Sex differences in altmetric attention scores and traditional impact metrics of top-cited general surgery literature: Cracks in the ceiling?

BACKGROUND

Sex disparities have previously been identified in surgical academia. This study examines sex differences in the top-cited contemporary general surgery articles and compares Altimetric Attention Score (AAS) and other impact metrics between male and female corresponding authors (CAs).

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles published between 2019 and 2021 in each of the top 10 general surgery journals based on the 2021 Journal Impact Factor. Impact metrics included AAS, citation count, and H-index of the CA. We used multivariable regression analyses to investigate whether the sex of the CA or first author (FA) was independently associated with AAS and citation count.

RESULTS

Among 1000 articles, 23.1% had female CAs and 27.4% female FAs. Female CA articles had higher AAS (13.0 [2.0-63.0] vs. 8.0 [1.0-28.5]; p < 0.001) and lower H-indices (24.0 [11.0-45.0] vs. 31.0 [17.0-50.0]; p = 0.015). Although median citation count did not differ by CA sex, articles with Level 1 evidence and a female CA were cited more often (35.5 [24.0-85.0] vs. 25.0 [16.0 vs. 46.0]; p < 0.05). In multivariable regression, female CA articles had higher AAS (OR: 1.002 [95% CI: 1.001-1.004]) and lower H-index (OR: 0.987 [95% CI: 0.977-0.997]).

CONCLUSION

Despite having similar citation counts, articles authored by female CAs exhibit higher AAS scores compared to those authored by their male counterparts. While it is heartening that research authored by female surgeons achieves significant visibility, it remains to be understood how this translates into academic impact and scholarly recognition.