The COVID-19 pandemic, declared by the WHO on March 11, 2020, prompted global mitigation measures such as lockdowns and social distancing, significantly altering the scientific landscape. Many research institutions partially or fully shut down, drastically changing teaching and research environments. Universities rapidly shifted to online teaching, presenting substantial challenges for both students and faculty. The pandemic impacted scientists across different fields unevenly, with research and teaching in science and engineering facing significant challenges due to the reliance on physical laboratory resources, living animals, and time-sensitive experiments. Research involving human subjects or fieldwork was often halted, while "wet" lab research was shifted to remote work where possible. Clinical trials were also significantly delayed or deferred. While some studies focused on changes in publication rates, these metrics do not fully capture the broader impact on teaching, grant writing, mentorship, or academic service. Furthermore, existing gender disparities were exacerbated, with women often shouldering a greater burden of domestic responsibilities and childcare. This study aimed to address these gaps by investigating scientists' perceptions of their productivity during the pandemic and examining potential gender inequities in caregiving responsibilities.

Prior studies suggested adverse impacts of COVID-19 on scientific outputs and work routines. A survey of faculty and principal investigators found that total working hours decreased for over half of the participants by April 2020, with the largest decrease observed in fields involving physical laboratory activities. Although COVID-19-related publications increased, this didn't fully represent the overall impact on scientific work. Studies also revealed disproportionate changes in publications between men and women, with women experiencing a greater decline in publications. This disproportionate impact was often linked to the increased burden of domestic responsibilities and childcare that women often bear, particularly during the pandemic's disruptions to childcare facilities and schooling. However, previous research lacked comprehensive investigation into the various challenges hindering academic activities and scientific productivity, particularly regarding gender and parental status. This research aimed to provide a more nuanced understanding of these challenges.

This study employed a thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses. The online survey was distributed through social media and email to scientists in STEM and medicine fields. The survey was available in six languages (English, Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Korean) and was open from October 5 to December 31, 2021. The survey included an open-ended question asking participants how COVID-19 affected their overall productivity. A total of 2548 responses were collected from 132 countries. Thematic analysis, an inductive approach, was used to identify patterns and themes from the open-ended responses. Non-English responses were professionally translated into English. Two researchers independently coded the responses, iteratively refining codes and themes. A word cloud analysis was conducted to identify frequently mentioned words, and a text search analysis compared experiences related to caregiving between female and male participants.

The analysis identified five major themes affecting scientists' productivity: 1. **Changes in Work Productivity:** This included disruptions due to changing COVID regulations, lack of staff/support, restricted access to labs/offices/travel, and shortages of equipment. 2. **Changes in Responsibilities:** Increased teaching burdens from online instruction, reduced time for research, and heightened childcare/domestic responsibilities significantly impacted productivity, with mothers disproportionately affected. 3. **Deterioration in Health:** Physical and mental health issues, including burnout, stress, and isolation, resulted from overwork and lack of social interaction. 4. **Insufficient At-Home Work Environment:** Inadequate workspace, unstable internet, and blurring boundaries between work and life negatively affected focus and productivity. 5. **Increased Flexibility and Other Aspects:** Some participants reported positive aspects, such as increased funding for COVID-19 research, the adoption of alternative research methodologies, and the flexibility of working from home. The text analysis revealed that female parent participants mentioned keywords related to childcare and domestic work significantly more often than male parent participants, indicating an unequal division of labor. Word cloud analysis highlighted frequently mentioned words such as "work," "time," "research," "productivity," "home," and terms related to teaching, meetings, and health.

The findings reveal the multifaceted impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists' productivity. The pandemic exacerbated existing inequalities, particularly the unequal burden of caregiving on women. The study highlights the critical need for institutional support to address these challenges. The shift to online teaching, while offering some flexibility, also led to increased workloads and reduced time for research. The lack of adequate support and resources, along with the mental and physical health consequences of isolation and overwork, significantly hampered productivity for many scientists. The positive aspects identified, such as increased funding and flexibility, were not universal and were often overshadowed by the negative impacts experienced by a larger portion of scientists. The study’s findings have implications for institutional policy, suggesting that flexible work arrangements, improved technological support, and proactive measures to address mental health needs are crucial for sustaining scientists’ well-being and productivity during and after crises.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound and multifaceted impact on scientists’ productivity, exacerbating existing gender inequalities. The study's findings highlight the critical need for institutional support to mitigate these challenges. Future research should explore targeted interventions to promote gender equity, improve work-life balance, and enhance scientists' mental and physical well-being. Developing robust crisis management plans that address the diverse needs of scientists is crucial for ensuring the continued advancement of science during and after global crises.

The study's limitations include its reliance on self-reported data and the potential for selection bias in the participants. The cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish temporal relationships. The generalizability of findings may be limited due to the focus on STEM fields and the overrepresentation of participants from certain regions and positions. The thematic analysis, while a valuable qualitative method, involves a degree of subjectivity. The word cloud analysis, encompassing translated words, may have introduced some bias. Finally, the varying definitions of productivity among participants could influence interpretations.