To examine the effects of author gender and race on citation metrics, including Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), in urology publications.

We analyzed 91,100 urology publications published between 2009 and 2023, retrieved from the Altmetric database via Drexel University. Author gender was identified using GenderGuesser, and race was estimated using a published name-based algorithm. Publications were grouped by the gender of the first and last authors (eg, MF: male first, female last). We compared AAS and calculated the Mean Citation Difference to measure citation disparities against gender- and race-neutral models.

Publications with male first and last authors (MM) comprised 44%, while female-female (FF) authorship accounted for only 6% of all publications. FF-authored studies were the most under-cited (Mean Citation Difference: −1.9), whereas FM-authored studies were the most over-cited (+2.53). Although female-authored papers had higher AAS scores, they remained under-cited across most urologic subspecialties. Racial disparities in citation metrics were less pronounced than those related to gender, and AAS differences between racial groups were not statistically significant.

Publications authored by female first and last authors continue to be under-cited despite receiving higher AAS scores, and funding. In contrast, racial citation disparities appear to be minimal. These findings highlight the need to address gender-based inequities in academic recognition, as doing so may foster a more inclusive academic environment and ultimately improve access to equitable patient care.

This study examined how often urology research papers are cited based on the gender and race of the authors. We found that studies led by women are cited less frequently than those led by men, despite receiving more online attention and funding. These findings underscore the need for fairer recognition of all researchers, as greater equity in academic publishing may help promote more inclusive and accessible patient care.