ArticlePLoS biology2016
Differences in Collaboration Patterns across Discipline, Career Stage, and Gender.
Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?PLoS biology · 2018Pooled it
- How the 2025 NIH grant terminations varied by researchers' demographic groups.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Gender shapes the relationship between productivity and journal prestige in science.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Trends in self-citation rates in high-impact neurology, neuroscience, and psychiatry journals.eLife · 2025Article
- The dynamics of leadership and success in software development teams.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Structural roles and gender disparities in corruption networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative research evaluation metrics and their psychological well-being: a cross-sectional study.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2025Article
- Collective dynamics behind success.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2024Article
- Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: evidence across eight scientific fields.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Article
- Middle East Authors' Contribution to theArthroplasty today · 2022Article
- The first six years of meta-research at PLOS Biology.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- A machine learning approach to quantify gender bias in collaboration practices of mathematicians.Frontiers in big data · 2022Article
- Trends of research productivity across author gender and research fields: A multidisciplinary and multi-country observational study.PloS one · 2022Observational
- State of the Practice of Team Science in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Comparing the gender diversity and affiliation trends of the authors for two orthopaedics journals from the Arab world.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Collaboration plays an increasingly important role in promoting research productivity and impact. What remains unclear is whether female and male researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) disciplines differ in their collaboration propensity. Here, we report on an empirical analysis of the complete publication records of 3,980 faculty members in six STEM disciplines at select U.S. research universities. We find that female faculty have significantly fewer distinct co-authors over their careers than males, but that this difference can be fully accounted for by females' lower publication rate and shorter career lengths. Next, we find that female scientists have a lower probability of repeating previous co-authors than males, an intriguing result because prior research shows that teams involving new collaborations produce work with higher impact. Finally, we find evidence for gender segregation in some sub-disciplines in molecular biology, in particular in genomics where we find female faculty to be clearly under-represented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.