/SE version 17.0, and interview data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel using the framework analysis method. RESULTS: The FL scores of the intervention group improved significantly from an average of 65.8 to 69.6 points (P = 0.015), with notable gains in the socio-ecological domain in FL from 65.3 to 71.5 points (P < 0.001). A linear regression analysis comparing FL between the intervention and control groups found that only the knowledge items were marginally significant (P = 0.054), with no statistically significant difference in the practice aspect before and after the intervention (P = 0.657). The interviews revealed that the intervention group experienced broadened perspectives and heightened environmental consciousness, although translating these into practice was challenged by unchanged daily routines. CONCLUSION This pilot program effectively enhanced some aspects of FL-related knowledge of participants. High satisfaction among participants and no dropouts indicated its potential for scaling. Future programs will benefit from strategies that facilitate the transition from educational improvement to practical application.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: As awareness of climate change increases, the relevance of environmental education in dietary choices gains prominence. Although diversely defined, food literacy (FL) is increasingly recognized as the ability to make food choices with an awareness of environmental sustainability. This study aims to conduct a pilot implementation and assess the effectiveness of a program developed to improve FL among university students. SUBJECTS/METHODS: The study spanned from August 2022 to February 2023, involving 92 participants (42 in the intervention group and 50 in the control group). Over 11 weeks, the program included cooking classes, local farm visits, and environmental impact lectures developed through extensive literature reviews and interviews with students and experts. FL was measured using a 33-item survey along with basic sociodemographic factors. After the intervention, both groups participated in qualitative interviews. All statistical analyses were carried out in Stata/SE version 17.0, and interview data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel using the framework analysis method. RESULTS: The FL scores of the intervention group improved significantly from an average of 65.8 to 69.6 points (P = 0.015), with notable gains in the socio-ecological domain in FL from 65.3 to 71.5 points (P < 0.001). A linear regression analysis comparing FL between the intervention and control groups found that only the knowledge items were marginally significant (P = 0.054), with no statistically significant difference in the practice aspect before and after the intervention (P = 0.657). The interviews revealed that the intervention group experienced broadened perspectives and heightened environmental consciousness, although translating these into practice was challenged by unchanged daily routines. CONCLUSION This pilot program effectively enhanced some aspects of FL-related knowledge of participants. High satisfaction among participants and no dropouts indicated its potential for scaling. Future programs will benefit from strategies that facilitate the transition from educational improvement to practical application.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: As awareness of climate change increases, the relevance of environmental education in dietary choices gains prominence. Although diversely defined, food literacy (FL) is increasingly recognized as the ability to make food choices with an awareness of environmental sustainability. This study aims to conduct a pilot implementation and assess the effectiveness of a program developed to improve FL among university students. SUBJECTS/METHODS: The study spanned from August 2022 to February 2023, involving 92 participants (42 in the intervention group and 50 in the control group). Over 11 weeks, the program included cooking classes, local farm visits, and environmental impact lectures developed through extensive literature reviews and interviews with students and experts. FL was measured using a 33-item survey along with basic sociodemographic factors. After the intervention, both groups participated in qualitative interviews. All statistical analyses were carried out in Stata/SE version 17.0, and interview data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel using the framework analysis method. RESULTS: The FL scores of the intervention group improved significantly from an average of 65.8 to 69.6 points (P = 0.015), with notable gains in the socio-ecological domain in FL from 65.3 to 71.5 points (P < 0.001). A linear regression analysis comparing FL between the intervention and control groups found that only the knowledge items were marginally significant (P = 0.054), with no statistically significant difference in the practice aspect before and after the intervention (P = 0.657). The interviews revealed that the intervention group experienced broadened perspectives and heightened environmental consciousness, although translating these into practice was challenged by unchanged daily routines. CONCLUSION This pilot program effectively enhanced some aspects of FL-related knowledge of participants. High satisfaction among participants and no dropouts indicated its potential for scaling. Future programs will benefit from strategies that facilitate the transition from educational improvement to practical application.