A new preprint by Marek Kwiek and Łukasz Szymula „Quantifying Lifetime Productivity Changes: A Longitudinal Study of 320,000 Late-Career Scientists” has been published on Arxiv.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16835

Abstract:

The present study focuses on persistence in research productivity over the course of an individual’s entire scientific career. We track 'late-career’ scientists – scientists with at least 25 years of publishing experience (N=320,564) – in 16 STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine) and social science disciplines from 38 OECD countries for up to five decades. Our OECD sample includes 79.42% of late-career scientists globally. We examine the details of their mobility patterns as early-career, mid-career, and late-career scientists between decile-based productivity classes, from the bottom 10% to top 10% of the productivity distribution. Methodologically, we turn a large-scale bibliometric dataset (Scopus raw data) into a comprehensive, longitudinal data source for research on careers in science. The global science system is highly immobile: half of global top performers continue their careers as top performers and one-third of global bottom performers as bottom performers. Jumpers-Up and Droppers-Down are extremely rare in science. The chances of moving radically up or down in productivity classes are marginal (1% or less). Our regression analyses show that productivity classes are highly path dependent: there is a single most important predictor of being a top performer, which is being a top performer at an earlier career stage.

References:

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity. Scientometrics, 81(1), 137–156.

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Soldatenkova, A. (2017). An investigation on the skewness patterns and fractal nature of research productivity distributions at field and discipline level. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 324–335.

Aguinis, H., & O’Boyle, E. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 313–350.

Albarrán, P., Crespo, J. A., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88(2), 385–397.

Allison, P. D. (1980). Inequality and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 10, 163–179.

Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for 1`accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 596–606.

Allison, P. D., Long, J. S., Krauze, T. K. (1982). Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. American Sociological Review, 47(5), 615–625.

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. 10.1162/qss_a_00019

Branch, E.H., ed. (2016). Pathways, potholes, and the persistence of women in science: Reconsidering the pipeline. Lexington Books.

Carrasco, R., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2014). The evolution of the scientific productivity of highly productive economists. Economic Inquiry, 52(1), 1–16.

Clauset, A., Larremore, D. B., & Sinatra, R. (2017). Data-driven predictions in the science of science. Science, 355, 477–480.

Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. The University of Chicago Press.

Costas, R, Bordons, M. (2007). A classificatory scheme for the analysis of bibliometric profiles at the micro level. In Proceedings of ISSI 2007: 11th international conference of the ISSI (Vols I and II, pp. 226–230). CSIC, Madrid.

Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2010). Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics, 82, 517–537.

Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30(5), 699–714.

David, P. A. (1994). Positive feedbacks and research productivity in science: Reopening another black box. In O. Granstrand (Ed.), Economics of technology (pp. 65–89). Elsevier.

DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1), 271–297.

Dusdal, J., & Powell, J. J. W. (2021). Benefits, motivations, and challenges of international collaborative research: A sociology of science case study. Science and Public Policy, 48(1), 235–245.

Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.

Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542–571.

Fox, M. F., & Nikivincze, I. (2021). Being highly prolific in academic science: Characteristics of individuals and their departments. Higher Education, 81, 1237–1255.

Geuna, A., & Shibayama, S. (2015). Moving out of academic research: Why do scientists stop doing research? In A. Geuna (Ed.), Global mobility of research scientists (pp. 271–297). Elsevier.

Hammarfelt, B. (2017). Recognition and reward in the academy: Valuing publication oeuvres in biomedicine, economics and history. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 607–623.

Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2018). Publishing and promotion in economics. The tyranny of the Top Five. NBER Working Paper 25093.

Hermanowicz, J. (2012). The sociology of academic careers: Problems and prospects. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 207–248). Springer.

Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2016). The impact of publishing during PhD studies on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Research in Higher Education, 57(1), 28–50.

Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4609–4616.

Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PLOS One, 9(7), e101698.

Jung, J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 85–105.

Karimi, F., Wagner, C., Lemmerich, F., Jadidi, M., & Strohmaier, M. (2016). Inferring gender from names on the web: A comparative evaluation of gender detection methods. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 53–54). Montreal, Canada.

Kelchtermans, S., & Veugelers, R. (2013). Top research productivity and its persistence: Gender as a double-edged sword. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 273–285.

King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius, 3.

Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics across 11 European systems. Higher Education, 71(3), 379–397

Kwiek, M. (2018). High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers? Scientometrics, 115(1), 415–462.

Kwiek, M. (2021). What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: Changing national patterns in global contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2629–2649.

Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2021a). Gender disparities in international research collaboration: A large-scale bibliometric study of 25,000 university professors. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(5), 1344–1388.

Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2021b). Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 1–38.

Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2022). Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: A large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems. Scientometrics, 127, 3543–3575.

Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2024a). Once highly productive, forever highly productive? Full professors’ research productivity from a longitudinal perspective. Higher Education, 87, 519–549.

Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2024b). Are scientists changing their research productivity classes when they move up the academic ladder? Innovative Higher Educatio, Online first, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09735-3.

Kwiek, M., & Szymula, Ł. (2024). Quantifying attrition in science: A cohort-based, longitudinal study of scientists in 38 OECD countries. Higher Education (accepted August 1, 2024), Online first, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01284-0.

Kwiek, M., & Szymula, L. (2023). Young male and female scientists: A quantitative exploratory study of the changing demographics of the global scientific workforce. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 902–937.

Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213.

Latour B. & Woolgar S. (1986) Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.

Leišytė, L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding academic work in changing institutional environment. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 27, 123–206.

Li, W., Aste, T., Caccioli, F., & Livan, G. (2019). Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nature Communications, 10, 5170.

Lindahl, J. (2018). Predicting research excellence at the individual level: The importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 518–533.

Liu, L., Jones, B.F., Uzzi, B., & Wang, D.. (2023). Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 1046–1058.

Lutter, M., & Schröder, M. (2016). Who becomes a tenured professor, and why? Panel data evidence from German sociology, 1980–2013. Research Policy, 45(5), 999–1013.

Ma, Y., Mukherjee, S., & Uzzi, B. (2020). Mentorship and protégé success in STEM fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 14077–14083.

Marginson, S. (2022) What drives global science? The four competing narratives. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1566–1584. 10.1080/03075079.2021.1942822

Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research. Sage.

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.

Ni, C., Smith, E., Yuan, H., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021). The gendered nature of authorship. Science Advances, 7, eabe4639.

Nielsen, M. W., & Andersen, J. P. (2021). Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(7), e2012208118.

Nygaard, L. P., Aksnes, D. W., & Piro, F. N. (2022). Identifying gender disparities in research performance: The importance of comparing apples with apples. Higher Education, 84, 1127–1142.

Preston, A. E. (2004). Leaving science. Occupational exit from scientific careers. Russell Sage Foundation.

Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Orr, R. (2022). OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01833

Rørstad, K., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position – A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 317–333.

Ross, M. B., Glennon, B.M., Murciano-Goroff, R., Berkes, E. G., Weinberg, B. A., & Lane, J.I. (2022). Women are credited less in science than men. Nature, 608, 135–145.

Rowland, D. T. (2014). Demographic methods and concepts. Oxford University Press.

Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Costas, R. (2014). The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 917–934.

Ruspini, E. (1999). Longitudinal research and the analysis of social change. Quality and Quantity, 33(3), 219–227.

Salganik, M. J. (2018). Bit by bit. Social research in a digital age. Princeton University Press.

Santamaría, L., & Mihaljević, H. (2018). Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer Science, 4, e156. https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj- cs.156

Savage, W. E., & Olejniczak, A. J. (2021). Do senior faculty members produce fewer research publications than their younger colleagues? Evidence from Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. Scientometrics, 126, 4659–4686.

Sebo, P. (2021). Performance of gender detection tools: a comparative study of name-to-gender inference services. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 109(3), 414–421.

Sebo, P. (2023). How well does NamSor perform in predicting the country of origin and ethnicity of individuals based on their first and last names? PLOS One, November 16, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294562

Shibayama, S., & Baba, Y. (2015). Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan. Research Policy, 44(4), 936–950.

Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85, 581–594.

Spoon, K. LaBerge, N., Wapman, K. H. , Zhang. S., Morgan. A. C., Galesic. M., Fosdick. B. K., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset. A. (2023). Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty. Science Advances, 9, eadi2205. 10.1126/sciadv.adi2205

Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.

Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. Oxford University Press.

Sugimoto, C., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.

Sugimoto, C., & Larivière, V. (2023). Equity for women in science. Dismantling systemic barriers to advancement. Harvard University Press.

Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2022). Scopus 1900–2020: Growth in articles, abstracts, countries, fields, and journals. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(1), 37–50.

Turner, L., & Mairesse, J. (2005). Individual productivity differences in public research: How important are non-individual determinants? An econometric study of French physicists’ publications and citations (1986–1997). CNRS.

Wagner, C. S. (2018). The collaborative era in science. Governing the network. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wang, D., & Barabási, A.-L. (2021). The science of science. Cambridge University Press.

Wang, Y., Jones, B. F., & Wang, D. (2019). Early career setback and future career impact. Nature Communications, 10, 4331.

Way, S. F., Morgan, A. C., Clauset, A., & Larremore, D. B. (2017). The misleading narrative of the canonical faculty productivity trajectory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), E9216–E9223. 10.1073/pnas.1702121114

Weingart, P. (2004). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences? In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook on quantitative science and technology research (pp. 117–131). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Xie, Y. (2014). ‘Undemocracy’: Inequalities in science. Science, 344(6186), 809–810.

Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Wu, J., Fan, Y., Wang, Y., & Stanley, H. E.  (2017). The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports, 714, 1–73

Zhang, S., Wapman, K. H., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset, A. (2022). Labor advantages drive the greater productivity of faculty at elite universities. Science Advances, 8, eabq7056.