ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Gender pay gaps in the social sciences.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 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
We provide a longitudinal, multifield analysis of the gender pay gap in academia that directly links individual-level salaries to measures of scholarly productivity. Using administrative data from the ten campuses that comprise the University of California system, we combine detailed pay records with bibliometric data on publications and citations for faculty in five major social science fields. We find a raw gender pay gap of 23%, which decreases to 4.3% after controlling for field, campus, and cohort. Including controls for job title and scholarly productivity has little effect on the estimated gap, although they substantially increase explanatory power. A decomposition shows that 17% of the gap is unexplained, persisting across junior and senior faculty. We also find a large, persistent gender gap in publications, but no citation gap once output and career length are considered. Field-level analysis reveals that pay gaps are not universal: They persist in Business, Sociology, and Anthropology, but are absent in Economics, Political Science, and smaller social science fields. Our results suggest that pay transparency is insufficient to eliminate salary disparities and that more equal representation within the field is not a prerequisite for pay equity. Our study isolates the residual gap that remains unexplained by productivity or seniority, challenging the view that these factors fully account for gender pay differences. Taken together, our findings highlight the role of field-specific norms and institutional structures, offering directions to promote equitable compensation in academia.
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.