Publish or Perish? Assessing Systemic Risk Factors for Nonpublication and Leaving Academia
Le résumé fourni par la source
The leaky pipeline” refers to the phenomenon that it is disproportionally unlikely for women to receive a full professorship or “secure” academic position, compared to men. Especially in the social sciences, where women often constitute a higher share of students and early career researchers, men are more likely to advance to senior positions such as full professorships (Habicht et al., 2025). Recent meta analyses confirm that the dropout rate for women is significantly higher, especially in the first ten years of academic careers (Huang et al., 2020; Kwiek & Szymula, 2024). This discrepancy reflects systemic inequalities that extend beyond academia and are rooted in broader labour market structures and societal expectations. In academia, however, these structural barriers are intensified by the strong pressure on junior and postdoctoral researchers to publish while navigating personal milestones (such as starting a family and settling down) – often under uncertain and temporary work contracts (Habicht, 2023; Ysseldyk et al., 2019). Because academic careers in this early stage often depend on building a name (through citation count) while juggling limited and insecure external funding, the likelihood of “dropping out” at this stage may be even greater than in other sectors of the labour market. In our research, we aim at investigating gender-, and seniority-differences in academic pursue (e.g. remaining or becoming a co-author of a study’s publication), as well as self-referential statements concerning (i) the likelihood to fully write up, submit or resubmit research findings; (ii) productivity as a parent; (iii) perceived pressure to publish; (iv) and personality measures (such as feelings of impostor, grit or risk proneness). Our sample consists of metadata from 178 panel studies with >330 authors, and a subset of these authors that filled out a survey (≈46% of initial sample).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.