Women in academic surgery over the last four decades.

OBJECTIVE: As the number of female medical students and surgical residents increases, the increasing number of female academic surgeons has been disproportionate. The purpose of this brief report is to evaluate the AAMC data from 1969 to 2018 to compare the level of female academic faculty representation for surgical specialties over the past four decades.
DESIGN: The number of women as a percentage of the total surgeons per year were recorded for each year from 1969-2018, the most recent year available. Descriptive statistics were performed. Poisson regression examined the percentage of women in each field as the outcome of interest with the year and specialty (using general surgery as a reference) as two predictor variables.
SETTING: Data from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). PARTICIPANTS: All full-time academic faculty physicians in the specialties of obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), general surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology (ENT), plastic surgery, plastic surgery, urology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery and cardiothoracic surgery as per AAMC records.
RESULTS: The percentage of women in surgery for all specialties evaluated increased from 1969 to 2018 (OR 1.04, p<0.001). Compared with general surgery, the rate of yearly percentage change increased more slowly in neurosurgery (OR 0.84; P = .004), orthopaedic surgery (OR 0.82; P = .002), urology (OR 0.59; P < .001), and cardiothoracic surgery (OR 0.38; P < .001). There was no significant difference in the rate of yearly percentage change for plastic surgery (OR 1.01; P = .840). The rate of yearly percentage change increased more rapidly in OB/GYN (OR 2.86; P < .001), ophthalmology (OR 1.79; P < .001) and ENT (OR 1.70; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Representation of women in academic surgery is increasing overall but is increasing more slowly in orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery and urology compared with that in general surgery. These data may be used to inform and further the discussion of how mentorship and sponsorship of female students and trainees interested in surgical careers may improve gender equity in the future.

Introduction

When the “New Yorker Cover Challenge” and the #ILookLikeASurgeon hashtag went viral on social media, much attention was directed to women in surgical fields. These movements succeeded in raising awareness of gender stereotyping and highlight the disparity in representation of women in surgery. According to 2017 data from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), more than one-third of the active physician work force in the US and more than half of incoming medical school students are female; however, women still make up less than one-quarter of the faculty of 10 surgical specialties including only 5.3% of orthopedic surgeons with the lowest representation [1]. As the number of female medical students and surgical residents increases, the increasing number of female academic surgeons in certain surgical specialties has been disproportionately low.

The purpose of this brief report is to evaluate the AAMC data from 1969 to 2018 to do the following: 1.) report current numbers and percentages of women in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) general surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology (ENT), plastic surgery, urology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery and cardiothoracic surgery; 2.) compare current level of female representation with data from the past four decades; 3.) identify rates of change for female representation in surgical subspecialties compared with general surgery as a reference.

Methods

Institutional review board exemption was granted as primary data were obtained via publically available sources. All full-time academic faculty physicians in the specialties of OB/GYN, general surgery, ophthalmology, ENT, plastic surgery, plastic surgery, urology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery and cardiothoracic surgery were obtained from the AAMC. The number of female surgeons as a percentage of the total number per year were recorded for each year between 1969 and 2018- the most recent year available. Descriptive statistics were performed. Poisson regression examined the percentage of women in each field as the outcome of interest with the standardized year and specialty (using general surgery as a reference) as two predictor variables. Statistical analyses were performed with the statistical computing software R (R version 3.6.2—“Dark and Stormy Night”, R Core Team 2018) [2].

Results

As reported by the AAMC, in 2018, the number (percentage) of women academic faculty surgeons were 4050 (63.3%) for OB/GYN, 251 (30.8%) for general surgery, 1220 (39.8%) for ophthalmology, 825 (34.9%) for otolaryngology, 119 (26.3%) for plastic surgery, 309 (21.0%) for urology, 425 (20.8%) for neurosurgery, 790 (19.2%) for orthopaedic surgery and 115 (16.1%) for cardiothoracic surgery. Fig 1 shows the change in the percentage of women in each surgical field from 1980 to 2018.

Fig 1

Percentage of women among practicing academic surgeons from 1980 to 2018.

The percentage of women in all included surgical fields increased over the time period of interest (OR 1.04, p<0.001).

With general surgery as a reference, the rate of yearly percentage change increased significantly faster for women in OB/GYN (OR 2.86; P<0.001), ophthalmology (OR 1.7; P < .001) and ENT (OR 1.7; P < .001). The rate of yearly percentage change was not significantly different for plastic surgery (OR 1.01; P = .840). However, the rate of yearly percentage change increased significantly slower for women in neurosurgery (OR 0.84; P = .004), orthopaedic surgery (OR 0.82; P = .002), urology (OR 0.59; P < .001) and cardiothoracic surgery (OR 0.38; P < .001).

Discussion

The percentage of women in medical school has increased greatly since 1970 when women made up less than 6 percent of medical student populations [3]. According to the AAMC, women have made up the majority of incoming medical students for the past two years with 50.7% in 2017 and 51.6% in 2018 of incoming medical students being female. Female representation in surgical specialties has increased over this time period as well but the percentage of female surgeons and surgery residents still hovers around 30% and women make up less than 20% of surgical leadership positions [4]. As a whole, the number of women in academic surgery is increasing, but certain surgical specialties have shown greater increases in the representation of women compared to others.

There are several common barriers to women choosing to pursue academic surgical careers that impact all surgical specialties. These include a lack of female mentors in surgery, perceived poor work-life balance, gender stereotyping, and harassment. Positive role models with similar interests and goals can be a crucial factor in medical students’ career choices. For example, female first authors are more likely then male first authors to publish with female senior authors [5]. Women make up less than 20% of full time surgical faculty and only 7.7% of surgery chairs so often female medical students may not easily have access to same-sex mentors [6]. Another deterrent to women choosing a surgical field may be the perceptions of a surgical lifestyle and its effects on life outside the hospital or delay their plans for a family. Female surgeons are more likely than their male counterparts to still be responsible for household tasks such as childcare planning, meal planning, and grocery shopping [7]. Female surgical residents also were more likely to not have children or to have deliberately delayed childbearing until after medical school or residency [7]. Additionally, female surgical trainees report gender bias or discrimination still affects their medical school experience or surgical training. Women in male-dominated specialties were significantly more likely to report that, due to gender discrimination, they would not recommend their field to a trainee or family member and reported being more likely to leave medicine or retire early [8].

The differences in the trajectories of women entering the various academic surgical specialties studied is interesting and merits further study. OB/GYN is the clear outlier in our study sample with a rate of increase nearly three times higher than that of general surgery. Women currently make up the majority of OB/GYNs, and there has been much discussion about this trend and its implications on the pay and reputation of the field. Labor economics research has shown a “tipping point”; when 30% of positions in a given field are occupied by women, it starts to be seen as “women’s work” and men start leaving the field at even faster rates [9]. Based on our dataset, the field of OB/GYN reached that “tipping point” of 30% female representation in 1991. The percentage of women within the field of OB/GYN is projected to continue its upward trajectory. A recent evaluation of residents showed women make up 82.5% of OB/GYN trainees [10]. It is possible that a combination of factors including decreased interest in OB/GYN from male medical students and an increased number of available mentors and role models for female medical students accelerated the proportion of female surgeons in this field. To a lesser extent, women are also entering the fields of ophthalmology and ENT at a rate faster than general surgery. Workforce and supply/demand factors may be at least partially driving the increasing representation of women in ophthalmology [11]. Additionally, women in ophthalmology may have increased numbers of visible role models and available mentors as studies have shown the percentage of women on journal editoral boards and professional society boards are at least in line with the percentage of women in the field as a whole [12]. There is similar gender parity present in the leadership positions of ENT societies relative to the percentage of practicing female ENT surgeons [13]. The development of robust and active mentorship programs for students and residents may be helping to relieve pipeline issues [14].

The rate of change for women in academic plastic surgery is also increasing relatively relative to many other speciaties studied. This may be, in part, driven by the fact that women make up the majority of patients receiving plastic surgery services and express an increasing preference for a female surgeon [15]. Finally, OB/GUN, ophthalmology, ENT and plastic surgery all have increased opportunities for a majority outpatient or elective surgical practice. There may also be increased opportunities for flexibility with evening and weekend work responsibilities which may be appealing to women interested in surgery who are also faced with caretaking or other domestic responsibilities. General surgery was our reference group for this study, mainly because its rate of change over the time period studied was in the middle of the overall cohort. This may be due to the heterogeneity within general surgery practices. Subspecialties within general surgery have their own cultures, call and inpatient coverage expectations as well as availability of female mentors and sponsors.

On the other end of the spectrum, the surgical specialties of neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, urology and cardiothoracic surgery saw the representation of women within their academic workforce grow more slowly over the time period studied. The four specialties also have low rates of women in leadership positions at the chair and national professional society levels [16]. Interestingly, tradition and departmental culture may also propagate gender stereotypes that women do not “belong” in these surgical specialties. A study of gendered language on departmental websites showed orthopaedics and neurosurgery departments were more likely to use gendered language (such as “chairman”) compared to more gender neutral language (such as “chair”) [17]. Similar to what is seen in other specialties, female surgeons take on more childcare and domestic responsibilities at home [18]. This may make surgical specialties with increased call responsibility, inpatient coverage, and unpredictable schedules less desirable to women entering surgery.

Several surgical specialties are proactively developing programs to aid in the recruitment and retention of female surgeons. Often cited action items include: identifying and eliminating discrimination in recruitment and hiring of residents and faculty surgeons, fostering and mentoring women in their career advancement, and promoting qualified women to visible leadership positions [19]. There are several other strategies that have been studied as well. Unconscious bias training has been shown to be an effective tool in combating gender bias and promoting gender equity, and should be considered as an addition to academic centers training curriculum [20]. Large numbers of academic centers lack formal programs for the recruitment, promotion, or retention of women in academic medicine. Policies and standards set by institutions such as the AAMC regarding development of such formal programs could promote a culture that enhances female recruitment and encourages a strong network of women faculty [21]. Increasing female surgical faculty and women in leadership positions would provide medical students with more access to positive female role models in these male dominated areas and could lead to more women choosing to go into surgical fields. It is important to acknowledge that the factors involved in specialty choice are multiple, complicated and personal for each medical student. Successfully implementing programs targeted at the potentially modifiable factors mentioned above is unlikely to result in 50% representation of women in all surgical specialties, but removing barriers that capable, interested and motivated women disproportionately face to achieving a successful surgical career would be, in and of itself, a lofty and worthwhile goal.

Strengths of this study include the large sample size of surgeons we were able to obtain by accessing AAMC data. However, our interpretation is limited by inherent limitations faculty classification within the AAMC database. Specifically, the number of general surgery faculty is likely artificially low in this database due to discrepancies departmental affiliation as reported to the AAMC.

In conclusion, representation of women in surgical specialties is increasing more slowly in neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, urology and cardiothoracic surgery than in other specialties. This detailed and focused analysis of time trends and patterns of women’s representation in surgical specialties highlights the ongoing need for evidence-based interventions to promote gender equity. These data provide a benchmark moving forward to allow departmental and institutional leadership to measure gender diversity within their own faculty against the national average. They may also be used to inform and further the discussion of how mentorship and sponsorship of female students and trainees interested in surgical careers may improve gender equity in the future.

Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges outlining the number of men and women practicing in the academic surgical specialties of obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, plastic surgery, urology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery and cardiothoracic surgery from 1969 to 2018.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

6 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-32410

Women in Academic Surgery Over the Last Four Decades Unequal Rate of Change Among Surgical Specialties

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Holliday,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address comments from the review.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Leonidas G Koniaris, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please list the name and version of any software package used for statistical analysis, alongside any relevant references. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the article “Women in academic surgery over the last four decades unequal rate of change among surgical specialties” the authors review the AAMC data on women faculty in various surgical specialties. As the proportion of female medical school matriculants approach (and slightly surpass) gender equity, the rate of change of women faculty in academic surgery is evaluated. The study design is simple and its execution is clean. This manuscript does provide a good benchmark from which to work toward gender equality.

Major

1. The authors did not include the discipline of gynecology. While this field is more female predominant than other surgical specialties, the proportion of female faculty (and trends there in) would regardless be interesting. Would the authors comment on their rationale for not including gynecology in this study.

2. As the authors suggest, role modeling and mentorship often play critical roles in recruitment. In order to accomplish this, there needs to be a critical mass of mentors/role models. Once there is a critical mass, the rate of change/growth can become synergistic and exponential. Perhaps the rate of change in ophthalmology and otolaryngology is greater is because at the start of the study period that “critical mass” (10%?) was already achieved. Cardiothoracic surgery, neurosurgery, and urologic surgery had close to 0% female faculty in 1980 and only reach 10% around year 2000-2010. Perhaps at this point, the rate of change will start to catch up with the other surgical specialties (and that of opthalmology & OHNS will start to level out). Do the authors note an “inflection point” or value at which this “critical mass” is reached?

3. While it is nice to have a goal of gender equality, perhaps gender equity is the better objective. Despite female medical school matriculants representing 50% of medical school classes, perhaps female medical students do not care as much to be in cardiothoracic surgery, urology or neurosurgery and no amount of mentorship/role modeling/etc will ever achieve a work force in these fields of 50% women. Perhaps we as a community should be at peace with this concept and should cease to feed women the pressure that they “can have it all” and “should have it all” and be in demanding fields (such as cardiothoracic surgery, neurosurgery) in addition to all the additional burdens of life outside of work (such as running a household, etc). While women should have equal opportunities to enter these fields (equality) they should have the freedom to choose a career path that is right for their life balance (equity). Would the authors please comment on the fact that perhaps certain surgical specialties are simply not attractive to medical students as a career path, and that these choices may be independent of gender biases within the specialties?

Minor

1. Methods/3rd line—plastic surgery is repeated twice.

2. Discussion/paragraph 3—The sentence “The rate of change for women in plastic surgery is also increasing relatively relative to many other specialties studied” does not read well. Recommend editing that statement (eg, “The rate of change for women in plastic surgery is also increasing relative to many other specialties.”)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Nov 2020

Reviewer Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: In the article “Women in academic surgery over the last four decades unequal rate of change among surgical specialties” the authors review the AAMC data on women faculty in various surgical specialties. As the proportion of female medical school matriculants approach (and slightly surpass) gender equity, the rate of change of women faculty in academic surgery is evaluated. The study design is simple and its execution is clean. This manuscript does provide a good benchmark from which to work toward gender equality.

Major
1. The authors did not include the discipline of gynecology. While this field is more female predominant than other surgical specialties, the proportion of female faculty (and trends there in) would regardless be interesting. Would the authors comment on their rationale for not including gynecology in this study.

-The reviewer raises an excellent point. We have included the discipline of Obstetrics and Gynecology in our revised analysis.

2. As the authors suggest, role modeling and mentorship often play critical roles in recruitment. In order to accomplish this, there needs to be a critical mass of mentors/role models. Once there is a critical mass, the rate of change/growth can become synergistic and exponential. Perhaps the rate of change in ophthalmology and otolaryngology is greater is because at the start of the study period that “critical mass” (10%?) was already achieved. Cardiothoracic surgery, neurosurgery, and urologic surgery had close to 0% female faculty in 1980 and only reach 10% around year 2000-2010. Perhaps at this point, the rate of change will start to catch up with the other surgical specialties (and that of opthalmology & OHNS will start to level out). Do the authors note an “inflection point” or value at which this “critical mass” is reached?

-The reviewer raises an excellent point, and we agree there probably is a critical mass of women with in a field necessary to be sufficiently visible and available for mentorship, sponsorship and role modeling. Although we were not able to identify such an “inflection point’ in our data, there are older labor economics studies that show once women comprise approximately 30% of the workforce in a given profession, men tend to increasing leave the field as it gains a reputation as “women’s work” leading to decrease prestige and pay. We highlighted the sociology data here in the discussion.

3. While it is nice to have a goal of gender equality, perhaps gender equity is the better objective. Despite female medical school matriculants representing 50% of medical school classes, perhaps female medical students do not care as much to be in cardiothoracic surgery, urology or neurosurgery and no amount of mentorship/role modeling/etc will ever achieve a work force in these fields of 50% women. Perhaps we as a community should be at peace with this concept and should cease to feed women the pressure that they “can have it all” and “should have it all” and be in demanding fields (such as cardiothoracic surgery, neurosurgery) in addition to all the additional burdens of life outside of work (such as running a household, etc). While women should have equal opportunities to enter these fields (equality) they should have the freedom to choose a career path that is right for their life balance (equity). Would the authors please comment on the fact that perhaps certain surgical specialties are simply not attractive to medical students as a career path, and that these choices may be independent of gender biases within the specialties?

-We completely agree that gender equity, and not gender equality should be the goal. All medical students with interest in and aptitude for a surgical career should have access to opportunities, mentors and support to achieve their goals. Potentially modifiable factors such as lack of mentorship and toxic workplace cultures that foster gender discrimination and harassment should be the focus with discrete interventions such as mentorship programs and culture change. The reviewer brings up an excellent point that there are many reasons why a young woman in her 20s or 30s may not want to choose a surgical specialty given the current culture and work-life balance. We included in our discussion that women are more likely to have partners who work full time outside the home and are still more likely to be responsible for the majority of domestic and caretaking responsibilities inside the home. Until there is a much more broad societal change with regard to traditional gender roles, the preferences and priorities of male and female medical students are likely never going to be “equal”.

Minor
1. Methods/3rd line—plastic surgery is repeated twice.

-Thank you, this has been corrected.

2. Discussion/paragraph 3—The sentence “The rate of change for women in plastic surgery is also increasing relatively relative to many other specialties studied” does not read well. Recommend editing that statement (eg, “The rate of change for women in plastic surgery is also increasing relative to many other specialties.”)

-Thank you, this has been corrected.

19 Nov 2020

Women in Academic Surgery Over the Last Four Decades

PONE-D-20-32410R1

Dear Dr. Holliday,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Leonidas G Koniaris, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

23 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-32410R1

Women in Academic Surgery Over the Last Four Decades:

Dear Dr. Holliday:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Leonidas G Koniaris

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE