Jonas Lindahl , Rickard Danell , Kaylee Litson , David F. Feldon
{"title":"瑞典博士生研究生产力的性别差异:分位数回归方法","authors":"Jonas Lindahl , Rickard Danell , Kaylee Litson , David F. Feldon","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines the sex productivity gap among doctoral students in Sweden using a comparative design. It focuses particularly on how the gap increases at the higher end of the productivity distribution, with men consistently publishing more than women. The study is based on a large dataset of 10,804 doctoral students who graduated between 2010 and 2019 in the research areas of the natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, and the social sciences. By applying multiple quantile regression analysis, we were able to conduct a nuanced analysis of the sex productivity gap across the whole productivity distribution. Results indicate a consistent productivity gap by sex across all research areas and that the gap increases towards the higher end of the distribution, i.e., the sex differences in productivity increase among the top performers. However, the comparison of research areas revealed some heterogeneity. In engineering and technology, the increasing sex gap levels off in the middle of the distribution but takes a leap at the extreme tail. In the social sciences, the gap peaks just before the extreme end of the distribution and then starts decreasing. The natural sciences and medical and health sciences show a more gradual increase in the gap towards the higher end. Taking into account the Swedish context – with its widespread adoption of the collective model of doctoral education and the thesis-by-publication format – our main conclusions are: (1) there exists a consistent sex productivity gap across all studied research areas, and (2) the increasing sex gap at the upper end of the productivity distribution, commonly seen in later career stages, can already be observed during doctoral studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101702"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sex differences in research productivity among doctoral students in Sweden: A quantile regression approach\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Lindahl , Rickard Danell , Kaylee Litson , David F. Feldon\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101702\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study examines the sex productivity gap among doctoral students in Sweden using a comparative design. It focuses particularly on how the gap increases at the higher end of the productivity distribution, with men consistently publishing more than women. The study is based on a large dataset of 10,804 doctoral students who graduated between 2010 and 2019 in the research areas of the natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, and the social sciences. By applying multiple quantile regression analysis, we were able to conduct a nuanced analysis of the sex productivity gap across the whole productivity distribution. Results indicate a consistent productivity gap by sex across all research areas and that the gap increases towards the higher end of the distribution, i.e., the sex differences in productivity increase among the top performers. However, the comparison of research areas revealed some heterogeneity. In engineering and technology, the increasing sex gap levels off in the middle of the distribution but takes a leap at the extreme tail. In the social sciences, the gap peaks just before the extreme end of the distribution and then starts decreasing. The natural sciences and medical and health sciences show a more gradual increase in the gap towards the higher end. Taking into account the Swedish context – with its widespread adoption of the collective model of doctoral education and the thesis-by-publication format – our main conclusions are: (1) there exists a consistent sex productivity gap across all studied research areas, and (2) the increasing sex gap at the upper end of the productivity distribution, commonly seen in later career stages, can already be observed during doctoral studies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 101702\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725000665\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725000665","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sex differences in research productivity among doctoral students in Sweden: A quantile regression approach
This study examines the sex productivity gap among doctoral students in Sweden using a comparative design. It focuses particularly on how the gap increases at the higher end of the productivity distribution, with men consistently publishing more than women. The study is based on a large dataset of 10,804 doctoral students who graduated between 2010 and 2019 in the research areas of the natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, and the social sciences. By applying multiple quantile regression analysis, we were able to conduct a nuanced analysis of the sex productivity gap across the whole productivity distribution. Results indicate a consistent productivity gap by sex across all research areas and that the gap increases towards the higher end of the distribution, i.e., the sex differences in productivity increase among the top performers. However, the comparison of research areas revealed some heterogeneity. In engineering and technology, the increasing sex gap levels off in the middle of the distribution but takes a leap at the extreme tail. In the social sciences, the gap peaks just before the extreme end of the distribution and then starts decreasing. The natural sciences and medical and health sciences show a more gradual increase in the gap towards the higher end. Taking into account the Swedish context – with its widespread adoption of the collective model of doctoral education and the thesis-by-publication format – our main conclusions are: (1) there exists a consistent sex productivity gap across all studied research areas, and (2) the increasing sex gap at the upper end of the productivity distribution, commonly seen in later career stages, can already be observed during doctoral studies.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.