Academic rank, gender, reservation and research productivity: a comprehensive analysis

Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the publication outputs based on academic rank, gender and reservation category. It demonstrates whether publication counts differ by gender while controlling for academic rank, reservation category and discipline. Moreover, the study examines the performance of faculty employed through the reservation policy compared with that of faculty recruited through the open category. Design/methodology/approach This quantitative study examines the research productivity of 471 faculty in university settings. Faculty publication records were extracted from Scopus. Bibliometric analysis and statistical methods, including t-tests, chi-squared tests and data envelopment analysis, were conducted in R. Findings The Welch t-test examining research productivity by gender across academic ranks reveals no statistically significant difference in publication counts at the Associate Professor rank. However, at the Assistant Professor and Professor ranks, the p-value indicated a statistically significant difference in the research output. Furthermore, this study provides factual information on the implementation of the reservation policy in an academic setting. The efficiency analysis found no evidence to support the opinion that faculty employed through reservation policies reduce research productivity. In fact, it revealed that faculty recruited under the reservation policy perform on par with their counterparts. In some academic disciplines, they perform as well as, or even better than, those hired under the open category. Originality/value This study emphasises the importance of assessing the impact of the reservation policy to substantiate the stance taken on this initiative. Moreover, to promote transparency in the implementation of this policy and to gain insights into its effects and impact, the study recommends conducting more in-depth research.