Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the effects of a scholar’s position and gender on publishing productivity in several types of scientific publications: monographs, articles in journals, articles in edited books, and articles in conference proceedings. The data consist of 1,367 scholars who worked at the University of Helsinki, Finland, during the period 2002–2004. The analysis shows that professors are the most productive, PhDs publish more than non-PhDs, and men perform better than women, also when other scholarly characteristics are controlled for. These differences are greater for monographs and articles in edited books than for articles in journals. In terms of conference proceedings, no remarkable productivity differences were found.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figs. 1–2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Psychology and veterinary medicine at UH have a publishing profile that is similar to that in the medicine. Therefore, they were categorised as fields of medical sciences. Correspondingly, geography was included in social sciences.

References

  • Academy of Finland. (2003). PhDs in Finland: Employment, placement and demand. Publications of the Academy of Finland, 5/03.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

  • Bentley, R., & Blackburn, R. (1992). Two decades of gains for female faculty. Teachers College Record, 93, 697–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18, 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, E. S., Powell, W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995). Careers in print: books, journals and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 433–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. In P. Maehr & M. W. Steinkam (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement 2. Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). Employment in Europe 2002. Recent trends and prospects. Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs Unit, EMPL/A.1. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/employment_analysis/eie/2002_en.pdf.

  • Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 409–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (1991). Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. In H. Zuckerman, J. Cole, & J. Bruer (Eds.), The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. (1985). Men, women, and publication productivity. Sociological Quarterly., 26, 537–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching—a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A., Thijs, B. (2006). Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 68(3), 457–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1999). Bibliometric indicators and the social sciences. Report prepared for UK Economic and Social Research Countries. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/sylvank/pubs/ESRC.pdf.

  • Kota Database. https://kotaplus.csc.fi/online/Etusivu.do.

  • Kyvik, S. (1989). Productivity differences, fields of learning, and Lotka’s law. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (1990a). Age and scientific productivity. Differences between fields of learning. Higher Education, 19, 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (1990b). Motherhood and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 20, 14–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (1991). Productivity in academia. Scientific publishing at Norwegian universities. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1991). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(1), 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 762–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen-Gronow, T., & Stolte-Heiskanen, V. (1983). Myths and realities of role incompatibility of women scientists. Acta Sociologica, 26(3–4), 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness. complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pao, M. (1986). An empirical examination of Lotka’s Law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. de S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Prpic, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puuska, H., Miettinen, M. (2008). Julkaisukäytännöt eri tieteenaloilla. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja. (In English: Publishing practices in different disciplines. Publications of Finnish Ministry of Education).

  • Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, Z. J. (1995). Authorship counts, forty years of the physical review and physical review letters. Scientometrics, 32, 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Finland. (2004). Higher education sector: R&D expenditure and research working years by source of funding and by institution in 2004.

  • Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, K. B., & Grant, L. (1996). Gender and academic publishing. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education, handbook of theory and research (Vol. XI). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ylijoki, O.-H. (2000). Disciplinary cultures and the moral order of studying—a case-study of four Finnish university departments. Higher Education, 39, 339–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanna-Mari Puuska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Puuska, HM. Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics 82, 419–437 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7

Keywords

Navigation