Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40771672›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Gender differences in collaboration and career progression in physics.

Mingrong She, Jan Bachmann, Fariba Karimi, Leto Peel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mingrong SheDepartment of Data Analytics and Digitalisation, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5005-3472
Jan BachmannGraz University of Technology, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6153-4714
Fariba KarimiGraz University of Technology, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0037-2475
Leto PeelDepartment of Data Analytics and Digitalisation, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4740-7492

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examine gender differences in collaboration networks and academic career progression in physics. We use the likelihood and time to become a principal investigator (PI) and the length of an author's career to measure career progression. Utilizing logistic regression and accelerated failure time models, we examine whether the effect of collaboration behaviour varies by gender. We find that, controlling for the number of publications, the relationship between collaborative behaviour and career progression is almost the same for men and women. Specifically, we find that those who eventually reach PI status tend to have published with more unique collaborators. In contrast, publishing repeatedly with the same highly interconnected collaborators and/or larger number of co-authors per publication is characteristic of shorter career lengths and not attaining PI status. We observe that women tend to collaborate in more tightly connected and larger groups than men. Finally, we observe that women are less likely to attain the status of PI throughout their careers and have a lower survival probability compared to men, which calls for policies to close this crucial gap.

Indexed as

career progressioncollaboration behaviourego networksgender differencesphysics

Identifiers

PMID40771672
PMCPMC12326087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.