ArticleNature communications2022
Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists.
Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network inequality through preferential attachment, triadic closure, and homophily.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Unequal Scientific Recognition in the Age of LLMs.Findings of ACL. EMNLP. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2025Article
- Gender differences in collaboration and career progression in physics.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Gender and racial diversity socialization in science.Nature computational science · 2025Article
- Trends in self-citation rates in high-impact neurology, neuroscience, and psychiatry journals.eLife · 2025Article
- Increasing research capacity in Canadian community hospitals: an intrinsic descriptive case study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Information and Knowledge Diffusion Dynamics in Complex Networks with Independent Spreaders.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Collective dynamics behind success.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Mid-career pitfall of consecutive success in science.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Underrepresented minority faculty in the USA face a double standard in promotion and tenure decisions.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Elements of successful NIH grant applications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty.Science advances · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While inequalities in science are common, most efforts to understand them treat scientists as isolated individuals, ignoring the network effects of collaboration. Here, we develop models that untangle the network effects of productivity defined as paper counts, and prominence referring to high-impact publications, of individual scientists from their collaboration networks. We find that gendered differences in the productivity and prominence of mid-career researchers can be largely explained by differences in their coauthorship networks. Hence, collaboration networks act as a form of social capital, and we find evidence of their transferability from senior to junior collaborators, with benefits that decay as researchers age. Collaboration network effects can also explain a large proportion of the productivity and prominence advantages held by researchers at prestigious institutions. These results highlight a substantial role of social networks in driving inequalities in science, and suggest that collaboration networks represent an important form of unequally distributed social capital that shapes who makes what scientific discoveries.
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.