Key points Women anesthesiologists can experience barriers and bias in the workplace, which varies in nature across their career and can negatively hinder professional development. Mitigation of these barriers and discrimination can be achieved through: (1) addressing individual bias, (2) closing the knowledge gap on the scope of bias, (3) deliberate representation, (4) strengthening professional networks, and (5) organized efforts to create policies that address gender inequity in the workplace. Women in anesthesiology is one example of several organized initiatives and programs that promote gender equity for women anesthesiologists of all identities. Introduction Women have long fought for equity in medicine and to be treated respectfully and professionally as physicians. One hundred seventy-five years ago, Elizabeth Blackwell was admitted to medical school as a joke, and since then, the viewpoint that medicine is emotionally undesirable, intellectually taxing, and physically draining for women has persisted. Pioneering women anesthesiologists, including Isabella Herb and Virginia Apgar, were discouraged from training as surgeons and pushed into the lower paying and “lower status” specialty of anesthesiology. Despite 50 years since the passage of Title IV, a Federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity that receives federal funding, and the fact that half of the medical students are women, there is still major attrition of women as they advance in anesthesiology residencies, careers, and leadership.1,2 Recent studies have attempted to examine the reasons for this inequity and bring awareness of the widespread discrimination and systemic bias affecting women anesthesiologists and their departure from medicine.1,3–8 Identifying as a woman in anesthesiology is multifaceted and nuanced. Women can be at different points in their professional careers and personal lives. This may be associated with a broad spectrum of identities, including but not limited to clinicians, academicians, activists, or advocates, as well as mothers, children, siblings, or partners. These identities also intersect with sexuality, race, ethnicity, culture, spirituality, and community. This diversity of lived experiences is why blanket assumptions about women anesthesiologists should be avoided. However, despite these varied identities, all women anesthesiologists are subject to institutional and cultural norms regarding gender. Therefore, the development of multiple initiatives and programs to promote gender equity for women anesthesiologists of all identities is paramount. In this article, we will review the scope of the gender problem in our specialty, discuss proposed strategies to enhance equity, and examine 1 organization’s approach to advocating for gender equity in anesthesiology. Scope of the problem Overworked, undervalued, harassed, and silenced. These are the sentiments of many women in anesthesiology. Many of the challenges encountered are synergized by a climate and culture that enable and fail to adequately address these issues.9 Gender disparities within anesthesiology exist because of systemic barriers and biases, limited number of women in anesthesiology leadership, and limited mentorship.5 The proportion of women physicians in anesthesiology ranks in the lower third among all medical specialties.10 Despite significant advances in the number of women entering medicine over the last few decades, anesthesiology programs have yet to achieve gender parity.7 Among anesthesiology residents, 33% are women. Women represent 25% of the overall anesthesiology workforce and 37% of the academic anesthesiology workforce, and these numbers remain relatively static.1,6,8 Meanwhile, other surgical and procedural subspecialties have doubled and tripled the percentage of women in their field and surpassed anesthesiology. Women anesthesiologists also are underrepresented in various positions of leadership or influence, and as authors and editors.4 They are paid significantly less than their male counterparts for equitable work, with an annual pay gap of 8%, or $32,000 a year, and are overall more likely to be in a lower salary range.5 Over a 30-year career span, this translates to roughly $1,000,000 in lost earnings.5 Even after adjusting for age, work experience, hours worked, academic productivity, and rank, the gap in gender pay remained and in fact, widened over the course of an anesthesiologist’s career.5 There are several systemic issues that hinder the recruitment, retention, and success of women in anesthesiology. Women physicians, relative to men, encounter additional hurdles to performing their jobs, especially at the early stages of their careers.11 Women physicians are more frequently asked about their age and experience compared with their men counterparts. A study found when treatment advice was given by an inexperienced physician, and participants reported relying significantly more on the advice of a man versus a woman.11 This suggests that some of the hurdles that women physicians face are rooted in the psychological biases of others rather than objective features of cases or treatment settings.11 The results of the few studies examining the effects of gender on daily practice in the specialty of anesthesiology are discouraging. A recent survey study assessing gender disparities perceived by women anesthesiologists found that majority (90%) of the respondents felt that women in medicine need to work harder than men to achieve the same career goals, and sexual harassment was experienced by 55%.12 Similarly, in a survey of women cardiothoracic anesthesiologists, 24% of respondents reported experiencing unwanted physical or sexual advances, and 45% reported experiencing verbal harassment.13 The majority of respondents also reported experiencing intimidation or derogatory language in the workplace.13 As well stated by the authors: “lack of psychological safety and respect in working environments increases the risk of communication failures, and intimidation in the setting of managing surgical patients increases stress and risk for burnout”.13 The original “pipeline theory” proposed that sex-based discrimination in academic medicine would diminish once women achieved a critical mass of > 30% of the academic workforce.14 Interestingly, “women who examine trends in sex disparities in the workplace are often ridiculed, labeled as whining, or determined to be less capable in their ability to lead.”15 Paired with that, women physicians are less likely to be addressed as “doctor,” they are more likely to be interrupted (at times in the middle of their preoperative assessment), and more likely to be labeled as “bossy” when asserting information.16 The culture of medicine is unlikely to change without improving formal reporting mechanisms of sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment.14 Unfortunately, the prevalence of sexist microaggressions against women anesthesiologists is still high, and this ongoing workplace mistreatment can cause chronic and severe distress.17 Sex equity is an issue of urgency in the practice of anesthesiology. Those in leadership positions have the additional responsibility of leveraging their power to influence the broader institutional culture.15 Having women at the top of organizations has been shown to improve organizational performance.18 Women represent approximately half of students entering medical school and ~41% of full-time academic faculty,19 yet women constitute a minority of leaders.20 Sex disparities continue to exist at the upper levels of leadership in academic anesthesiology.1 Only 18% of women are professors, and the percentage of women anesthesiology department chairs remains unchanged from 2006 to 2016 (12.7% vs. 14%).21 As of this writing, neither Anesthesia & Analgesia nor Anesthesiology has had a woman Editor-in-Chief. On that note, men and women have significant differences in measures of publication productivity, a recent study demonstrating that male anesthesiologists had a higher h-index, number of publications, and number of citations.22 Women have also been underrepresented in national meetings with fewer speaker opportunities.8 Overall, the extremely limited proportion of women professors and chairs in anesthesiology, presidents of professional societies, and senior editors of specialty journals speak for itself when it comes to a lack of visibility at the highest level of the specialty.9 Despite the many barriers that women experience, they are just as eager as men to assume leadership positions.23 The “glass ceiling” still exists within the culture of anesthesiology, benefiting the “masculine” attitudes in the competition for academic positions.24 We need to change this outdated culture and climate in anesthesiology and create and help elevate more women into a pathway of equity. Anesthesiologists and pregnancy Pregnancy and motherhood have a tremendous impact on sex discrimination in anesthesiology. A woman’s peak fertility often coincides with residency training and early career, a time when one’s career trajectory becomes established. This is also the time when the sex gap in academic promotion and productivity widens. Having children at that time is a challenge, and it is known that work demands adversely affect women anesthesiologists’ desired number of children and the desired age of childbearing. Anesthesiologists have the highest rate of maternal discrimination among all medical specialties.25 Sixty percent of anesthesiology residents reported a negative stigma around being pregnant and having children during training, and about half of trainees reported feeling discouraged from becoming pregnant or breastfeeding during training.7,26,27 Difficulties faced by women who are pregnant during training include inadequate maternity leave, insufficient access to lactation facilities at work, and negative culture surrounding pregnancy during training.26 Because of obstacles pertaining to motherhood, 1 in 10 female anesthesiologists would counsel a student against a career in anesthesiology.7 However, 86.2% of women anesthesiologists indicated that if given a choice again, they would still have their child during training despite these obstacles.26 Given the negative stigma associated with pregnancy in residency training, many women delay pregnancy until their early career, which typically occurs in the early 30s, leading to a higher likelihood of infertility.28 Approximately one-fourth of American female physicians are diagnosed with infertility at almost 34 years old, with a third of those due to diminished ovarian reserve, and this rate is significantly higher than the general population and other professionals that pursued higher education and careers.28,29 Contributing factors to the high rate of infertility among women in medicine may include stressors intrinsic to training, long hours, and night shifts.29 Infertility can lead to substantial depression, anxiety, burnout, and family planning regrets.28,29 Compounding the physical and emotional challenges of infertility is the exorbitant financial burden of treatment.29 In the United States, in vitro fertilization (IVF) costs ~$15,000 per round of treatment, not including the cost of medication.29 Unfortunately, fertility coverage for the majority of health professionals is lacking, and many medical institutions provide limited fertility coverage that will cover ~1 to 2 IVF cycles.29 In comparison, companies in the business, technology, and social media sector are recognizing the growing need for fertility coverage and are offering more comprehensive fertility, adoption, and surrogacy coverage, which has promoted physical and emotional well-being, job satisfaction, and enhanced employee recruitment and retention.29,30 In addition to cost, time is an additional barrier for seeking fertility treatment for anesthesiologists, and schedule modifications are often necessary. IVF typically requires the patient to present for multiple in-person monitoring appointments over a 2-week period during ovarian stimulation. On the basis of the outcome of the monitoring, an egg retrieval may be scheduled imminently, with little room for flexibility in timing. Without accommodation, women may need to take a vacation, paid or unpaid time off to undergo treatment, worsening the financial strain of infertility. Women anesthesiologists are also more likely to have pregnancy complications and miscarriages than the general population.31 Data suggests that women who work in the operating room have a higher incidence of first-trimester spontaneous abortions or a higher risk of birth defects.31 Women anesthesiologists report a higher rate of pregnancy complications [premature labor (8.8%), bedrest (7.8%), preeclampsia (6.5%), and a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) stay for the baby (5.7%)], negative stigma for taking time off for pregnancy complications, and guilt in burdening colleagues with increased shifts and calls.26 Many attending anesthesiologists do not receive a modified work schedule during pregnancy.27 In some practice models, time off for pregnancy complications may not be paid and may decrease time for parental leave. Parental leave is an essential component to achieving postpartum physical and mental health and is crucial for infant bonding. For trainees in 2018, average parental leave was reported as 8.9 (±7.4) weeks and a median of 6 weeks.26,27 Most training programs did not have a formal maternity leave policy, so trainees utilized a combination of vacation and sick days for leave.26 Approximately 60% of anesthesiology residents felt their maternity leave was inadequate, felt discouraged from taking more time off, and felt guilty of overburdening co-trainees with extra responsibilities while on leave.26 However, 86.1% of trainees also describe their programs as accommodating in terms of maternity leave flexibility.26 In 2018, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) issued a Statement on Personal Leave, which supported paid parental leave for 6 weeks after birth or adoption of a child.32 In 2019, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) altered its absence from the Training Policy, which allowed residents to petition for an additional 40 days of leave without extending training.33 In 2021, the American Board of Medical supplies (ABMS) followed suit and instituted a parental leave policy, which calls for all member boards to allow 6 weeks of parental leave, outside of vacation time, for parental leave, without extending training.34 Mothers who delivered as attending anesthesiologists report an average parental leave time of 10.4 weeks (±3.5 wk) and a median of 12 weeks.27 Depending on the practice model, maternity leave may be composed of a combination of vacation and sick time, making prolonged leave financially untenable. This is in stark contrast to other fields, such as finance, tech, and entertainment that have made significant strides in paid parental leave, with companies offering up to 24 weeks of paid leave.35 Furthermore, unlike other fields, women anesthesiologists cannot work remotely postpartum to ease the transition back to work and face the added challenge of maintaining lactation in the perioperative setting. Physicians initiate breastfeeding at a higher rate than the general population; however, they have a lower continuance rate by infant age 6 months. Half of the anesthesiologist mothers report meeting the desired breastfeeding duration and having adequate, convenient lactation facilities.26,27 In addition, sufficient break time and lack of adequate relief can make it difficult to pump.26,27 Although there are wearable breast pumps that are becoming more popular, they may not work for all women. Recently the ASA has adopted a Statement on Lactation Among Anesthesia Clinicians in 2021 to support lactation accommodations in the perioperative environment.36 Inequitable distribution of domestic duties Along with the demands of work, women anesthesiologists face the added burden of inequitable distribution of domestic duties. Regardless of marital status or motherhood, women physicians spend an average of 8.5 more hours per week on household duties, are more likely to be the primary caregiver for children or the elderly, and are less likely to have a stay-at-home partner.10,37,38 In addition to the visible household responsibilities, women bear the invisible and unlimited mental load in 3 overlapping categories.39,40 Cognitive labor involves thinking about the practical elements of household responsibilities (ie, shopping lists, and organizing activities).39 Emotional labor focuses on maintaining the family’s emotional well-being (ie, worrying about kids in school, and managing child’s behavior).39 Mental load is the intersection of cognitive and emotional labor and is sometimes referred to as the “third shift,” in “running the business of the family.”39,40 The COVID-19 pandemic brought these inequities to the forefront by highlighting the work-life imbalance native to the culture of medicine and in the United States. In the initial stages of the pandemic, some anesthesiologists were furloughed on unpaid leave of absence, while others voluntarily decreased work hours because of increased caregiving responsibilities at home.10,41 A survey from the California Society of Anesthesiologists at the time revealed that women anesthesiologists were furloughed or given involuntary vacation more often than men.42 For those women who did continue working on the frontlines, they confronted an unprecedented ethical and moral dilemma, as there was much unknown about the severity of the virus. They were torn between dedication to the profession and the urge to protect their families from both the novel disease and the possibility of leaving their young children as orphans.43–46 As a result, more women anesthesiologists, particularly junior faculty, reduced work hours, transitioned to part-time work, and contemplated leaving medicine altogether.43,47,48 In addition, with school closures and a focus on remote learning, many women used their nonclinical time to focus on domestic duties and childcare, contributing an average of 15 more hours per week than fathers on household tasks and resulting in a 33% decline in research hours and academic productivity as compared with men.43,47,49–51 The percentage of articles with women as first authors decreased during the early stages of the pandemic, despite the surge of COVID-19-related publications published in high-impact journals, further widening the sex gap in academic productivity.52,53 Networking opportunities, crucial for academic promotion, were also decreased for women physicians as conferences became virtual and there was reduced time for attendance, either because of personal responsibilities or institutional cost-cutting measures.54 While the virtual environment did provide the flexibility to perform administrative duties from home, the prevalence of multitasking, interruptions, and extended workday availability also increased.10,50 Overall, the pandemic placed an increased burden on women anesthesiologists struggling to balance the increasing family and household obligations with work-related responsibilities and broadened the sex gap in academic productivity and promotion.10,44 Proposed strategies to enhance gender equity in anesthesiology To outline strategies to achieve gender equity in our profession, we researched recommended solutions to gender equity in national55 and international policies 56 and in business and medical literature.3,57–66 The common themes in all areas indicate that the road to achieving sex equity in our profession is lengthy and is more than simply equipping women with skill-building and leadership training. However, we believe that systemic change can be achieved by following 5 tenets, which were present in all the literature we examined: (1) addressing individual bias, (2) closing the knowledge gap on the scope of bias, (3) deliberate representation, (4) strengthening professional networks, and (5) organized efforts to create policies that address gender inequity in the workplace. Addressing individual bias To begin to create a culture of acceptance in a group, practice, institution, or profession, regular and required training in diversity, equity, and inclusion principles is necessary to first address individual bias. Diversity, equity, and inclusion training and education can cover a wide range of systemic topics related to sex, such as implicit bias, harassment, and sexism, and can be presented in a variety of formats, from individual e-learning to large-format conferences like Grand Rounds. There are numerous organizations that provide training, and free resources such as webinars, podcasts, and videos are widely available. Educational efforts must lead to the adoption of policies and leadership that support women in the workplace, should allow gender equity to be a consistent part of the conversation, and should result in the integration of sex equity into organizational missions, visions, and values. Closing the knowledge gap on the scope of bias Institutional needs assessments should be regularly conducted and publicly reported to understand the current status of women anesthesiologists, identify barriers to their advancement, and propose systemic solutions. Data collection could include performing audits of demographics (of committees, speakers, authors, reviewers, editors, award nominees, etc.), compensation, and professional effort. Institutions need to be transparent about how professional effort is calculated and compensated among education, research, administration, and clinical care. Benchmarks should be consulted and applied to metrics consistently, and goal targets should be set. Deliberate representation There needs to be deliberate and targeted representation of women in recruitment, retention, promotion processes, and in leadership. Purposefully including women and their perspectives in any process where decisions or policies are made that affect work culture is imperative. Sex-diverse candidates should always be nominated or considered. “More than 1” (the idea that if more than 1 woman is considered, there is a higher likelihood that a woman will achieve a position) has been adopted in diversity pledges by the National Institutes of Health and Lancet, which commits to enhancing the representation of women. Developing additional strategies to enhance representation should start by thinking outside the traditional job description of an anesthesiologist and should emphasize equity rather than equality. Accommodating flexibility and choice is key. Nontraditional scheduling 67 leave policies with long-term job security and support for workplace reentry, valuation of citizenship tasks for promotion, and other childcare and family-friendly policies should be considered to enhance the representation of women anesthesiologists at all levels. There should be zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination, and sex-based violence. Strengthening professional networks Much focus has been placed on the mentorship of women, but there are other “-ships” that are as important, including sponsorship and allyship. Sponsors and allies help to showcase women and ensure their contributions are recognized and rewarded. They can amplify and promote women, their ideas, and their experience, ultimately enhancing the woman’s voice. Networking is important for the establishment of sponsorship and allyship. Social media has greatly increased the visibility of women anesthesiologists and has allowed connections without the traditional travel to in-person conferences and meetings. However, deliberate networking events, whether formal or informal, are also known helpful interventions. Professional development programming and leadership training for women that focus on relational skills and increasing visibility can assist with enhancing networking. Organized efforts to create policies that address sex inequity in the workplace It is necessary to acknowledge that there are specific challenges related to a gender’s sex and the stereotyped gender roles that are engrained in workplace culture. Women are known as caregivers, and the acceptance of caregiving roles outside of a clinical context is imperative. Specific benefits for reproductive support, childcare support, lactation support, domestic service support, and elder care support provided by the workplace ensure that caregiving is valued and enhance well-being. It is vital to make the workplace a more functional place for women anesthesiologists. Policies to ensure women are not penalized on the promotion and advancement tracks should be enacted. In addition, organized efforts to provide professional development, leadership training, and networking for women anesthesiologists at the local, regional, and national levels are essential. This includes specific programming not only to enhance the skillsets of women but also to help women navigate and address the systemic issues they encounter in a variety of settings. Organizational efforts: an example Numerous organizations have been established that are dedicated to improving equity for women anesthesiologists. These include national organizations (Women in Anesthesiology), committees and special interest groups of the anesthesiology organizations (American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Women Anesthesiologists, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists’ Women in Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Women in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Special Interest Group, and Society for Critical Care Medicine Women in Critical Care Knowledge Education Group), and leadership development resources and programming (Society for Pediatric Anesthesiology Women’s Empowerment and Leadership Initiative, Women of Impact in Anesthesiology podcast, Alpha Women of Anesthesiology podcast). A variety of programs indicates that there is enough overlap and uniqueness to provide preferential professional development opportunities to each individual. To further discuss the organizational approach to gender equity in anesthesiology, we will focus on 1 society: Women in Anesthesiology (WIA). WIA is a volunteer-run, nonprofit physician organization, founded in 2015 by Dr Rekha Chandrabose, committed to the professional and personal development of women anesthesiologists. WIA’s mission also supports the recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction of women in anesthesiology and promotes a culture of inclusivity and diversity. Dr Chandrabose personally faced numerous challenges navigating residency and early career as a mother without mentorship. With the support of a grant from the ASA Committee for Professional Diversity and modeled after other women physician groups [eg, FemInEm (Women Emergency Medicine Doctors), Association of Women Surgeons, Women in Ophthalmology), the organization was formed to provide a collective voice addressing systemic inequities. WIA’s initial goals were focused on addressing 3 factors: (1) lack of professional respect in comparison with male peers, (2) conflict between personal and professional responsibilities, and (3) absence of adequate mentorship and sponsorship to promote women to leadership roles. Initial advocacy efforts largely embraced the use of social media to connect women across geography and demographics to provide education and virtual support networks to counteract the disrespect affecting women anesthesiologists. Continued efforts were largely driven by younger women in early and mid-career stages, who were experiencing the pinch of work-life integration. Deliberate work for representation in leadership roles across organizations, societies, and institutions was pursued through publicity regarding open positions, enhanced recommendations and nominations of women for positions, and education regarding the benefits of having women in leadership roles. As a small organization not associated with a larger society, WIA’s grassroot efforts are highly advantageous in driving systemic change in other anesthesiology organizations. Early work, through social media and email campaigns, resulted in the establishment of accommodations for mothers and families at society meetings. More concentrated efforts by members of the WIA Board of Directors have impacted national leave of absence and lactation policy changes in both the ASA and ABA. For example, both the ASA Statement on Personal Leave32 and the ASA Statement on Lactation36 were initiated by WIA leaders, who held roles in vital ASA committees. The independent nature of WIA also allows for swift statements on current social and public health issues relevant to anesthesiologists, including racism, gun violence, and reproductive healthcare. WIA encourages continued advocacy on these issues by providing resources and action plans for its members to become more engaged in efforts that are important to them. In addition to advocacy, WIA provides numerous professional development opportunities for women and men anesthesiologists. Educational programming through an Annual Meeting and a Virtual Speaker Series showcases women anesthesiologists as national speakers and provides members exposure to topics, such as the second victim effect, imposter phenomenon, speaking up, developing a digital presence, resilience, and opportunities outside the operating room. Free webinars have presented renowned experts on how to give effective presentations or write publishable papers. In addition, regular communications through a newsletter, social media, and toolkits on the WIA website provide timely updates on topics relevant to women anesthesiologists. The accomplishments of members are celebrated through these communications and annual awards, including the Distinguished Service Award and Champion Award. Networking and connection on local levels are facilitated by Chapter Liaisons and a yearly in-person gathering before the ASA Annual Meeting. However, as a volunteer-run group of full-time working women physicians, balancing their own careers and personal obligations, 1 of the largest pitfalls has been finding the resources (financial and time) to maintain a continual and up-to-date presence for our members. Although there have been many victories associated with the rapid growth and development of WIA, 1 of the most notable is the recent establishment of a WIA Medical Student Component (MSC). It is well known that anesthesiology has remained behind other specialties in the recruitment of women to the field. While certainly multifactorial, it would surprise most anesthesiologists that women medical students are more likely to choose a surgical subspecialty than anesthesiology as a career. The WIA-MSC received a recent grant from the ASA Committee on Professional Diversity to fund a pipeline program aimed at empowering students to learn about anesthesiology, address the unique challenges that young women anesthesiologists face, and provide a national network for longitudinal connections starting from students’ first year in medical school. Notably, the MSC’s student leaders are largely women of color, and their drive for mentorship, sponsorship, and representation will help to improve the future diversity of our specialty. WIA has bright prospects on the horizon. Current member-driven initiatives include curating a Lactation Best Practices document for all practice types, a professional opportunity database, and an in-person continuing medical education conference. In addition, WIA will continue to invest in medical students and young physicians by establishing mentorship programs and a resident section. The organization has led great improvements for women in its short history but recognizes that there is still much work to be done. Although “women” is in the name of the organization, WIA strives to be inclusive of all sexes and aims to improve advocacy for intersectional identities. In addition, much of our work has resulted in recommendations for change in key universal areas (respect, mentorship/sponsorship, parenthood, work-life balance), but true culture change is needed by action at the group and institutional levels. The tools provided by WIA and other similar organizations aimed at promoting sex equity provides a variety of ways to put recommendations into action and to encourage a systemic approach to dismantle ingrained modes of discrimination. Conclusion Despite pipeline numbers improving, there is still major attrition of women in anesthesiology as they advance in their careers. Sex disparities within anesthesiology exist because of numerous systemic barriers and biases, along with discordance in cultural norms related to sex, which results in many women anesthesiologists feeling disrespect, doubt, and discrimination from their profession. Simply equipping women anesthesiologists with skill-building and leadership training is inadequate to address this problem. Numerous surveys and studies support the need for systemic change to address inequity through strategies, such as education, data collection, enhanced representation, and sponsorship. Organizations, such as Women in Anesthesiology and other initiatives, dedicated to promoting equity for women anesthesiologists of all identities are paramount. Conflict of interest disclosure The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Feb 6, 2024
Asher Orkaby + 1
Open Access