↓ Skip to main content

The publication gender gap in US academic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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.
Title
The publication gender gap in US academic surgery
Published in
BMC Surgery, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12893-017-0211-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Mueller, Robert Wright, Sabine Girod

Abstract

Terms such as "glass ceiling" and "sticky floor" are still commonly used to describe women's role in academic surgery. Despite continued efforts to address disparities between men and women in the field, gender inequalities persist. In this investigation we highlight gender differences in published surgical literature by both quantity and impact. Websites for departments of surgery of three academic centers were reviewed to assess the bibliometrics of publications by gender over a two-week period. A one-way ANOVA showed a significantly higher H-index for men than women (p > .05). Further, one-way ANOVA showed significantly more articles published by men than women (p = .019). These differences are most dramatic at the rank of associate professor where the H-index for men is three times that of the women. The rank of full professor showed men had double the number of articles published. These findings align with the previous research that shows a disparity between males and females as they climb the academic ladder. Conducting and publishing research is a vital part of advancement in academic medicine. This study suggests that publication productivity may be a factor that hinders women from advancing within surgery compared to men. Continuing to explore and identify reasons for this gender difference in academic surgery may highlight ways to address the imbalance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 5 6%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 27 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 32 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,638,545
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#263
of 1,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,106
of 432,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 432,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.