ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2021
Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- An interdisciplinary, collaborative CURE to investigate mutagen-sensitive alleles inJournal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
- Gender differences in collaboration and career progression in physics.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Brazilian oral medicine and oral pathology: international scientific collaborations.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules for using large language models in science, version 1.0.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Gender differences, academic patenting, and tenure-track reform in China: Evidence from life sciences at elite universities.PloS one · 2024Article
- Key takeaways for knowledge expansion of early-career scientists conducting Transdisciplinary Research in Energetics and Cancer (TREC): a report from the TREC Training Workshop 2022.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
- Using meta-research to foster diverse, equitable, and inclusive collaborative research networks.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2023Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on the private and professional lives of highly educated women working in global health in Europe-A qualitative study.Frontiers in global women's health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaboration and diversity are increasingly promoted in science. Yet how collaborations influence academic career progression, and whether this differs by gender, remains largely unknown. Here, we use co-authorship ego networks to quantify collaboration behaviour and career progression of a cohort of contributors to biennial International Society of Behavioral Ecology meetings (1992, 1994, 1996). Among this cohort, women were slower and less likely to become a principal investigator (PI; approximated by having at least three last-author publications) and published fewer papers over fewer years (i.e. had shorter academic careers) than men. After adjusting for publication number, women also had fewer collaborators (lower adjusted network size) and published fewer times with each co-author (lower adjusted tie strength), albeit more often with the same group of collaborators (higher adjusted clustering coefficient). Authors with stronger networks were more likely to become a PI, and those with less clustered networks did so more quickly. Women, however, showed a stronger positive relationship with adjusted network size (increased career length) and adjusted tie strength (increased likelihood to become a PI). Finally, early-career network characteristics correlated with career length. Our results suggest that large and varied collaboration networks are positively correlated with career progression, especially for women.
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.