Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41880287›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Does love in the ivory tower fix the leaky pipeline? How academia's homogamous relationships shape careers.

Antonia Velicu, Manon Fauvelais, Julia Jerke, Heiko Rauhut, Bruno Lemaitre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Antonia VelicuDepartment of Sociology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2172-5671
Manon FauvelaisGlobal Health Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology-Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Julia JerkeSwiss National Science Foundation, Bern, Switzerland.
Heiko RauhutDepartment of Sociology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Bruno LemaitreGlobal Health Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology-Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7970-1667

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The persistent "leaky pipeline", i.e., women remaining underrepresented in advanced academic roles, often links to the adverse impact of parenthood on women's careers compared to men's. This study delves into how the struggle to balance academic success and family life might be pushing female scientists out of academia, and how the less-studied concept of homogamy-here, the forming of heterosexual relationships between individuals with the same profession-influences academic careers. Drawing on data from the 2021 "Academic career, partnership, and family" survey by swissuniversities, this research pursues two objectives: assessing whether homogamous partnerships help mitigating career challenges faced by mothers, and investigating the broader impact of homogamy on academic careers and work-life balance. The findings show that homogamy is common among Swiss scientists. Homogamous women, especially when their partner works in the same institution, perceive parenthood as posing fewer career obstacles. Conversely, male scientists in such relationships state the opposite. Additionally, homogamous couples report benefiting from stimulating discussions and partner support while encountering greater mobility constraints. This research offers insights into how homogamy affects academic careers, providing a nuanced understanding of how academics navigate their pursuit of successful careers alongside personal lives.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceLoveAcademiaFemaleHumansMaleSwitzerlandWork-Life Balance

Identifiers

PMID41880287
PMCPMC13016316

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.