Source-linked AI summary
Loss of New Ideas: Potentially Long-lasting Effects of the Pandemic on Scientists
Jian Gao, Yian Yin, Kyle R. Myers, Karim R. Lakhani, Dashun Wang
TL;DR
The paper asks whether the pandemic’s effects on scientists changed over time and examines this using two surveys alongside large-scale publication data. It finds recovery in work time but a sharp, unequal decline in starting new projects, suggesting that the pandemic’s effects may persist beyond short-term output measures.
Problem
The study addresses limited evidence on whether and how the pandemic’s impact on scientists evolved over time, including variation across professional and scientific groups.
Method
The authors compare two survey waves with large-scale publication data, using regression analyses and measures of new scientific collaborations.
Results
Scientists were substantially less likely to pursue new research projects even as work-time declines largely recovered, with the effect concentrated among some demographic groups and broadly spanning fields.
Takeaways & Limitations
Short-term publication measures may mask longer-lasting consequences for inequality and the long-term vitality of science.
Takeaways & Limitations
Publication and collaboration declines may reflect other factors, including reduced access to facilities, fewer in-person interactions, and intermittent lockdowns.
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Extensive research has documented the immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists, yet it remains unclear if and how such impacts have shifted over time. Here we compare results from two surveys of principal investigators, conducted between April 2020 and January 2021, along with analyses of large-scale publication data. We find that there has been a clear sign of recovery in some regards, as scientists' time spent on their work has almost returned to pre-pandemic levels. However, the latest data also reveals a new dimension in which the pandemic is affecting the scientific workforce: the rate of initiating new research projects. Except for the small fraction of scientists who directly engaged in COVID-related research, most scientists started significantly fewer new research projects in 2020. This decline is most pronounced amongst the same demographic groups of scientists who reported the largest initial disruptions: female scientists and those with young children. Yet in sharp contrast to the earlier phase of the pandemic, when there were large disparities across scientific fields, this loss of new projects appears remarkably homogeneous across fields. Analyses of large-scale publication data reveal a global decline in the rate of new collaborations, especially in non-COVID-related preprints, which is consistent with the reported decline in new projects. Overall, these findings highlight that, while the end of the pandemic may appear in sight in some countries, its large and unequal impact on the scientific workforce may be enduring, which may have broad implications for inequality and the long-term vitality of science.
The pandemic’s impact remains significant but has shifted substantially in nature
Scientists’ work time and publication activity showed substantial recovery by January 2021, but this improvement masked a sharper decline in initiating new research projects. The decline was especially pronounced among female scientists and those with young children, while affecting fields relatively uniformly and coinciding with fewer new collaborations.
- Recovery in short-term metrics: -13.8% to -4.3%: the impact on total work hours relative to pre-pandemic levels substantially recovered between April 2020 and January 2021.The average shortfall narrowed from 7.1 to 2.2 hours per week.
- Recovery in short-term metrics: Publication and submission rates were only moderately lower in 2020 than in 2019, consistent with publication-database measurements and an encouraging sign of recovery.These short-term indicators therefore showed relatively modest declines.
- Decline in new projects: 27.0% of scientists reported initiating no new research project in 2020, roughly three times the 2019 share of 8.9%.The decline averaged -36.2%, or approximately one fewer new project per scientist, against about three projects in a normal year.
- Long-term implications: The decline in new projects may reveal longer-lasting effects that short-term publication metrics do not yet capture, with implications for inequality and science’s long-term vitality.The authors caution that publication trends alone may provide an incomplete picture of research productivity, and other factors may also contribute to collaboration declines.
- Demographic differences: Female scientists and those with young children experienced especially large declines in new projects, extending the pandemic’s unequal effects on scientists.These were also the groups that reported the largest initial disruptions.
- Field differences: The decline in new projects was remarkably homogeneous across disciplines, with only biochemists showing a significantly lower-than-average decline after controls.The field-level pattern contrasts with the larger disparities observed during the pandemic’s early phase.
Competing interests
The authors report no competing interests and describe the study’s approvals, data-access restrictions, and code-availability commitments.
- The authors declare no competing interests.
- The study protocol received institutional review approval, and participants provided informed consent.
- Individual-level survey data are restricted, source databases require direct access requests, and reproduction code will be freely available.
Loss of New Ideas: Potentially Long-lasting Effects of the Pandemic
The paper is authored by Jian Gao, Yian Yin, Kyle R. Myers, Karim R. Lakhani, and Dashun Wang.
- Jian Gao is listed as the first author.
- Yian Yin, Kyle R. Myers, Karim R. Lakhani, and Dashun Wang are also listed as authors.
- Dashun Wang is identified as the corresponding author.
S1. Survey Sampling and Recruitment
The study samples active scientists using Web of Science records and recruits them through randomized email invitations for two surveys.
- Web of Science supplies a large, plausibly random list of active scientists and corresponding-author email addresses.
- The filtering process produced approximately 1.5 million unique email addresses, including about 521,000 in the U.S. and 938,000 in Europe.
- Researchers randomly shuffled regional email lists and sampled 280,000 U.S. and 200,000 European addresses for the April 2020 survey.
- The same recruitment process was used for both surveys, with personalized invitation text adapted to survey timing.
- The invitations described a five-minute study intended to help scientists and policymakers understand the pandemic’s effects.
S2. Survey Instrument and Sampling Approach
The surveys collect scientists’ demographics, professional characteristics, work time, pandemic-related research, and year-specific research outputs and collaborations.
- The survey records demographic, professional, and time-allocation information, while the January 2021 version adds COVID-related research questions.
- Respondents report their position, field of study, institution type, closure status, site access, and tenure.
- Work time is measured for January 2020 and January 2021 using weekly-hour response categories.
- Scientists indicate whether they worked on COVID-19-related research during 2020.
- The instrument asks respondents to report new research projects and collaborations started in both 2019 and 2020.
- Research-output questions cover submitted and peer-reviewed publications in 2019 and 2020, defining research publications to exclude commentary and editorials.
2.2 Research field definitions
The study defines research fields using classifications based on national surveys, with added categories for major university disciplines and sufficient sample sizes. The analysis focuses on faculty and principal investigators, using regression methods to account for observable differences.
- Research fields are based on national survey classifications and aggregated to ensure sufficient sample sizes within each field.
- Business Management, Education, Communication, and Clinical Sciences were added because they represent major university schools or did not map directly to default classifications.
- The April 2020 analysis retained respondents identifying as faculty or principal investigators working at eligible research organizations.
- The January 2021 analysis used 2,447 principal-investigator respondents after excluding missing work-time data and further missing research-output data.
- Multivariate regressions and Lasso selection were used to examine group differences while conditioning on relevant observables.
3.2 Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and probit regression
The paper combines regression models, survey responses, and Dimensions publication records to examine research activity, collaborations, and COVID-related research. It compares 2019 and 2020 outcomes and checks survey publication reports against database records.
- Regression models: OLS models examine associations between changes in new projects and collaborators, while probit models estimate associations with working on COVID-related research.
- Publication data: Dimensions provides systematic coverage of articles and preprints published through the end of 2020, enabling analysis of recent publication trends.
- Publication data: COVID-related publications are identified from 2020 records using a Dimensions search query containing coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 terms.
- Publication data: 216,187 COVID-related papers were identified among Dimensions-indexed papers published in 2020.
- Publication data: The January 2021 survey was linked to Dimensions authors using publication identifiers, matching 2,141 of 2,447 respondents, or about 87%.
- Collaboration measure: The publication-based new-collaboration rate is the fraction of author pairs without prior collaboration among all author pairs on a paper, restricted to teams of 50 or fewer authors.
- Survey outcomes: Average weekly work time increased from about 44 hours in April 2020 to about 47 hours in January 2021.
- Survey outcomes: New projects declined by about 26% in 2020, compared with declines of about 5% in submissions and 11% in publications.
S7. Changes in Projects and Collaborators by Survey
Survey and publication analyses show that the pandemic was associated with fewer new projects and collaborations, especially among non-COVID scientists, while publication totals increased in aggregate. The project decline was broadly consistent across fields but differed across demographic groups.
- Non-COVID scientists reported about a 57% decline in new projects, compared with about 27% for the overall sample.
- Regression analyses with controls were used to assess whether demographic and professional differences in project changes persisted after accounting for other factors.
- Alternative logged and absolute-value calculations largely preserved the group and field patterns in new-project changes.
- The share reporting no new collaborators rose from about 15% in 2019 to about 35% in 2020, while the average fell from 3.9 to 2.9.
- Non-COVID scientists’ average new collaborators fell from about 4.4 to 2.2, whereas COVID scientists reported about 15% growth in 2020.
- The number of new collaborators was positively associated with the number of new projects after controlling for professional, demographic, and field variables.
- Aggregate article and preprint volumes increased in 2020, including after excluding COVID-related publications, but individual trends differed between COVID and non-COVID authors.
- New-collaboration rates decreased from 2019 to 2020 for non-COVID papers but increased for COVID papers, especially in the publication-record analysis.
SI Figures
The supplementary figures document changes in work time, research outputs, projects, collaborators, publications, and COVID-related research across surveys and publication records. They also show robustness checks and group- or field-level comparisons.
- Work time: Work-time figures compare pre- and post-pandemic weekly hours and percentage changes across the April 2020 and January 2021 surveys.
- Research outputs: Research-output figures compare 2019 and 2020 counts and percentage changes for new publications, submissions, and projects, including logged-value analyses.
- Research outputs: Absolute-change figures examine 2020-minus-2019 differences for new publications, submissions, and projects, with values outside -5 to 5 capped.
- Publication validation: Publication-validation figures compare survey and Dimensions counts using Spearman correlations, logged values, fitted lines, confidence intervals, and R2.
- New projects: Project figures compare group-level and field-level percentage changes, including a non-COVID indicator and mean-centered field changes.
- New collaborations: Collaboration figures report survey-based changes in new collaborators and distinguish COVID from non-COVID research topics.
- New collaborations: Publication-based collaboration figures compare new-collaboration fractions across articles and preprints, COVID status, months, and author-team sizes.
- Supplementary analyses: Additional figures summarize publication totals, COVID-research participation, and probit coefficients across professional, demographic, and field categories.
SI Tables
Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 report regression analyses linking new projects with collaborators while controlling for professional, demographic, and research-field variables.
- Table S1 models the number of new projects against the number of collaborators.The regressions include professional and demographic controls and research fields.
- The tables report robust standard errors and conventional significance thresholds.Significance is denoted by *, **, and *** for p<0.1, p<0.05, and p<0.01, respectively.
- Table S2 models absolute and percentage changes in new projects against corresponding changes in collaborators.These regressions also control for professional, demographic, and field variables.