arXiv subjects

Marek Kwiek

Publications and source records attributed to Marek Kwiek.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Nonlinear Journal Prestige Normalized Productivity: Defining and Measuring It

This article introduces Journal Prestige Normalized Productivity (JPNP), a nonlinear, percentile-normalized, and authorship-fractionalized indicator of research productivity. The indicator can be aggregated to the level of disciplines, institutions, and countries. Traditional measures based on publication counts and not normalized by journal prestige do not seem to capture the current hierarchical structure of the global scientific publishing system. JPNP combines: (a) percentile normalization of journal prestige; (b) a convex transformation that strengthens the upper tail of the journal distribution; and (c) authorship fractionalization. JPNP produces a skewed but realistic distribution of productivity, identifies top performers in science more accurately than linear measures, and reduces the noise generated by low-prestige publications. The indicator improves cross-field comparability of productivity and reflects current stratification in science. JPNP is a conceptually coherent and empirically robust measurement tool, useful at the aggregated levels of research evaluation, institutional benchmarking, and science policy.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Survivors in Science: A Comprehensive Analysis

We followed scientists who started publishing in 2000 and who continued publishing until 2020-2023 (N = 41,424). These survivors in science authored 2 million articles (N = 2,089,097) with more than 70 million cited references (N = 73,118,395) and worked in 38 OECD countries. Using a raw Scopus dataset, we examined gender disparities in publishing intensity, international collaboration, journal selection, productivity, citations, team formation, and publishing breaks in 16 STEMM and social science disciplines. Several author-level metrics were computed. Our data show a gender productivity gap for both lifetime scholarly output and annual journal prestige-normalized productivity. Surprisingly, in the context of extant literature, the data do not show a gender international collaboration gap, a gender journal selection gap, a gender citation gap, or a gender team formation gap. Men were on average 23% more productive than women cumulatively in 2000-2023 and 19% more productive in the last 5 years studied (2019-2023). Men and women published in equally prestigious journals, received the same number of citations (field-normalized), and worked in equally sized teams. In all, 80% of scientists in STEMM disciplines and 70% in the social sciences had published every year. Our data indicate interesting disciplinary differences in gender disparities.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Women Enter Too, but Men Persist:The Temporal Structure of Gender Inequality in the Global Citation Elite

In this research, I analyze the gender dynamics of the global citation elite using annual top 2% Stanford/Elsevier lists for 2019-2024. My database includes 1.22 million person-year observations (N=1,221,363), which corresponds to 465,707 unique scientists and scholars from more than 150 countries. I move away from static representations of women in the citation elite toward analyses of entry, exit, and permanent membership in the durable core of this elite. The share of women in the annual citation elite increased from 18.39% in 2019 to 20.98% in 2024. However, women are more strongly represented among first-observed entrants than among continuing members, and their share decreases with the persistence of their presence among the citation elite expressed in years: from 22.19% among single-year members to 17.84% among scientists and scholars present in all six annual lists. Women are generally located closer to the lower boundary of the elite in terms of the citation index deciles - and men are closer to top deciles. My logistic regression models estimate a lower probability of women s membership in the durable core of the citation elite (odds ratio estimate OR=0.69). Women are also more weakly represented in the all-career elite than in the annual elite (15.87% vs. 20.98%). I draw conclusions about gender dynamics within the global citation elite and gender inequalities in science more generally.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Young Male and Female Scientists: A Quantitative Exploratory Study of the Changing Demographics of the Global Scientific Workforce

In this study, the global scientific workforce is explored through large-scale, generational, cross-sectional, and longitudinal approaches. We examine 4.3 million nonoccasional scientists from 38 OECD countries publishing in 1990-2021. Our interest is in the changing distribution of young male and female scientists over time across 16 STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine) disciplines. We unpack the details of the changing scientific workforce using age groups. Some disciplines are already numerically dominated by women, and the change is fast in some and slow in other disciplines. In one-third of disciplines, there are already more youngest female than male scientists. Across all disciplines combined, the majority of women are young women. And more than half of women scientists (55.02%) are located in medicine. The usefulness of global bibliometric data sources in analyzing the scientific workforce along gender, age, discipline, and time is tested. Traditional aggregated data about scientists in general hide a nuanced picture of the changing gender dynamics within and across disciplines and age groups. The limitations of bibliometric datasets are explored, and global studies are compared with national-level studies. The methodological choices and their implications are shown, and new opportunities for how to study scientists globally are discussed.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

The Globalization of Science: The Increasing Power of Individual Scientists

National science systems have become embedded in global science and countries do everything they can to harness global knowledge to national economic needs. However, accessing and using the riches of global knowledge can occur only through scientists. Consequently, the research power of nations relies on the research power of individual scientists. Their capacity to collaborate internationally and to tap into the global networked science is key. The constantly evolving, bottom-up, autonomous, self-regulating, and self-focused nature of global science requires deeper understanding; and the best way to understand its dynamics is to understand what drives academic scientists in their work. The idea that science remains a state-driven rather than curiosity-driven is difficult to sustain. In empirical terms, we describe the globalization of science using selected publication, collaboration, and citation data from 2000-2020. The globalization of science implies two different processes in two different system types: the growth of science in the Western world is almost entirely attributable to internationally co-authored publications; its growth in the developing world, in contrast, is driven by both internationally co-authored and domestic publications. Global network science opens incredible opportunities to new arrivals - countries as well as institutions and research teams. The global system is embedded in the rules created by scientists themselves and maintained as a self-organizing system and nation-states have another major level to consider in their science policies: the global level. Globalization of science provides more agency, autonomy, collegiality, and self-regulation to scientists embedded in national science structures and involved in global networks.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2026

Quantifying Lifetime Productivity Changes: A Longitudinal Study of 320,000 Late-Career Scientists

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.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Women in Science: Measuring Participation in Europe Across Disciplines, Generations and Over Time

In this research, we quantify an inflow of women into science in the past three decades. Structured Big Data allow us to estimate the contribution of women scientists to the growth of science by disciplines (N = STEMM 14 disciplines) and over time (1990-2023). A monolithic segment of STEMM science emerges from this research as divided between the disciplines in which the growth was powerfully driven by women - and the disciplines in which the role of women was marginal. There are four disciplines in which 50% of currently publishing scientists are women; and five disciplines in which more than 50% of currently young scientists are women. But there is also a cluster of four highly mathematized disciplines (MATH, COMP, PHYS, and ENG) in which the growth of science is only marginally driven by women. Digital traces left by scientists in their publications indexed in global datasets open two new dimensions in large-scale academic profession studies: time and gender. The growth of science in Europe was accompanied by growth in the number of women scientists, but with powerful cross-disciplinary and cross-generational differentiations. We examined the share of women scientists coming from ten different age cohorts for 32 European and four comparator countries (the USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan). Our study sample was N = 1,740,985 scientists (including 39.40% women scientists). Three critical methodological challenges of using structured Big Data of the bibliometric type were discussed: gender determination, academic age determination, and discipline determination.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2026

Success in Science: How Global Prestige Organizes Careers

This article analyzes the structure of perceived academic success. We combine survey data from 10,848 Polish scientists with their Scopus bibliometric data at the individual level. We use polychoric correlations, exploratory factor analysis, network modeling (EBICglasso), and generalized linear mixed models in ordinal and binary forms. Our results show that academic success is multidimensional, with a clear core. This core is global publication prestige. Publishing in top international journals is the node with the highest centrality, and it is connected to other career dimensions, such as citations and international collaboration. Publications in top national journals, in contrast, are peripheral. The threshold structure of the scale indicates a selection effect. The definition of success is globally oriented and strongly tied to the hierarchy of international journals.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Top performers and top journals: Persistent concentration in scientific publishing

In this research, we analyze the relationship between publishing productivity and access to highly prestigious journals, treating publishing in top journals as a stratification mechanism selecting publishing elites. We study N = 144,314 Polish scientists publishing for 30 years (1992-2021) and their Nart = 433,546 unique research articles published in the period. Using bibliometric data from Scopus, we compare the scientists belonging to the top productivity decile (the upper 10%, termed top performers) and the remaining population of scientists (90%) by discipline and period (five six-year periods). We measure the share of publications in prestigious segments of journals, with particular reference to the 90th-99th percentiles, and we use nonlinear journal prestige-normalized productivity. Our results indicate that access to top journals (defined as the top 10% of journals indexed in Scopus) is powerfully and permanently concentrated in the group of top performers in all disciplines and periods studied. The differences between top performers and the other scientists are primarily of a qualitative nature: they are seen almost exclusively at the top of the journal hierarchy rather than in its bottom or middle segments. Our logistic regression models indicate the complementarity of quantity and quality: publishing intensity increases the probability of membership in the elite segment of top performers, especially when it is coupled with publishing in prestigious journals. Our results suggest that top journals function as selection gates to academic careers and that they function as durable mechanisms of elite reproduction in science.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

International Research Collaboration Among Top Performers: A Gender Gap Persists

We studied gender differences among Polish top performers (the upper 10% of scientists in terms of research productivity) in international research collaborations in 15 STEMM disciplines and over time. We examined five 6-year periods from 1992 to 2021. We operationalized international research collaboration by using international publication co-authorships in Scopus and used a sample of 152,043 unique Polish authors and their 587,558 articles published in 1992-2021. Our data show that a gender gap in international collaboration by top performers (and among the whole population of scientists) steadily widened: the gap was smallest in the early 1990s and grew over the next 30 years. Among top performers, internationalization intensity in four of the disciplines (AGRI, BIO, ENVI, and MED) was higher for men than for women. To capture the multidimensional nature of international research collaboration, we estimated a fractional logistic regression model with fixed effects that confirmed a persisting moderate but statistically significant international collaboration gender gap among top performers. We found an approximately 11% higher probability of international collaboration by men top performers compared with women top performers. Reflections on bibliometric-driven studies are offered.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

The European research elite: a cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries

In this paper, we focus on a rare scholarly theme of highly productive academics, statistically confirming their pivotal role in knowledge production across 11 systems studied. The upper 10 % of highly productive academics in 11 European countries studied (N=17,211) provide on average almost half of all academic knowledge production. In contrast to dominating bibliometric studies of research productivity, we focus on academic attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions as predictors of becoming research top performers across European systems. Our paper provides a (large-scale and cross-country) corroboration of the systematic inequality in knowledge production, for the first time argued for by Lotka and de Solla Price. We corroborate the deep academic inequality in science and explore this segment of the academic profession. The European research elite is a highly homogeneous group of academics whose high research performance is driven by structurally similar factors, mostly individual rather than institutional. Highly productive academics are similar from a cross-national perspective, and they substantially differ intra-nationally from their lower-performing colleagues.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2024

Quantifying Attrition in Science: A Cohort-Based, Longitudinal Study of Scientists in 38 OECD Countries

In this paper, we explore how members of the scientific community leave academic science and how attrition (defined as ceasing to publish) differs across genders, academic disciplines, and over time. Our approach is cohort-based and longitudinal: We track individual male and female scientists over time and quantify the phenomenon traditionally referred to as 'leaving science.' Using publication metadata from Scopus - a global bibliometric database of publications and citations - we follow the details of the publishing careers of scientists from 38 OECD countries who started publishing in 2000 (N = 142,776) and 2010 (N = 232,843). Our study is restricted to 16 STEMM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine), and we track the individual scholarly output of the two cohorts until 2022. We use survival analysis to compare attrition of men and women scientists. With more women in science and more women within cohorts, attrition is becoming ever less gendered. In addition to the combined aggregated changes at the level of all STEMM disciplines, widely nuanced changes were found to occur at the discipline level and over time. Attrition in science means different things for men versus women depending on the discipline; moreover, it means different things for scientists from different cohorts entering the scientific workforce. Finally, global bibliometric datasets were tested in the current study, opening new opportunities to explore gender and disciplinary differences in attrition.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2024

Top Research Performance Over Three Decades: A Multidimensional Micro-Data Approach

In this research, the contributions of a highly productive minority of scientists to the national Polish research output over the past three decades (1992-2021) is explored. In almost all previous research, the approaches to high research productivity are missing the time component. Cross-sectional studies were not complemented by longitudinal studies: Scientists comprising the classes of top performers have not been tracked over time. Three classes of top performers (the upper 1%, 5%, and 10%) are examined, and a surprising temporal stability of productivity patterns is found. The 1/10 and 10/50 rules consistently apply across the three decades: The upper 1% of scientists, on average, account for 10% of the national output, and the upper 10% account for almost 50% of total output, with significant disciplinary variations. The Relative Presence Index (RPI) we constructed shows that men are overrepresented and women underrepresented in all top performers classes. Top performers are studied longitudinally through their detailed publishing histories, with micro-data coming from the raw Scopus dataset. Econometric models identify the three most important predictors that change the odds ratio estimates of membership in the top performance classes: gender, academic age, and research collaboration. The downward trend in fixed effects over successive six-year periods indicates increasing competition in academia. A large population of all internationally visible Polish scientists (N=152,043) with their 587,558 articles is studied.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Are Scientists Changing their Research Productivity Classes When They Move Up the Academic Ladder?

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 productivity during the more independent period of associate professorship. We use individual-level microdata on academic careers (from a national registry of scientists) and individual-level metadata on publications (from the Scopus raw dataset). Polish associate professors tend to be stuck in their productivity classes for years: High performers tend to remain high performers, and low performers tend to remain low performers over their careers. Logistic regression analysis powerfully supports our two-dimensional results. We examine all internationally visible Polish associate professors in five fields of science in STEMM fields (N = 4,165 with N art = 71,841 articles).

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

What Large-Scale Publication and Citation Data Tell Us About International Research Collaboration in Europe: Changing National Patterns in Global Contexts

This study analyzes the unprecedented growth of international research collaboration (IRC) in Europe during the period 2009-2018 in terms of coauthorship and citation distribution of globally indexed publications. The results reveal the dynamics of this change, as growing IRC moves European systems away from institutional collaboration, with stable and strong national collaboration. Domestic output has remained flat. The growth in publications in major European systems is almost entirely attributable to internationally coauthored papers. A comparison of trends within the four complementary collaboration modes clearly reveals that the growth of European science is driven solely by internationally co-authored papers. With the emergence of global network science, which diminishes the role of national policies in IRC and foregrounds the role of scientists, the individual scientists willingness to collaborate internationally is central to advancing IRC in Europe. Scientists collaborate internationally when it enhances their academic prestige, scientific recognition, and access to research funding, as indicated by the credibility cycle, prestige maximization, and global science models. The study encompassed 5.5 million Scopus-indexed articles, including 2.2 million involving international collaboration.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

The Young and the Old, the Fast and the Slow: A Large-Scale Study of Productivity Classes and Rank Advancement

We examined a large population of Polish science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) scientists (N = 16,083) to study rank advancement and productivity. We used two previously neglected time dimensions - promotion age and promotion speed - to construct individual biographical profiles and publication profiles. We used a classificatory approach and the new methodological approach of journal prestige-normalized productivity. All scientists were allocated to different productivity, promotion age, and promotion speed classes (top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%). The patterns were consistent across all disciplines: scientists in young promotion age classes (and fast promotion speed classes) in the past were currently the most productive. In contrast, scientists in old promotion age classes (and slow promotion speed classes) in the past were currently the least productive. In the three largest disciplines, the young-old promotion age productivity differential for associate professors was 100-200% (150-200% for full professors); and the fast-slow promotion speed productivity differential for associate professors was 80-150% (100-170% for full professors). Our results were confirmed by a regression analysis in which we found odds ratio estimates of membership in top productivity classes. We combined data collected from the national register of all Polish scientists and scholars (N = 99,935) and publication metadata on all Polish articles indexed in Scopus (N = 935,167).

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Academic vs. Biological Age in Research on Academic Careers: A Large-scale Study with Implications for Scientifically Developing Systems

Biological age is an important sociodemographic factor in studies on academic careers (research productivity, scholarly impact, and collaboration patterns). It is assumed that the academic age, or the time elapsed from the first publication, is a good proxy for biological age. In this study, we analyze the limitations of the proxy in academic career studies, using as an example the entire population of Polish academic scientists visible in the last decade in global science and holding at least a PhD (N = 20,569). The proxy works well for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) disciplines; however, for non-STEMM disciplines (particularly for humanities and social sciences), it has a dramatically worse performance. This negative conclusion is particularly important for systems that have only become recently visible in global academic journals. The micro-level data suggest a delayed participation of social scientists and humanists in global science networks, with practical implications for predicting biological age from academic age. We calculate correlation coefficients, present contingency analysis of academic career stages with academic positions and age groups, and create a linear multivariate regression model. Our research suggests that in scientifically developing countries, academic age as a proxy for biological age should be used more cautiously than in advanced countries: ideally, it should be used only for STEMM disciplines.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Are Female Scientists Less Inclined to Publish Alone? The Gender Solo Research Gap

In solo research, scientists compete individually for prestige, sending clear signals about their research ability, avoiding problems in credit allocation, and reducing conflicts about authorship. We examine to what extent male and female scientists differ in their use of solo publishing across various dimensions. This research is the first to comprehensively study the 'gender solo research gap' among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system. We examine the gap through 'individual publication portfolios' constructed for each Polish university professor. We use the practical significance/statistical significance difference (based on the effect-size r coefficient) and our analyses indicate that while some gender differences are statistically significant, they have no practical significance. Using a partial effects of fractional logistic regression approach, we estimate the probability of conducting solo research. In none of the models does gender explain the variability of the individual solo publishing rate. The strongest predictor of individual solo publishing rate is the average team size, publishing in STEM fields negatively affects the rate, publishing in male-dominated disciplines positively affects it, and the influence of international collaboration is negative. The gender solo research gap in Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed. We use our unique biographical, administrative, publication, and citation database ('Polish Science Observatory') with metadata on all Polish scientists present in Scopus (N=25,463) and their 158,743 Scopus-indexed articles published in 2009-2018, including 18,900 solo articles.

cs.DL↗