Skip to main content
NCBI home page
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2026 May 29;15:835. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.180295.1

Beyond the Transparent Barrier: A Domain Visualization and Integrative Review of Contemporary Research on Gender-Based Professional Stasis

Pankaj Kumar Tyagi 1, Praveen Kumar 2, Asokan Vasudevan 3, Premendra Kumar Singh 4,a, CS Jyoti Arora 5, Trinkul Kalita 6, Purvi Pujari 7
PMCID: PMC13329365  PMID: 42403696

Abstract

Background

Despite decades of policy and reforms, diversity initiatives and greater awareness about the importance of gender equality, women still remain notably absent from leadership roles in most of the countries around the world. The persistence of the glass ceiling highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the intellectual evolution and structural drivers of gendered career barriers.

Methods

A PRISMA-guided systematic literature review approach, combining knowledge domain visualization with thematic integration was used to track the glass ceiling research. Bibliographic coupling, co-citation analysis and keyword co-occurrence mapping using VOSviewer were performed which helped in identifying most influential authors, documents, countries and publication sources.

Results

Analysis shows four interrelated thematic areas of contemporary glass ceiling research: (1) Gender Inequality in Academic and Labor Markets— How Institutions Perpetuate the Divide; (2) Breaking Through: Organizational Mechanisms & Career Pathways; (3) The Human Factor: Leadership Development & Career Identity; (4) Unlocking Potential: Diversity Initiatives & Empowerment Strategies. Guided by these insights, the study develops an integrative conceptual framework from the Antecedents–Decisions–Outcomes (ADO) perspective where structural and institutional conditions act as antecedents that frame organizational/societal and individual career decisions leading to outcomes relevant to careers such as leadership representation, advancements opportunities or gender equity in leadership positions.

Conclusion

This study presented a systematic integration of knowledge domain along with suggesting an ADO-based conceptual framework to provide innovative synthesis of the transdisciplinary scholarly work in contemporary glass ceiling research. These findings offer actionable lessons for policymakers, organizations and diversity practitioners who seek to implement effective interventions that will contribute to reducing systemic gender inequalities in leadership.

Keywords: Glass ceiling; Knowledge domain visualization; Thematic integration; Women in leadership; Gender inequality; Systematic literature review; PRISMA; Career barriers; Leadership development; ADO framework; Gendered inequality; Quality education

1. Introduction

Over the last four decades, research on the glass ceiling has dramatically increased as concern for women’s under-representation in top leadership has continued following a sharp rise in their educational qualifications and labour market participation rates. First introduced as a metaphor characterizing the “invisible, artificial barriers which block women from getting promotions,” the glass ceiling has become one of its most prominent metaphors to understand how gendered norms, organizational practices and policy failures intersect in shaping women’s career paths ( Mohamed et al., 2023; Çitil, 2022). Cumulative empirical evidence documenting persistent vertical segregation has accrued across sectors and regions, with scholars now asking not just if a glass ceiling exists, but also how it is conceptualized, where it is most salient, and how research on the topic itself has developed over time ( Maheshwari & Lenka, 2022; Purcell et al., 2010; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009). In parallel, the volume of academic work on the glass ceiling has grown to the point that systematic mapping of the field has become both possible and necessary. Beyond counting papers and citations, scholars have begun to interrogate the conceptual and thematic structure of glass ceiling research. Co-word and network analyses show that work on the glass ceiling is tightly interwoven with broader metaphors of gendered inequality (e.g., glass cliff, sticky floor, leaky pipeline) and with themes such as leadership, organizational culture, discrimination, and work–family conflict ( Martínez-Fierro & Sancho, 2021; Maheshwari & Lenka, 2022; Grangeiro et al., 2021a). Meanwhile, reviews also point to crucial gaps such as little engagement with intersectionality, sectoral blind spots and differential focus on policy instruments and organizational interventions ( Maheshwari & Lenka, 2022; Grangeiro et al., 2021b). By adopting an integrated bibliometric and thematic approach, it seeks to:

  • (1)

    identify intellectual structures through bibliographic coupling, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence analysis in glass ceiling literature;

  • (2)

    highlight underexplored areas and propose future research directions in the area of glass ceiling research.

2. Methodology

This study utilizes a systematic three-phase investigation consisting of PRISMA based review, bibliometric and thematic analysis to examine the glass ceiling literature. The analysis was performed on peer-reviewed journal articles in English language published between 2015–2025 retrieved from Scopus, containing the keywords glass ceiling, women’s career advancement, career progression, women in leadership and gender based barriers. They focused explicitly on identified barriers to women’s careers in the domains of social sciences, business, economics, humanities and psychology and excluded non-peer-reviewed works as well as studies published in any language other than English or that were marginally relevant. In total, after PRISMA screening the number of records was limited to a final set of 186 high-quality studies retaining methodological rigour and relevancy ( Figure 1). This approach increases the reliability of the findings and generates an overall mapping of the intellectual architecture of research on glass ceiling. Bibliometric analysis was conducted to assess research output, collaboration patterns, and intellectual links through bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis among the selected papers. VOSviewer visualizations and keyword co-occurrence, using thematic analysis to determine dominant topics and their linkages.

Figure 1. Methodology for data collection following PRISMA guidelines.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

3. Findings

This section presents the results of bibliometric and thematic analysis.

3.1 Bibliometric findings

3.1.1 Bibliographic coupling of countries

Bibliographic coupling of countries provides an overview of the global glass ceiling literature ( Figure 2). Most economically advanced countries (USA, UK, India, China, Germany, Spain and Italy) are densely packed clusters with tightly connected collaboration networks. Peripheral countries show less contribution in crossing the glass ceiling of academia, whereas those belonging to Europe (green cluster) and Asia (red cluster) suggest that strong regional research coherence exists. A striking lack of papers from Africa and Latin America suggests that the literature dealing with gender-based barriers to careers is primarily shaped by developed and developing economies.

Figure 2. Bibliographic coupling of countries (Source: VOSviewer).

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

3.1.2 Bibliographic coupling of documents

The bibliographic coupling of documents analyzes the cognitive structure and temporal distribution of glass ceiling literature ( Figure 3). The segment shows that there’s a spreading of topics: yellow nodes are focused on the barriers in organisations, red on gender dynamics and green addresses new challenges such as intersectionality and digital transformation. The temporal analysis of 2015–2025 shows a fast pace research momentum and it is more vigorous post-2019, which indicates an augmented scholarly curiosity toward gender bias barriers to a career.

Figure 3. Bibliographic coupling of documents (Source: VOSviewer).

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

3.1.3 Bibliographic coupling of sources

Bibliographic Coupling of Sources ( Figure 4) maps the disciplinary landscape and journal networks, which have shaped glass ceiling research. It illustrates three interconnected publication ecosystems: Management and organisational studies (red cluster) includes the field’s core, gender-centred journals like ‘Gender in Management’ and ‘Business Ethics & Leadership’; higher education an institutional studies (green cluster), are anchored around the journal’Studies in Higher Education’ as well as’European Economic Review; social sciences/interdisciplinary outlets encompassing ‘Frontiers in Sociology’ or ‘International Journal of Organisational Psychology’. They also signal how glass ceiling work has been framed almost exclusively in organizational and management terms, possibly at the expense of a more sociological or psychological analysis with an intersectional element.

Figure 4. Bibliographic coupling of documents (Source: VOSviewer).

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

3.1.4 Co-citation analysis of authors

Author co-citation analysis portrays the intellectual architecture and roots of glass ceiling literature ( Figure 5). The tightly knitted red cluster highlights the authors in organizational behaviour and management who largely dominate citation behaviors; the blue cluster is made up of scholars whose works mainly focus on institutions and education, and further outside in green/purple are emerging or relatively specialized contributors. For example, there is high co-citation rates among authors Allen, Baxter, Albrecht, and Baumgartner, as reflected in the red cluster.

Figure 5. Co-citation analysis of authors (Source: VOSviewer).

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

3.1.5 Co-citation analysis of sources

Co-citation analysis of sources reveals an increasing disciplinary fragmentation and the thematic priorities that define glass ceiling discourse, with three different publication ecosystems: management and organizational studies (red cluster) revolving around “Gender in Management” and “Journal of Labor Economics” stressing structural barriers/workplace dynamics; social sciences/psychological theory (blue cluster) based on “Psychological Review” and “Journal of Social Issues” facilities personal, psychological dimensions: higher education/gender studies (yellow/green cluster) involving “Studies in Higher Education”, “Gender & Society” dealing with institutional/societal contexts ( Figure 6). The overwhelming presence of economic and management literature indicates that research on the glass ceiling is more concerned with labour market analysis and organizational fixes rather than more general sociological or intersectional hierarchization. Weak links between clusters suggest that management-themed literature exists fairly independently from gender and psychology texts and there is little theoretical cross-fertilization, failing to account for potential psychological, cultural, and system intersections.

Figure 6. Co-citation analysis of sources (Source: VOSviewer).

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

3.2 Thematic analysis

In this section, the authors have done thematic analysis based on the themes identified using keywords co-occurrence analysis ( Figure 7). The following four emerging themes were identified: (1) Gender Inequality in Academic and Labor Markets— How Institutions Sustain the Divide; (2) Breaking Through: Organizational Mechanisms & Career Pathways; (3) The Human Factor: Leadership Development & Career Identity; (4) Unlocking Potential: Diversity Initiatives & Empowerment Strategies.

Figure 7. Keywords co-occurrence analysis (Source: VOSviewer).

Figure 7.

Open in a new tab

3.2.1 Gender inequality in academic & labor markets: How institutions sustain the divide (Red Cluster)

Gender inequality in academia and labor markets is not merely a story of individual choices but rather the product of structural and cultural arrangements that funnel women into lower-status positions with weaker returns on education. Research across disciplines and countries indicates persistent gaps in representation, pay, security and authority, even as women’s educational attainment has surged. Women are still underrepresented in senior academic roles and top institutional leadership, even where they currently make up the majority of graduates ( Rosa & Clavero, 2021; O’Connor, 2020; Winslow & Davis, 2016; Wieczorek-Szymańska, 2020; Alshdiefat et al., 2024; Yousaf & Schmiede, 2017). Research suggests that fewer women are in top ranks, worse pay and promotion prospects, more precarious contracts and heavier teaching or administration loads ( Eslen-Ziya & Yildirim, 2021; Vohlídalová, 2021; Winslow & Davis, 2016; Nkosi & Maphalala, 2025; O’Keefe & Courtois, 2019; Yousaf & Schmiede, 2017). Furthermore, women concentrated in fields with weaker labor-market returns (humanities, care professions), underrepresented in high-pay STEM and tightly job-linked majors ( Tan et al., 2025; Zheng & Weeden, 2023; Barone & Assirelli, 2019; Fontanella et al., 2019). These patterns translate into lower wages, slower advancement, and “maternity fees” in labor markets ( Tan et al., 2025; Fontanella et al., 2019). Academic organizations are described as “gendered and gendering”: norms of merit and excellence are coded masculine, privileging uninterrupted linear careers, presenteeism, and male networks ( Rosa & Clavero, 2021; Khan et al., 2024; O’Connor, 2020; Winslow & Davis, 2016; O’Keefe & Courtois, 2019; Yousaf & Schmiede, 2017). Strong hierarchies correlate with women’s perceptions that gender harms their prospects and limits future advancement ( Eslen-Ziya & Yildirim, 2021; Khan et al., 2024; O’Keefe & Courtois, 2019). The informal exclusion from networks, mentorship and reputational opportunities reinforces formal inequalities ( Eslen-Ziya & Yildirim, 2021; Winslow & Davis, 2016; O’Keefe & Courtois, 2019; Yousaf & Schmiede, 2017; ( O’Keefe and Courtois 2019). Gender intersects with class, race/ethnicity, religion, and national context; disadvantages compound for marginalized women and in conservative or post-colonial settings ( Rosa & Clavero, 2021; Khan et al., 2024; Fontanella et al., 2019; Crimmins et al., 2023; Alshdiefat et al., 2024). Academic capitalism and competitive funding can create new opportunities for a subset of women, while exacerbating inequalities among women by class and partnership status ( Gaiaschi 2025). Everyday sexism and local power relations persist to impede genuine inclusion even in institutions rewarded for their plans for gender equality ( Rosa & Clavero, 2021; O’Connor, 2020; Crimmins et al., 2023) have limited transformative effect if core structures and cultures are protected through certain forms of covering or adaptation ( Rosa & Clavero, 2021; Khan et al., 2024; O’Connor, 2020; Crimmins et al., 2023; Wieczorek-Szymańska, 2020; Nkosi & Maphalala, 2025; Ceci et al., 2023; Winslow & Davis, 2016; Nkosi & Maphalala, 2025; O’Keefe & Courtois, 2019). Systems-wide solutions involve going beyond individual stigmas through improved policies for work-life and caring responsibilities, equity-sensitive funding mechanisms, transparent career advancement criteria with robust mentorship as institutional transformation not simply add-ons ( Rosa & Clavero, 2021; Khan et al., 2024; O’Connor, 2020; Wieczorek-Szymańska, 2020; Nkosi & Maphalala, 2025; Alshdiefat et al., 2024). Educational advances have not brought about equivalent status, pay or security, especially at the top and in high-return fields. Reforms that merely “fix women” aren’t enough; the research converges with others, including my own, concluding that institutional structures, career logics and cultural norms must be remade if the academic and labor market achievements of women are ever to produce genuinely equal returns.

3.2.2 Breaking through: Organizational mechanisms & career pathways (Green Cluster)

In every sector and country, women’s career advancement is limited by organizational cultures, structures, and career systems that are premised on gendered expectations and bias. Unseen “glass ceiling” hurdles arise throughout banking, universities, health, ICT, policing, construction and more corporate environments, even when women are highly qualified ( Lyan et al., 2025; Ganiyu et al., 2018; Shrestha et al., 2023; Hirayama & Fernando, 2018; Tešanović et al., 2024; Khan & Khan, 2022; Shrestha, 2025; Naz et al., 2025; Kumari & Kaur, 2025; Khan et al., 2024). Corporate cultures and practices in finance and banking exert a strong, adverse influence on women’s chances of promotion, accounting for over fifty per cent of the variation in career advancement ( Shrestha et al., 2023; Shrestha, 2025). Senior positions and visibility are limited by biased promotion processes, gendered stereotypes like “think manager–think male”, and male-dominant cultures of leadership ( Lyan et al., 2025; Thelma & Ngulube, 2024; James, 2025; Ganiyu et al., 2018; Naseviciute & Jucevičienė, 2023; Hirayama & Fernando, 2018; Saville et al., 2024; Thakurathi, 2025). One potential explanation of this glass ceiling phenomenon limiting career success encompasses the role that work–family conflict contributes; in other words, higher conflict predicts a decrease in accessing opportunities to achieve ( Hirayama & Fernando, 2018; Khan & Khan, 2022; Todak et al., 2025). Motherhood attracts closer scrutiny, slower advancement and altered relationships at work, although the effects differ by context and support structures ( Torres et al., 2024). Long hours, highly structured career ladders, and masculine cultures make work–life balance challenging and discourage leadership aspirations in surgery ( Francis, 2017), policing, construction, ICT and health ( Naseviciute & Jucevičienė, 2023; Hirayama & Fernando, 2018; Saville et al., 2024; Todak et al., 2025; Petelin et al., 2025). Access to mentors, sponsors and influential networks is a chronic bottleneck; where mentoring exists, it enhances career progression and retention, particularly in male-dominated sectors ( Lyan et al., 2025; Francis, 2017; Thelma & Ngulube, 2024; Naseviciute & Jucevičienė, 2023; Saville et al., 2024; Thakurathi, 2025; Petelin et al., 2025). Some sectors (e.g., construction, ICT) reveal that individual agency, continuing to build skills—strategic networking and self-confidence—can help women navigate “contest” career systems but will not remove structural bias ( Francis, 2017; Naseviciute & Jucevičienė, 2023; Petelin et al., 2025). Interventions with evidence include: flexible and diverse career paths, family-friendly policies, transparent criteria for promotion, gender-transformative leadership development and robust anti-harassment systems ( Lyan et al., 2025; Shrestha et al., 2023; Hirayama & Fernando, 2018; Torres et al., 2024; Saville et al., 2024; Naz et al., 2025; Kumari & Kaur, 2025). Glass ceilings stubbornly remain due to interdependent individual, organizational and structural barriers, but clear evidence shows that we can advance women’s career progression via inclusive cultures, flexible career systems and access to mentoring—not the individual fixes that are often more visible ( Lyan et al., 2025; Naseviciute & Jucevičienė, 2023; Torres et al., 2024; Saville et al., 2024; Kumari & Kaur, 2025; Khan et al., 2024).

3.2.3 The human factor: Leadership development & career identity (Blue Cluster)

Research studying the “human factor” in women’s careers highlights how capabilities, mindsets and identities developed early in life interplay with opportunities and constraints over time. Agency is important, but it is never exercised outside social, or organizational and cultural systems. College and early adulthood are key developmental periods as achievement orientations and leadership orientation in college predict attainment of senior leader roles and higher pay nearly 30 years later ( Offermann et al., 2020). For young women and girls, leader identity is influenced by social connections, personal attributes, meaningful involvement and social identities e.g. gender or race ( Dixon et al., 2023). Leadership-only programs for women show that identity work involves validation, new narratives of belonging, and learning there are multiple legitimate ways to lead, not just “leading like a man” ( Brue & Brue, 2018). Authentic and women-only leadership programs increase self-efficacy, agency, and ownership of career moves through reflection, life-story work, and relational authenticity ( Martínez-Martínez et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2024; Brue & Brue, 2018; Round et al., 2024).

Some women physicians and scientists develop their own paths to leadership, participating in early-career development programs that align with their values around the goals of leading, negotiating, articulation of vision and alignment between leadership with well-being and family roles ( Lee et al., 2024). Leadership emergences with strong leadership identity increased greatly when self-efficacy is formed as part of psychological capital through programs that take it as direct target ( Deroncele-Acosta et al., 2025; Round et al., 2024) As many young women embark on their work lives, they approach the pursuit of high-status jobs with optimism and ambition but soon find their ambition falls ( Beaupre, 2022), hindered by a lack of satisfaction with cultures of leadership at some levels and by expected costs to their personal life. Higher psychological capital such as optimism, hope, resilience, self-efficacy, along with intrinsic motivation, acts as a protective factor for mental health and performance among women doctoral students ( Deroncele-Acosta et al., 2025; Round et al., 2024). Across contexts (Nepal, Vietnam, Chile), education, continuous learning, performance, and family/mentor support underpin women’s career mobility and persistence in demanding fields ( Gómez-Arízaga et al., 2025; Thaiduong, 2025; Adhikary & Shrestha, 2023; Damaske & Frech, 2016). Women’s leadership trajectories are strongly shaped by early leader identity, accumulated human capital, and psychological resources like self-efficacy and resilience, all reinforced by developmental relationships.

3.2.4 Unlocking potential: Diversity initiatives & empowerment strategies (Yellow Cluster)

Research on “unlocking potential” centers on how concrete policies, programs, and beliefs can either dismantle or quietly reinforce the glass ceiling. Reviews stress that unconscious bias, glass ceiling beliefs, and masculine leadership norms continue to shape recruitment, promotion, and culture, so one-off diversity actions are insufficient ( Kumari & Kaur, 2025; Thakur, 2025; Thelma & Ngulube, 2024; Galsanjigmed & Sekiguchi, 2023; Lyan et al., 2025). Effective strategies must go beyond token female board quotas toward deep cultural change, transparent promotion, and strict anti-discrimination enforcement ( Kumari & Kaur, 2025; Thakur, 2025; Lyan et al., 2025). Formal, women-focused mentoring is repeatedly identified as a core empowerment tool, building self-advocacy, access to stretch roles, and a pipeline of female talent ( Thelma & Ngulube, 2024; Groves, 2021; Rampersad, 2024; Dashper, 2020; Mathetha & Dhanpat, 2025). In hospitality and academia, long-term mentoring programs both support individual careers and begin to challenge gendered definitions of success and leadership ( Rampersad, 2024; Dashper, 2020). Senior women are “empowerment multipliers”, and inclusive HR programs such as fair staffing, mentoring, pay equity, flexible work and leadership development positively impact on the career mobility of women when they are systematically implemented ( Mathetha & Dhanpat, 2025; Kumari & Kaur, 2025; Aggarwal, 2025 James, 2025). In all sectors, successful empowerment combines changes of structures with human-capital initiatives, and strong impact derives from accountability and deep cultural change rather than symbolic exercises in diversity ( Hamzaoui et al., 2025; Al-Naqbi & Aderibigbe, 2024; Mehmood, 2025; Maheshwari & Nayak, 2020).

4. Conceptual framework

This study proposes an integrative Antecedents–Decisions–Outcomes (ADO) framework to systematically explain the multi-level drivers of the glass ceiling, linking structural and institutional conditions (antecedents) with organizational and individual career choices (decisions) to their resultant leadership and equity outcomes ( Table 1 and Figure 8).

Table 1. ADO framework for understanding the glass ceiling in leadership.

ADO component Dimensions Key elements Illustrative insights from literature
Antecedents Institutional & structural conditions Gender norms, societal expectations, labor market segmentation, policy gaps Persistent gender norms and institutional biases continue to shape unequal access to leadership roles, reinforcing systemic barriers ( Eagly & Karau, 2002; Ridgeway, 2011; Heilman, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2023; UN Women, 2022).
Regulatory frameworks and diversity mandates Weak enforcement of gender equality policies limits their effectiveness in addressing leadership disparities ( Terjesen et al., 2016; Post & Byron, 2015; OECD, 2020).
Organizational structures Gendered organizational cultures, glass ceiling effects, lack of mentorship Organizational hierarchies and informal networks perpetuate exclusion from leadership pipelines ( Cotter et al., 2001; Ibarra et al., 2013; Ely et al., 2011; Catalyst, 2020).
Pay gaps and promotion biases Women face slower career progression due to implicit bias and unequal evaluation standards ( Blau & Kahn, 2017; Castilla & Benard, 2010; Correll et al., 2007).
Individual-level factors Career aspirations, self-efficacy, identity constraints Gendered socialization affects leadership ambition and confidence levels ( Bandura, 1997; Hoyt & Murphy, 2016; Sandberg, 2013).
Work–life balance pressures Care responsibilities disproportionately affect women’s career continuity ( Hochschild & Machung, 2012; Goldin, 2014; Bianchi & Milkie, 2010).
Decisions Organizational decisions Hiring, promotion, leadership selection criteria Organizational decision-making often reflects unconscious bias, limiting women’s advancement ( Rivera, 2017; Bohnet, 2016; Kalev et al., 2006).
Diversity policies and inclusion strategies Firms adopting structured diversity programs show improved gender representation ( Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011).
Strategic human resource & leadership development Mentorship, sponsorship, training programs Leadership development initiatives enhance women’s advancement opportunities ( Ibarra et al., 2010; Ragins & Kram, 2007; Allen et al., 2004).
Flexible work arrangements Flexible policies influence retention and career progression decisions ( Kossek et al., 2011; Kelly et al., 2014).
Individual career decisions Career choices, negotiation behavior, mobility Women’s career decisions are shaped by perceived barriers and opportunity structures ( Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Ng et al., 2005; Sullivan & Mainiero, 2008).
Leadership identity development Identity formation influences pursuit of leadership roles ( Ely et al., 2011; Lord & Hall, 2005).
Outcomes Career outcomes Leadership representation, promotion rates, wage equity Gender disparities persist in executive roles and compensation ( Bertrand & Hallock, 2001; Blau & Kahn, 2017; Catalyst, 2023).
Career advancement and glass ceiling persistence Despite progress, invisible barriers continue to limit upward mobility ( Cotter et al., 2001; Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Organizational outcomes Diversity performance, innovation, firm performance Gender-diverse leadership enhances innovation and financial outcomes ( Post & Byron, 2015; Dezső & Ross, 2012; Hunt et al., 2020).
Organizational culture transformation Inclusive practices improve employee engagement and retention ( Shore et al., 2011; Nishii, 2013).
Societal outcomes Gender equality, economic participation, social inclusion Increased female leadership contributes to broader societal equity ( World Bank, 2022; UN Women, 2022).
Sustainable development and governance outcomes Gender-inclusive leadership aligns with SDG 5 and governance improvements ( UNDP, 2021; OECD, 2020).
Open in a new tab

Source: Author’s own

Figure 8. ADO framework for understanding the glass ceiling in leadership.

Figure 8.

Open in a new tab

5. Conclusion

This study shows that the literature on glass ceiling is an emerging interdisciplinary field and is based on four interrelated topics: structural inequalities; organizational mechanisms; human aspects and empowerment strategies; but divided through institutional, geographical canyons. The theoretical bases are still in classical paradigms, and the connexion of new thoughts about intersectionality, sectorial dynamics and digital transformation is sparse. Research networks have a global bias toward developed economies (USA, UK, India, China, Germany, Spain and Italy) and Western journals creating blind spots about gender-specific career barriers in African, Latin American and developing Asian settings. By combining knowledge domain visualization with thematic integration and proposing an ADO-based conceptual framework, this study offers a comprehensive synthesis of contemporary glass ceiling scholarship. The dominance of management-oriented literature implies glass ceiling is mainly pictured as an organizational issue that needs HR solutions and may therefore underestimate sociological, psychological, and systemic level considerations.

6. Future scope

Future research should prioritize six underexplored areas:

  • (i)

    Intersectionality and intersectional glass ceilings: Most research treats “women” as homogeneous. Subsequent research should investigate the intersection of race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, disability, immigration status and nationality on gender-specific career barriers. How do intersectional oppressions frame distinct pathways to and through leadership?

  • (ii)

    Sectoral-Specific Occupational and Industrial Dynamics: The literature has still not provided detailed comparative sector level studies. Deep dives into gender dynamics within emerging fields (digital tech, renewables, AI) versus established strongholds (finance, military, construction) would elucidate the ways in which sector conditions shape barriers and remedies.

  • (iii)

    Digital Transformation and Remote Work: Post-pandemic transitions into hybrid/remote, the growing importance of digital platforms and AI, as well as evolving organizational setups reshape career contextual factors. To what extent do these technologies support or complicate traditional glass ceilings?

  • (iv)

    Global South/Non-Western Contexts: The research focus is overwhelmingly biased in favour of North America, Western Europe and advanced Asian economies. Research on women’s careers in Africa, South America, South Asia and Southeast Asia would reveal how colonialism, economic patterns and cultural norms have produced gendered barriers distinct to each place.

  • (v)

    Integration of Structural-Cultural-Psychological Models: We suggest that future research expand beyond disciplinary boundaries in developing models to theorize about how structural, organizational, cultural, and individual social/psychological factors together interact with and respond to one another to influence women’s career pathways.

  • (vi)

    Longitudinal and Life-Course Perspectives: Most research is cross-sectional. Longitudinal designs following women across career transitions, life stages, and organizational contexts would reveal how barriers accumulate, how critical periods operate, and how interventions have sustained impact.

7. Implications

Theoretically, this study is one of the first calling for integrated (i.e., multi-level and longitudinal) frameworks addressing intersectionality and critical perspectives to examine glass ceiling dynamics; and practically by showing that meaningful progress awaits systemic organizational changes instead of attitude or implementer based diversity changes. Transparent processes for promotion and pay need to be embedded in institutions with flexible career structures, inclusive cultures and mentoring and development of leadership ongoing while cohesive legislative, institutional, educational and cultural interventions are designed by policy makers; some of which could involve legislation on pay transparency or support for childcare or gender audits or accountability mechanisms to achieve long-term gender equity.

8. Limitations

This study is limited by its reliance on Scopus-indexed, English-language journal articles (2015–2025), potentially biasing findings toward mainstream and developed-country scholarship and excluding gray literature and historical depth. Additionally, disciplinary coverage may be incomplete, and the thematic clusters reflect interpretive synthesis rather than a definitive or deterministic framework.

Funding Statement

The authors offer special gratitude to INTI International University for the opportunity to conduct research and publish the research work. In particular, the authors would like to thank INTI International University for funding the publication of this research work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Data availability

This work contains the following Underlying data

Repository name: Zenodo.

Title of project - Beyond the Transparent Barrier, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19591397

( Tyagi & Singh, 2026).

The project contains the following underlying data:

  • •

    Glass Ceiling CSV scopus_export_Jan 21-2026_73fc7287-c9e9-48a8-93b9-0198482e15cd.csv (Raw data)

License: Data is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

This work does not contain any Extended data.

References

  1. Adhikary J, Shrestha B: Human capital as enabler of career success: perceptions of nepali women executives. J Bus Manag Res. 2023;5:1–19. 10.3126/jbmr.v5i1-2.58564 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aggarwal S: The impact of hr policies on women's career progression and leadership roles in corporate organizations. J Informatics Educ Res. 2025. 10.52783/jier.v5i1.1963 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Naqbi S, Aderibigbe S: Advancing women’s leadership in united arab emirates higher education: perspectives from emirati women. Educ. Sci. 2024;14. 10.3390/educsci14091002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen TD, Eby LT, Poteet ML, et al. : Career benefits associated with mentoring. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004;89(1):127–136. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Alshdiefat A, Lee A, Sharif A, et al. : Women in leadership of higher education: critical barriers in Jordanian universities. Cogent Educ. 2024;11. 10.1080/2331186x.2024.2357900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Babcock L, Laschever S: Women don’t ask. Princeton University Press;2003. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura A: Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman;1997. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barone C, Assirelli G: Gender segregation in higher education: an empirical test of seven explanations. High. Educ. 2019;79:55–78. 10.1007/s10734-019-00396-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beaupre J: To lead or not to lead: exploring how young women’s early career experiences impact their leadership ambition. Gender in Management: An International Journal. 2022;37:1064–1079. 10.1108/gm-11-2021-0344 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bertrand M, Hallock KF: The gender gap in top corporate jobs. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2001;55(1):3–21. 10.1177/001979390105500101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bianchi SM, Milkie MA: Work and family research. J. Marriage Fam. 2010;72(3):705–725. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Blau FD, Kahn LM: The gender wage gap. J. Econ. Lit. 2017;55(3):789–865. 10.1257/jel.20160995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bohnet I: What works: Gender equality by design. Harvard University Press;2016. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brue K, Brue S: Leadership role identity construction in women's leadership development programs. J Leadersh Educ. 2018;17:7–27. 10.12806/v17/i1/c2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Castilla EJ, Benard S: The paradox of meritocracy. Adm. Sci. Q. 2010;55(4):543–676. 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Catalyst: Women in leadership. 2020. Reference Source
  17. Catalyst: Women in leadership statistics. 2023.
  18. Ceci S, Kahn S, Williams W: Exploring gender bias in six key domains of academic science: An adversarial collaboration. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest. 2023;24:15–73. 10.1177/15291006231163179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Çitil E: Women in working life and overview of studies on thıs theme with ”glass ceiling” concept. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022. 10.52642/susbed.1153160 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Correll SJ, Benard S, Paik I: Getting a job. Am. J. Sociol. 2007;112(5):1297–1338. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cotter DA, Hermsen JM, Ovadia S, et al. : The glass ceiling effect. Soc. Forces. 2001;80(2):655–681. 10.1353/sof.2001.0091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Crimmins G, Casey S, Tsouroufli M: Intersectional barriers to women’s advancement in higher education institutions rewarded for their gender equity plans. Gend. Educ. 2023;35:653–670. 10.1080/09540253.2023.2238737 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Damaske S, Frech A: Women’s work pathways across the life course. Demography. 2016;53:365–391. 10.1007/s13524-016-0464-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dashper K: Mentoring for gender equality: Supporting female leaders in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020;88:102397. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Deroncele-Acosta Á, Norabuena-Figueroa R, Norabuena-Figueroa E: Women’s mental health in the doctoral context: Protective function of the psychological capital and academic motivation. Womens Health. 2025;21. 10.1177/17455057251315318 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dezső CL, Ross DG: Does female representation improve firm performance?. Strateg. Manag. J. 2012;33(9):1072–1089. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dixon S, Niewoehner-Green J, Smulowitz S, et al. : Girls’ and young women’s leader identity development: a scoping review. Gend Manag Int J. 2023;38:896–924. 10.1108/gm-03-2022-0108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dobbin F, Kalev A: Why diversity programs fail. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2016;94(7–8):52–60.27491195 [Google Scholar]
  29. Eagly AH, Carli LL: Through the labyrinth. Harvard Business School Press;2007. [Google Scholar]
  30. Eagly AH, Karau SJ: Role congruity theory. Psychol. Rev. 2002;109(3):573–598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ely RJ, Ibarra H, Kolb DM: Taking gender into account. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2011;10(3):474–493. [Google Scholar]
  32. Eslen-Ziya H, Yildirim T: Perceptions of gendered-challenges in academia: How women academics see gender hierarchies as barriers to achievement. Gend. Work. Organ. 2021. 10.1111/gwao.12744 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fontanella L, Sarra A, Di Zio S: Do gender differences in social institutions matter in shaping gender equality in education and the labour market? empirical evidences from developing countries. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019;147:133–158. 10.1007/s11205-019-02148-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Francis V: What influences professional women’s career advancement in construction?. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2017;35:254–275. 10.1080/01446193.2016.1277026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gaiaschi C: Spaces of female “agency” and emerging patterns of intersectional inequality: gender, class and partnership status in academic capitalism. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 2025;1–16. 10.1108/edi-01-2025-0058 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Galsanjigmed E, Sekiguchi T: Challenges women experience in leadership careers: an integrative review. Merits. 2023;3:366–389. 10.3390/merits3020021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ganiyu R, Oluwafemi A, Ademola A, et al. : The glass ceiling conundrum: illusory belief or barriers that impede women’s career advancement in the workplace. 2018;3:137–166. 10.1344/jesb2018.1.j040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldin C: A grand gender convergence. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014;104(4):1091–1119. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gómez-Arízaga M, Navarro M, Martin A, et al. : Mapping the trajectories of women in astronomy: influences and milestones in talent development. Gift. Child Q. 2025;69:109–129. 10.1177/00169862241307668 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Grangeiro R, Rodrigues M, Silva L, et al. : Scientific metaphors and female representativeness in leadership positions: a bibliometric analysis. Revista Psicologia : Organizações & Trabalho. 2021a. 10.17652/rpot/2021.1.19839 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Grangeiro R, Silva L, Esnard C: I broke the glass ceiling, now what? Overview of metaphors to explain gender inequality in organizations. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2021b;30:1523–1537. 10.1108/ijoa-07-2020-2281 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Groves T: Establishing mentoring programs for the advancement of women in the workplace. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. 2021;33:66–69. 10.1002/nha3.20342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hamzaoui O, Boissier F, Teixera C, et al. : Promoting women's careers in life science and medicine: A position paper from the "International Women in Intensive Medicine" network. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2025;134:89–95. 10.1016/j.ejim.2025.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Heilman ME: Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 2012;32:113–135. 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hirayama M, Fernando S: Organisational barriers to and facilitators for female surgeons’ career progression: a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2018;111:324–334. 10.1177/0141076818790661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hochschild AR, Machung A: The second shift. Penguin;2012. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hoyt CL, Murphy SE: Managing gender bias. Leadersh. Q. 2016;27(3):387–399. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hunt V, Prince S, Dixon-Fyle S, et al. : Diversity wins. McKinsey;2020. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ibarra H, Carter NM, Silva C: Why men still get more promotions. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2010;88(9):80–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ibarra H, Ely R, Kolb D: Women rising. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2013;91(9):60–66. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jackson J, O'Callaghan E: What do we know about glass ceiling effects? A taxonomy and critical review to inform higher education Research. Res. High. Educ. 2009;50:460–482. 10.1007/s11162-009-9128-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. James J: Breaking the glass ceiling: a qualitative study on gender-based career advancement barriers across job sectors. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. 2025;7. 10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i02.43104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Kalev A, Dobbin F, Kelly E: Best practices or best guesses?. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2006;71(4):589–617. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kelly EL, Moen P, Tranby E: Changing workplaces. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2014;79(3):485–516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Khan A, Khan N: Impact of glass ceiling effect on women career success with the mediating role of work family conflict and moderating role of perceived organizational support in pakistan. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences. 2022. 10.55549/epess.1221484 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Khan M, Sulaiman R, Nazir O, et al. : The unseen in the glass ceilings: examining women’s career advancement in higher education institutions through a multi-level institutional lens. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2024;28:799–826. 10.1080/13678868.2024.2342762 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kossek EE, Lewis S, Hammer LB: Work–life initiatives. Hum. Relat. 2011;63(1):3–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Kumari P, Kaur H: Breaking the glass ceiling a case study on human resource practices for women's career progression in india 2015 to 2024. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. 2025;7. 10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i03.45127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Lee J, Tackett S, Skarupski K, et al. : Inspiring and preparing our future leaders: Evaluating the impact of the early career women’s leadership program. Journal of Healthcare Leadership. 2024;16:287–302. 10.2147/jhl.s470538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Lord RG, Hall RJ: Identity and leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2005;16(4):591–615. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lyan Z, Nietalina G, Karabchuk T: The impact of gender barriers on career advancement of women managers. Statistika, učet i audit. 2025;97:242–254. 10.51579/1563-2415.2025.-2.18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Maheshwari G, Nayak R: Women leadership in Vietnamese higher education institutions: An exploratory study on barriers and enablers for career enhancement. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2020;50:758–775. 10.1177/1741143220945700 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Maheshwari M, Lenka U: An integrated conceptual framework of the glass ceiling effect. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance. 2022;9:372–400. 10.1108/joepp-06-2020-0098 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Martínez-Fierro S, Sancho M: Descriptive Elements and Conceptual Structure of Glass Ceiling Research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18. 10.3390/ijerph18158011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Martínez-Martínez M, Molina-López M, De Cabo R, et al. : Awakenings: An authentic leadership development program to break the glass ceiling. Sustainability. 2021;13. 10.3390/su13137476 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Mathetha K, Dhanpat N: A view from the top: how South African women leaders shatter the glass ceiling. Front. Sociol. 2025;10. 10.3389/fsoc.2025.1601448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Mehmood A: Transformational leadership and gender diversity: A mixed-methods study on the effectiveness of women in u.s. fortune 500 companies. The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations. 2025;07:30–38. 10.37547/tajmei/volume07issue03-05 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mohamed F, Elsaid A, Ela G: The glass ceiling phenomenon: A review of literature and a theoretical perspective. The Business and Management Review. 2023. 10.24052/bmr/v14nu02/art-20 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Naseviciute L, Jucevičienė R: Overcoming the barriers to women's career in information and communication technology business. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 2023;43:23–40. 10.1108/edi-09-2022-0265 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Naz M, Mumtaz F, Khan R, et al. : Breaking the glass ceiling: a comparative study of women's career progression in public and private sector universities in district faisalabad. Journal for Social Science Archives. 2025. 10.59075/jssa.v3i2.251 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Ng TW, Eby LT, Sorensen KL, et al. : Career success. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005;67(3):367–389. [Google Scholar]
  72. Nishii LH: Inclusive climate. Acad. Manag. J. 2013;56(6):1754–1774. [Google Scholar]
  73. Nkosi N, Maphalala M: Advancing gender equity in higher education Research. African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies. 2025;7:1–14. 10.51415/ajims.v7i1.1652 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. O’Connor P: Why is it so difficult to reduce gender inequality in male-dominated higher educational organizations? A feminist institutional perspective. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2020;45:207–228. 10.1080/03080188.2020.1737903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. O’Keefe T, Courtois A: ‘Not one of the family’: Gender and precarious work in the neoliberal university. Gend. Work. Organ. 2019. 10.1111/gwao.12346 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. OECD: Gender equality report. 2020.
  77. Offermann L, Thomas K, Lanzo L, et al. : Achieving leadership and success: A 28-year follow-up of college women leaders. Leadersh. Q. 2020;31:101345. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101345 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Petelin A, Todorov D, Sadeh H: A grounded theory exploration of workplace culture and mentorship: Advancing women’s career growth and retention in construction. EPiC Series in Built Environment. 2025. 10.29007/gkq9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Post C, Byron K: Women on boards. Acad. Manag. J. 2015;58(5):1546–1571. [Google Scholar]
  80. Purcell D, MacArthur K, Samblanet S: Gender and the glass ceiling at work. Sociol. Compass. 2010;4:705–717. 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Ragins BR, Kram KE: The handbook of mentoring. Sage;2007. [Google Scholar]
  82. Rampersad R: Breaking the glass ceiling: mentoring as support for african women’s academic career trajectories. African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies. 2024. 10.51415/ajims.v6i1.1423 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Ridgeway CL: Framed by gender. Oxford University Press;2011. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755776.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rivera LA: When two bodies are (not) a problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2017;82(6):1117–1143. [Google Scholar]
  85. Rosa R, Clavero S: Gender equality in higher education and research. J. Gend. Stud. 2021;31:1–7. 10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Round H, Yamao S, Shao B, et al. : Fostering psychological capital self-efficacy in emerging female leaders: Practical insights from an international leadership development program. Organ. Dyn. 2024;53:101085. 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Sandberg S: Lean in. Knopf;2013. [Google Scholar]
  88. Saville N, Uppal R, Odunga S, et al. : Pathways to leadership: what accounts for women’s (in) equitable career paths in the health sectors in India and Kenya? A scoping review. BMJ Glob. Health. 2024;9. 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Shore LM, et al. : Inclusion and diversity. Aust. J. Manag. 2011;37(4):1262–1289. [Google Scholar]
  90. Shrestha I: Glass ceiling and career development of women in Nepalese financial institutions. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2025;23:371–383. 10.21511/ppm.23(2).2025.26 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Shrestha I, Dahal R, Ghimire B, et al. : Invisible barriers: Effects of glass ceiling on women’s career progression in Nepalese commercial banks. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2023;21:605–616. 10.21511/ppm.21(4).2023.45 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Sullivan SE, Mainiero LA: Kaleidoscope careers. Career Dev. Int. 2008;13(3):284–302. [Google Scholar]
  93. Tan X, Harun M, Hassan N: Gender gaps in higher education from the perspective of returns to education: A systematic literature review. Multidisciplinary Reviews. 2025;9. 10.31893/multirev.2026233 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Tešanović S, Tešanović S, Tešanović S: Obstacles of women managers in their careers: The glass ceiling phenomenon. XIX International May Conference on Strategic Management – IMCSM24 Proceedings - zbornik radova. 2024. 10.5937/imcsm24038t [DOI]
  95. Thaiduong N: Navigating male-dominated industries: factors in the career development of women leaders in Vietnamese manufacturing and technology. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2025;12. 10.1057/s41599-025-05321-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Thakur M: Shattering the glass ceiling: barriers and breakthroughs for women in leadership. J Inf Educ Res. 2025. 10.52783/jier.v5i2.2973 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Thakurathi S: Perceived organizational barriers to women’s career advancement in nepal. Nepalese Journal of Business. 2025;12:122–136. 10.3126/njb.v12i3.84466 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Thelma C, Ngulube L: Women in leadership: Examining barriers to women's advancement in leadership positions. Asian J Adv Res Rep. 2024;18:273–290. 10.9734/ajarr/2024/v18i6671 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Todak N, Huff J, Lavender L: Work-life balance & career advancement for women in policing: A mixed methods study. Fem. Criminol. 2025. 10.1177/15570851251367723 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Torres A, Barbosa-Silva L, Oliveira-Silva L, et al. : The impact of motherhood on women’s career progression: A scoping review of evidence-based interventions. Behav. Sci. 2024;14. 10.3390/bs14040275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Tyagi PK, Singh PK: Beyond the Transparent Barrier.[Data set]. Zenodo. 2026. 10.5281/zenodo.19591397 [DOI]
  102. Terjesen, Ruth V. Aguilera, Ruth Lorenz: Legislating a woman's seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016;128(2):233–251. 10.1007/s10551-014-2083-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. UN Women: Progress on gender equality. 2022.
  104. UNDP: Human development report. 2021.
  105. Vohlídalová M: The Segmentation of the Academic Labour Market and Gender, Field, and Institutional Inequalities. Soc Inclus. 2021;9:163–174. 10.17645/si.v9i3.4190 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Wieczorek-Szymańska A: Gender Diversity in Academic Sector—Case Study. Adm Sci. 2020;10:41. 10.3390/admsci10030041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Winslow S, Davis S: Gender Inequality Across the Academic Life Course. Sociol. Compass. 2016;10:404–416. 10.1111/soc4.12372 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. World Bank: Women, business and the law. 2022. 10.1596/978-1-4648-1817-2 [DOI]
  109. World Economic Forum: Global gender gap report. 2023.
  110. Yousaf R, Schmiede R: Barriers to women’s representation in academic excellence and positions of power. Asian J. Ger. Eur. Stud. 2017;2:1–13. 10.1186/s40856-017-0013-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Zheng H, Weeden K: How gender segregation in higher education contributes to gender segregation in the U.S. labor market. Demography. 2023;60:761–784. 10.1215/00703370-10653728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2026 Jul 2. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.198896.r497561

Reviewer response for version 1

Aditya Ranjan 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE

This manuscript offers a PRISMA-guided systematic literature review combined with bibliometric and thematic analysis of research on the glass ceiling and gender-based professional barriers. Drawing on 186 peer-reviewed articles indexed in Scopus over the period 2015–2025, the authors employ bibliographic coupling, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence mapping using VOSviewer to examine the intellectual structure of the field. The study identifies four major thematic areas: gender inequality in academic and labor markets; organizational mechanisms and career pathways; leadership development and career identity; and diversity initiatives and empowerment strategies. Building on these findings, the authors propose an integrative Antecedents–Decisions–Outcomes (ADO) framework to synthesize multi-level drivers and consequences of the glass ceiling phenomenon.

Clarity, Accuracy, and Literature Review

Answer: Yes

The manuscript is clearly written overall and presents its arguments in a logical sequence from background to methodology, results, and conceptual synthesis. The topic is timely, relevant, and well contextualized within the broader literature on gender inequality, leadership, and career advancement. The review draws on a substantial body of literature and demonstrates good familiarity with the field’s major concepts and debates.

At the same time, the manuscript would benefit from more careful language editing. Several sections, particularly in the thematic analysis, contain repetitive phrasing and occasional grammatical awkwardness that detract from readability. The literature review is broad and current, but in some places, it becomes descriptive rather than critically integrative. A tighter synthesis of the most influential conceptual and empirical contributions would strengthen the scholarly contribution.

Study Design and Technical Soundness

Answer: Yes

The study design is appropriate for the objectives stated. A PRISMA-guided systematic review combined with bibliometric mapping is a sound approach for identifying research clusters, intellectual foundations, and thematic evolution in an established and expanding field. The use of bibliographic coupling, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence is methodologically suitable for domain visualization. The three-part analytical structure systematic screening, bibliometric analysis, and thematic interpretation is coherent and well aligned with the research aims. The proposal of an ADO-based framework is also a useful attempt to integrate findings across structural, organizational, and individual levels. Overall, the study design is technically robust and appropriate to the nature of the inquiry.

Methods and Replicability

Answer: Yes

The methods are described with reasonable clarity and appear sufficient for replication at a basic level. The authors specify the database used, the time frame, the language restriction, the article type, and the key terms employed in the search. The use of PRISMA screening and the application of VOSviewer are both clearly stated. The availability of underlying data through Zenodo is a notable strength and supports transparency. However, the methodological section would benefit from greater detail regarding the exact search syntax, the number of records excluded at each screening stage, and the specific VOSviewer settings used to generate the network maps. Providing these details would improve reproducibility and methodological rigor.

Statistical Analysis (if applicable)

Answer: Not applicable

The manuscript does not involve conventional statistical testing. The bibliometric mapping and thematic synthesis are appropriate for the review’s objectives and do not require inferential statistical analysis. The analytical approach is suitable and consistent with the study design.

Data Availability and Reproducibility

Answer: Yes

The manuscript includes a clear data availability statement and indicates that the dataset is deposited in Zenodo. This is a significant strength. The availability of the Scopus export file and the associated license improves transparency and enables independent verification or extension of the analysis. The study thus demonstrates a commendable commitment to open research practices.

Validity of Conclusions

Answer: Yes

The conclusions are generally supported by the results. The thematic clusters identified in the manuscript are consistent with the bibliometric evidence, and the proposed ADO framework is a reasonable conceptual synthesis of the field. The authors also identify several important gaps, including the limited attention to intersectionality, sector-specific variation, and underrepresentation of Global South contexts. The future research agenda is logical and relevant, and it follows from the patterns observed in the review. While some claims could be phrased more cautiously given the interpretive nature of bibliometric synthesis, the conclusions are largely valid and appropriately grounded in the data.

Final Assessment

This manuscript makes a useful and timely contribution to the literature on glass ceiling research. Its principal strengths are the combination of systematic review and bibliometric methods, the transparent data availability, and the attempt to develop a higher-level conceptual framework. The main limitations concern language quality, some repetition in the narrative, and the need for fuller methodological reporting. Overall, the manuscript is suitable for indexing after minor revision, with attention to language polishing, tightening of the synthesis, and additional methodological clarification.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Tourism and Hospitality

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2026 Jun 12. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.198896.r490120

Reviewer response for version 1

Mahesh Uniyal 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE

This manuscript presents a PRISMA-guided systematic bibliometric and thematic review examining the intellectual landscape of glass ceiling research on gender-based professional barriers. The authors analyzed 186 peer-reviewed publications from the Scopus database spanning 2015-2025, employing PRISMA screening alongside VOSviewer software for bibliometric analysis. The study addresses two primary research objectives: (1) Identify intellectual structures through bibliographic coupling, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence; (2) Highlight underexplored areas and propose future research directions. The analysis reveals dominant contributions from USA, UK, India, China with four thematic clusters: Gender Inequality in Academic/Labor Markets, Organizational Mechanisms & Career Pathways, Leadership Development & Career Identity, and Diversity Initiatives & Empowerment Strategies. The manuscript contributes an Antecedents-Decisions-Outcomes (ADO) conceptual framework synthesizing multi-level glass ceiling drivers.

  1. Clarity, Accuracy, and Literature Review

Answer: ☐ Yes

The manuscript is clearly and accurately presented. The authors have structured the paper logically from introduction through bibliometric findings, thematic analysis, to conceptual framework. Language is precise with key concepts (glass ceiling, ADO framework) well explained. The literature review is comprehensive, citing 186 relevant studies across management, sociology, and gender studies from 2015-2025. References are current and highlight field evolution from organizational barriers to intersectional approaches. However, repetitive citations in thematic sections slightly reduce readability.

  1. Study Design and Technical Soundness

Answer: ☐ Yes

The study design is appropriate for objectives. PRISMA systematic review combined with bibliometric analysis (bibliographic coupling, co-citation, keyword co-occurrence) using VOSviewer is technically robust and well-suited for intellectual mapping. Three-phase approach (PRISMA→bibliometric→thematic synthesis) comprehensively addresses research questions. ADO framework development logically follows findings. Methodology ensures reliability across global collaboration patterns and thematic evolution.

  1. Methods and Replicability

Answer: ☐ Yes

Authors provide sufficient methodological details for replication. PRISMA screening from Scopus (2015-2025, English peer-reviewed, glass ceiling keywords) clearly explained with inclusion/exclusion criteria. VOSviewer analyses (bibliographic coupling of countries/documents/sources, co-citation of authors/sources, keyword co-occurrence) well-described. Search strategy, database, timeframe, and tools enable replication. Zenodo dataset availability confirms transparency.

  1. Statistical Analysis (if applicable)

Answer: ☐ Not applicable

Study employs bibliometric network analysis via VOSviewer rather than traditional statistics. Visual cluster mapping and co-occurrence networks appropriate for research design—no hypothesis testing required. Methodologically sound for domain visualization.

  1. Data Availability and Reproducibility

Answer: ☐ Yes

Underlying data fully available via Zenodo repository containing Scopus export CSV (scopus_export_Jan 21-2026). Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license enables verification and extension. Detailed data retrieval process ensures independent reproduction of bibliometric analyses.

  1. Validity of Conclusions

Answer: ☐ Yes

Conclusions adequately supported by results. Four thematic clusters directly derived from keyword co-occurrence (Figure 7). ADO framework synthesizes antecedents (structural biases), decisions (organizational/individual), outcomes (leadership gaps) across bibliometric findings. Identified gaps (Africa/Latin America, intersectionality) reflect country/source analyses. Six future directions logically address disciplinary fragmentation.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Medical & Wellness Tourism, Adventure Tourism, Sustainable Tourism, CBT, Hospitality

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Tyagi PK, Singh PK: Beyond the Transparent Barrier.[Data set]. Zenodo. 2026. 10.5281/zenodo.19591397 [DOI]

    Data Availability Statement

    This work contains the following Underlying data

    Repository name: Zenodo.

    Title of project - Beyond the Transparent Barrier, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19591397

    ( Tyagi & Singh, 2026).

    The project contains the following underlying data:

    • •

      Glass Ceiling CSV scopus_export_Jan 21-2026_73fc7287-c9e9-48a8-93b9-0198482e15cd.csv (Raw data)

    License: Data is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

    This work does not contain any Extended data.

    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES