Gender disparities in publishing: how networks, occupational self-efficacy and the university shape the gender publication gap among professors in Germany

Abstract Publications are undoubtedly key to scientists’ careers, funding, and recognition. Although many measures have been taken to foster gender equality in science, an almost worldwide disparity persists in the publication rates between male and female researchers. Studies across various disciplines and regions have consistently shown that female scientists publish fewer articles than their male counterparts. However, little is known about the possible causes. Therefore, this article investigates why female scientists generally publish fewer articles than male scientists. To answer this question, a multiple mediation and moderation analysis was conducted, which examined network, care work, neuroticism, and occupational self-efficacy as mediators for the gender publication gap and the university type as a moderator (with age, and discipline as covariates). The PROCESS Macro for SPSS was used to carry out the calculations. The analyses were based on cross-sectional data from an online survey of 1836 German professors. The regression analyses revealed that female professors had significantly fewer publications initially than male professors (B = −27.503, p < 0.001); this effect was reduced by more than half by covariates (B = −14.876, p < 0.001) and became insignificant when mediators and a moderator were added (B = −0.681, p = 0.921). Women benefited from better networks (B = 0.112, p < 0.001), which positively impacted publication rates (B = 12.919, p = 0.015), but reported lower self-efficacy (B = −0.066, p = 0.0084), which was also positively linked to publications (B = 16.668, p = 0.001). Neuroticism and care-work did not show significant mediation effects. The interaction term (gender*university type) negatively affected the number of publications (B = −22.535, p < 0.001). Women’s stronger networks could help to close the gender publication gap, but lower self-efficacy among female professors may contribute to the gap. Institutional factors such as universities seemed to play a strong role in the gender effect, pointing to a factor which should be further explored.