ArticleScientific reports2026
Gender inequality in academic promotion trajectories in Japan.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite growing awareness of the lack of gender equity in academia, women's disadvantages in many aspects, including academic promotion, remain a persistent issue. Using career-trajectory data for 74,344 researchers from Japan's researchmap platform, this study examines gender inequality in promotion trajectories across two key transitions: PhD to associate professor, and associate professor to full professor. Specifically, we examine how gender gaps in promotion timeline vary across cohorts, disciplines, and career stages, and further assess their associations with career-history and institutional factors. The results show pronounced heterogeneity over time and across fields. Gender disparities in promotion timeline are more significant in early-career transitions than in later transitions, although gaps have narrowed in more recent cohorts. Survival-based robustness checks that account for right-censoring confirm that Stage 1 remains the primary locus of gender inequality, but also indicate that completed-transition comparisons can overstate female advantage in promotion timeline in recent cohorts, especially in STEM. By foregrounding promotion timeline as a core dimension of career stratification, this study discusses how institutional structures and environments differentially shape academic career advancement by gender, providing evidence relevant to Japan and comparable academic systems.
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.