July 28, 2025
A recent study reveals that tenured researchers engaged in laboratory work tend to publish more frequently than their counterparts in non-laboratory disciplines. This insight sheds light on the dynamics of academic publishing and the impact of tenure on research productivity.
While it is widely recognized that professors across various fields face significant pressure to publish in order to secure tenure, the effects of achieving this status on publication patterns—such as quantity, impact, and innovation—have not been thoroughly explored until now.
To delve deeper into this topic, a collaborative research team from Northwestern University, Northeastern University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison examined the careers of 12,000 faculty members from 15 different disciplines, including business, sociology, and chemistry. Their analysis spanned an 11-year period, encompassing the five years leading up to and following the attainment of tenure. The findings were recently published in a peer-reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, titled “Tenure and Research Trajectories.”
According to Dashun Wang, a co-author of the study and a business professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, one might expect that researchers with job security would reduce their efforts. However, the data indicated that such cases were exceedingly rare.
Across all fields, the average publication rates for tenure-track researchers showed a consistent upward trend, peaking in the year preceding tenure. Following the attainment of tenure, publication rates stabilized around this peak level.
This observation suggests that while tenure may lessen the urgency to publish frequently, the potential decline in motivation is counterbalanced by the rigorous selection process associated with tenure. The study posits that the tenure process serves as a challenging evaluation that identifies individuals who are committed to maintaining high research standards throughout their careers.
Interestingly, the post-tenure publication rates varied significantly across disciplines. Researchers in laboratory-intensive fields such as physics, engineering, and computer science maintained stable research output after achieving tenure. Conversely, those in non-laboratory disciplines like economics, mathematics, and political science experienced a decline in their research productivity post-tenure.
Wang speculates that this disparity may stem from the fact that lab-based researchers often depend on competitive external funding to support their work. Securing grants is often seen as a reflection of a researcher’s past achievements and future potential, as well as their ability to generate innovative ideas and demonstrate leadership.
The nature of research conducted by scholars also shifts before and after tenure. Pre-tenure researchers tend to produce a higher number of “hit papers,” which are defined as those that rank in the top 5 percent of citations within their respective fields and publication years. However, the study indicates that tenure encourages scholars to pursue more innovative and exploratory research topics. After achieving tenure, researchers across various disciplines are more inclined to investigate subjects that are both novel to their own agendas and relatively unexplored within their fields.
These findings suggest that in the post-tenure phase, faculty members are more likely to engage in research that is both new to them and innovative within the scientific community. This behavior, while potentially riskier, broadens the scope of scientific inquiry, albeit with fewer high-impact publications.
Wang emphasizes that the goal of the research team is not to critique the tenure system but rather to provide empirical data that can contribute to ongoing discussions about its effectiveness.