↓ Skip to main content

Is There Still a Glass Ceiling for Women in Academic Surgery?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgery, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
159 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
354 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Is There Still a Glass Ceiling for Women in Academic Surgery?
Published in
Annals of Surgery, April 2011
DOI 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182111120
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite the dramatically increased entry of women into general surgery and surgical subspecialties, traditionally male-dominated fields, there remains a gross under-representation of women in the leadership positions of these departments. Women begin their careers with fewer academic resources and tend to progress through the ranks slower than men. Female surgeons also receive significantly lower salaries than their male counterparts and are more vulnerable to discrimination, both obvious and covert. Although some argue that female surgeons tend to choose their families over careers, studies have actually shown that women are as eager as men to assume leadership positions, are equally qualified for these positions as men, and are as good as men at leadership tasks.Three major constraints contribute to the glass-ceiling phenomenon: traditional gender roles, manifestations of sexism in the medical environment, and lack of effective mentors. Gender roles contribute to unconscious assumptions that have little to do with actual knowledge and abilities of an individuals and they negatively influence decision-making when it comes to promotions. Sexism has many forms, from subtle to explicit forms, and some studies show that far more women report being discriminately against than do men. There is a lack of same-sex mentors and role models for women in academic surgery, thereby isolating female academicians further. This review summarizes the manifestation of the glass-ceiling phenomenon, identifies some causes of these inequalities, and proposes different strategies for continuing the advancement of women in academic surgery and to shatter the glass ceiling.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 159 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 354 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 352 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 10%
Student > Bachelor 35 10%
Student > Master 33 9%
Other 24 7%
Other 79 22%
Unknown 109 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 40%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 4%
Psychology 12 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Other 32 9%
Unknown 127 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#465,029
of 33,186,435 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#161
of 11,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,381
of 154,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#2
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,186,435 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 154,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.