ArticleNature human behaviour2024
Underrepresented minority faculty in the USA face a double standard in promotion and tenure decisions.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Re-Envisioning Clinical Science Training: Open Science as One of Many Important Steps.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026Article
- Addressing equity and validity in faculty career advancement.Science advances · 2026Review
- Building a diverse and inclusive plant science community.Journal of experimental botany · 2026Article
- Evaluating multiple candidates simultaneously reduces racial disparities in promotion and tenure.Nature communications · 2026Article
- How to turn "minority tax" into "minority capital".Genetics in medicine open · 2026Review
- Toward a theory of STEM academic departments as racialized organizations.Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
- Composing authorship teams for health equity: an introduction to the health equity research production model.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Gender and racial diversity socialization in science.Nature computational science · 2025Article
- Inclusive mentorship of pediatric trainees: pediatric oncology as a microcosm.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Enhancing equity within the promotions dossier evaluation-Strategies to mitigate biases.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Intentional Strategic Changes in the National Institute on Aging's RCMAR Program: Broadening its Scope and Reach to Strengthen its Impact.The Gerontologist · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Underrepresented minority (URM) faculty face challenges in many domains of academia, from university admissions to grant applications. We examine whether this translates to promotion and tenure (P&T) decisions. Data from five US universities on 1,571 faculty members' P&T decisions show that URM faculty received 7% more negative votes and were 44% less likely to receive unanimous votes from P&T committees. A double standard in how scholarly productivity is rewarded is also observed, with below-average h-indexes being judged more harshly for URM faculty than for non-URM faculty. This relationship is amplified for faculty with intersectional backgrounds, especially URM women. The differential treatment of URM women was mitigated when external reviewers highlighted candidates' scholarship more in their review letters. In sum, the results support the double standard hypothesis and provide evidence that different outcomes in P&T decision-making processes contribute to the sustained underrepresentation of URM faculty in tenured faculty positions.
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.