ArticlePloS one2026
An analysis of doctoral prestige and faculty composition in Canadian mechanical engineering programs.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Faculty positions at institutions of higher education are limited resources for which there is a high level of competition. Previous studies have shown that a hierarchy of prestige exists within academia which leads to 80% of those positions being filled by the doctoral graduates from only 20% of institutions. The goal of the current study is to determine whether such a hierarchy also exists within Canadian mechanical engineering programs and to consider other demographic differences within their faculty complements. Information on over 1100 faculty members from the 38 accredited Canadian mechanical engineering programs were gathered from public sources, including their doctoral training institution, their year of graduation, and the name(s) of their faculty advisor(s). It was found that 22% of institutions were responsible for the doctoral training of 78% of faculty members. A PageRank analysis, coupled with k-means clustering, identified four tiers of doctoral prestige and demonstrated that few trainees are hired by a more prestigious institution. For example, only 9% of those trained at a Tier III institution were hired by a Tier II and none by a Tier I institution. Academic advisors also played an important role; 11 unique advisors had five or more of their trainees currently employed in those 38 programs. Only 16.7% of faculty members were female-presenting, lower than the 17.5% proportion of so-called "self-hires" (i.e., those employed by the institution where they did their doctoral training). This study provides analytical tools for quantifying institutional prestige as well as a demographic snapshot of Canadian mechanical engineering faculty that can be used to analyze other fields and jurisdictions. Further research in faculty hiring will benefit students looking to pursue careers in academia, as well as guide those responsible for ensuring equitable hiring practices.
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.