Women in psychology are more likely to leave research early in their careers

Where researchers leave

The study identified 48,611 women and 29,605 men among 78,216 psychology entrants—women made up 62.16% of the group. More than half of the women had left active research by academic year 15, while half of the men did not leave until academic year 19.

For both groups, retention fell most sharply between academic years four and six, but women's year-to-year retention was consistently lower during that period. The gender gap was largest about five years after first publication. Among researchers who remained active into later stages, the gap narrowed and women who persisted beyond academic year 16 had higher retention rates than men in the longest-observed cohort.

First-authored publications early in a career were the strongest predictor of later retention. Last-authored publications were most closely associated with continued activity at later career stages. Collaboration networks and institutional context were associated with persistence more weakly than publication indicators. Even after accounting for these factors, women remained more likely to leave, particularly early in their careers.

Why early careers matter

The findings suggest that psychology's gender imbalance at senior levels is driven less by who enters the field than by who remains active in research over time. Because the largest difference appeared early in researchers' careers, support aimed at that stage may be important for improving long-term representation in senior academic roles. The study identifies a persistent gap but does not determine which specific barriers cause it.

Evidence and caveats

This was a large, longitudinal bibliometric study based on Scopus publication records. Researchers defined psychology entrants as people whose publications were at least 60% in psychology journals during their first three years of activity, then tracked publishing trajectories for those who began between 2000 and 2014, with outcomes observed through 2024.

Attrition was measured through publishing activity, so the records cannot fully show whether someone left academia, moved to work outside research, changed fields or continued work that was not captured. The study is observational: its findings show associations and cannot establish that publication patterns, collaborations or institutions caused people to remain or leave. Gender was estimated from first names using Genderize.io, and the entrants were concentrated in the United States and several Western European countries, which may limit how broadly the results apply.