Are Scientists Changing their Research Productivity Classes When They Move Up the Academic Ladder?
Marek Kwiek, Wojciech Roszka

TL;DR
This longitudinal study analyzes career mobility in scientific productivity, revealing that scientists rarely change their productivity classes significantly, with early career performance strongly predicting long-term productivity across STEMM fields.
Contribution
The paper provides new evidence on the long-term stability of scientific productivity classes and the limited mobility between them during academic careers.
Findings
Scientists rarely change productivity classes significantly.
Early career productivity strongly predicts future performance.
High performers tend to remain high performers over time.
Abstract
We approach productivity in science in a longitudinal fashion: We track careers over time, up to 40 years. We first allocate scientists to decile-based publishing productivity classes, from the bottom 10% to the top 10%. Then, we seek patterns of mobility between the classes in two career stages: assistant professorship and associate professorship. Our findings confirm that radically changing publishing productivity levels (upward or downward) almost never happens. Scientists with a very weak past track record in publications emerge as having marginal chances of becoming scientists with a very strong future track record across all science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields. Hence, our research shows a long-term character of careers in science, with publishing productivity during the apprenticeship period of assistant professorship heavily influencing…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHealth and Medical Research Impacts
