↓ Skip to main content

Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 1,424)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
22 blogs
twitter
1047 tweeters
weibo
1 weibo user
facebook
71 Facebook pages
googleplus
29 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks
Published in
Science Advances, February 2015
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1400005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron Clauset, Samuel Arbesman, Daniel B. Larremore, Clauset, Aaron, Arbesman, Samuel, Larremore, Daniel B

Abstract

The faculty job market plays a fundamental role in shaping research priorities, educational outcomes, and career trajectories among scientists and institutions. However, a quantitative understanding of faculty hiring as a system is lacking. Using a simple technique to extract the institutional prestige ranking that best explains an observed faculty hiring network-who hires whose graduates as faculty-we present and analyze comprehensive placement data on nearly 19,000 regular faculty in three disparate disciplines. Across disciplines, we find that faculty hiring follows a common and steeply hierarchical structure that reflects profound social inequality. Furthermore, doctoral prestige alone better predicts ultimate placement than a U.S. News & World Report rank, women generally place worse than men, and increased institutional prestige leads to increased faculty production, better faculty placement, and a more influential position within the discipline. These results advance our ability to quantify the influence of prestige in academia and shed new light on the academic system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,047 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 28 11%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Canada 3 1%
Portugal 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 203 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 78 31%
Researcher 51 20%
Student > Master 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Student > Bachelor 17 7%
Other 67 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 49 19%
Computer Science 38 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 9%
Psychology 21 8%
Unspecified 17 7%
Other 108 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1046. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,821
of 8,647,924 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#12
of 1,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66
of 245,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,647,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 121.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 245,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.