Parenthood and care in academia: Publication counts, self-assessed productivity, and gendered differences
- 1Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care (DEASS), University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (SUPSI), Manno, Switzerland
- 2Nuffield College and Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Abstract
How does parenthood relate to academic productivity when we look beyond publication counts? We synthesize evidence from five small-scale meta-analyses and present original survey data from academic professionals combining (i) objective outcomes (publications per year and a standardized real-effort task), (ii) subjective assessments (self-reported productivity loss), and (iii) qualitative evidence from open-ended responses on perceived (dis)advantage and work identity. Meta-analytic estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero and characterized by extreme heterogeneity, suggesting limits of publication-based metrics for capturing care-related mechanisms. In our survey, parenthood is not robustly associated with objective productivity once demographic, occupational, and caregiving covariates are considered, including in within-individual panel fixed-effects models. By contrast, perceived productivity loss rises nonlinearly with within-couple childcare imbalance, with stronger effects when respondents shoulder a dominant share of care and clear gender heterogeneity. Multinomial models and text analysis show a lexical and evaluative divergence: academics who reject parenthood as an advantage emphasize time scarcity and care responsibilities, while those affirming an advantage invoke focus, efficiency, and personal development. We argue that the apparent inconsistency of parenthood effects reflects a mismatch between what productivity metrics count and how caregiving reshapes constraints, capacities, and evaluation. We discuss design principles for academic assessment that better align recognition with performance under care constraints.
Related
- Improving the selection-function-based sensitivity analysis for publication bias with restricted maximum likelihood
- Transparency, accountability, and scholarly integrity: A systematic narrative review of artificial intelligence governance frameworks in healthcare publication
- CARB: A Covariate-Assessed Robust Borrowing Strategy with Literature-Informed Prior Weights for External Data
- Nonparametric Estimation of Event-Free Survival for Data with Left-Truncated Death and Intermittently Assessed Nonfatal Events
- Does the AI Productivity Dividend Diminish? Does the AI Productivity Dividend Diminish? A Validated Framework for Identifying the Shape of Firm-Level Returns to Artificial Intelligence
BibTeX
@article{ruberto2026parenthood,
title = {{Parenthood and care in academia: Publication counts, self-assessed productivity, and gendered differences}},
author = {Matteo A. Ruberto and Ludovica Alesci and Salvatore Maione and Valentina Rotondi},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0355683},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355683},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Parenthood and care in academia: Publication counts, self-assessed productivity, and gendered differences
AU - Matteo A. Ruberto
AU - Ludovica Alesci
AU - Salvatore Maione
AU - Valentina Rotondi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/16
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0355683
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355683
AB - How does parenthood relate to academic productivity when we look beyond publication counts? We synthesize evidence from five small-scale meta-analyses and present original survey data from academic professionals combining (i) objective outcomes (publications per year and a standardized real-effort task), (ii) subjective assessments (self-reported productivity loss), and (iii) qualitative evidence from open-ended responses on perceived (dis)advantage and work identity. Meta-analytic estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero and characterized by extreme heterogeneity, suggesting limits of publication-based metrics for capturing care-related mechanisms. In our survey, parenthood is not robustly associated with objective productivity once demographic, occupational, and caregiving covariates are considered, including in within-individual panel fixed-effects models. By contrast, perceived productivity loss rises nonlinearly with within-couple childcare imbalance, with stronger effects when respondents shoulder a dominant share of care and clear gender heterogeneity. Multinomial models and text analysis show a lexical and evaluative divergence: academics who reject parenthood as an advantage emphasize time scarcity and care responsibilities, while those affirming an advantage invoke focus, efficiency, and personal development. We argue that the apparent inconsistency of parenthood effects reflects a mismatch between what productivity metrics count and how caregiving reshapes constraints, capacities, and evaluation. We discuss design principles for academic assessment that better align recognition with performance under care constraints.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -