Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists’ productivity in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and medicine fields

The study investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic affected scientists’ productivity across STEM and medicine, with a particular focus on gendered and parental-status differences. Universities and research institutions experienced partial shutdowns, shifts to remote and online teaching, and restrictions that disproportionately impacted lab-based research, clinical trials, and fieldwork. Prior work tracked outputs such as publications or work hours but did not fully capture broader academic activities (teaching, grant writing, mentoring, service) or the mechanisms driving productivity changes. The authors hypothesized inequitable changes in caregiving and domestic responsibilities during the pandemic, particularly increased burdens on mothers, and aimed to qualitatively characterize scientists’ experiences and perceived productivity changes to inform institutional support and equity efforts.

Prior studies reported heterogeneous impacts of the pandemic on academic productivity by field, with lab- and clinic-dependent research most disrupted. Early evidence showed reduced working hours for many faculty in the US and Europe, alongside a surge in COVID-19-related publications. Several analyses suggested exacerbation of pre-existing gender disparities: women faculty showed smaller increases in submissions and underrepresentation among first authors on COVID-19 papers relative to men. The literature also highlighted increased domestic and childcare responsibilities for women, school and childcare closures, and potential negative career impacts for academic mothers. However, gaps remained regarding qualitative insights into day-to-day work obstacles (administrative delays, access restrictions, remote supervision challenges), differential impacts across diverse geographies, and the role of caregiving in shaping productivity beyond publication counts. This study addresses these gaps with a global, multi-language survey and thematic analysis.

Design: Online, cross-sectional survey with an open-ended question, analyzed via inductive thematic analysis. IRB: Yale University Institutional Review Board approved; informed online consent obtained; anonymous data. Sampling and recruitment: Targeted scientists (age ≥18; non-students) working in STEM, medicine, public health, or related science/engineering sectors across research/educational institutions, government, and industry. Recruitment occurred via social media (Facebook, Instagram) and unsolicited emails to corresponding authors identified from Scopus and PubMed for 2017–2021 SCI-level journals across STEM fields. Survey administration: Available in six widely spoken languages (English, Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Korean). Open period: October 5–December 31, 2021. Open-ended prompt analyzed: “How has COVID-19 affected your overall productivity?” (max 300 words). Data preparation: Non-English responses professionally translated to English (CQ Fluency); only the open-ended answers were shared with translators. English and translated responses were combined. Sample: 2548 participants from 132 countries. Thematic analysis: Inductive (“bottom-up”) approach following Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research and Braun & Clarke framework. Researchers iteratively read responses, generated codes, refined and grouped codes into sub-themes and themes, and validated structure via independent review by two researchers with iterative consensus. Determined whether each sub-theme’s impact on productivity was positive, negative, or mixed based on participants’ assessments. Text analytics: Word cloud of the 1000 most frequent words (NVivo v12), considering words ≥5 letters. Conducted text search analysis comparing mentions of caregiving-related terms by self-identified female and male parents; non-binary participants (0.9%) were not analyzed due to small numbers. Search terms included: child, childcare, children, son, daughter, baby, kid, elder, husband, wife, daycare, school, family, parent, mother, father, household, chore, domestic (lemmatized where relevant). Outputs: Thematic structure with five major themes and corresponding sub-themes; frequency-based word cloud; comparative keyword mentions by gender among parents.

- Sample characteristics: 2548 participants; 132 countries; ~86% responses in English; 55.8% male, 43.3% female; ~56% were assistant/associate/full professors; 41.5% were parents of children <18 living with them. Among parents, 17.3% of mothers and 15.3% of fathers identified as the primary caregiver; 9.7% of mothers and 19.9% of fathers reported their spouse/partner as the primary caregiver. Regional distribution: ~34% North America, ~34% Europe, ~16.9% Asia. Fields: medicine/public health 39.0%, biology 12.7%. About 68.5% were aged 35–39 years. - Themes and sub-themes affecting productivity: 1) For productivity (mostly negative): frequent regulatory changes; lack of staff/administrative support; bans on access to labs/offices/travel and limits on recruitment; shortages of research supplies (e.g., PPE, plasticware, reagents); canceled/decreased grants and delayed publication processes (e.g., difficulty securing reviewers, prolonged reviews), with some mixed effects. 2) Changes in responsibilities: increased teaching loads and online supervision (often negative, occasionally positive); reduced time for own research; increased childcare and domestic burdens; surge in online meetings (often exhausting, sometimes efficient). 3) Deteriorated health: physical issues (fatigue, sleep problems, musculoskeletal strain); mental health problems (stress, burnout, depression, reduced motivation); blurred work–life boundaries and extended hours. 4) Insufficient at-home work environment: inadequate workspace/IT setup; lack of in-person interactions hampering collaboration, supervision, and creativity; remote communication less efficient. 5) Increased flexibility and other positive aspects: more flexible teaching methods and scheduling; increased funding and opportunities for COVID-19 research; adoption of alternative methodologies (e.g., online surveys, data reanalysis, review writing); fluidity of workday and commute time savings. - Gendered caregiving patterns (selected comparative mentions among parents): mothers more frequently referenced caregiving terms than fathers, indicating higher burdens. Examples include mothers vs fathers (% of respective parent subgroup): children (9.28% vs 4.23), childcare (7.69% vs 4.07), kid (7.01% vs 2.28), school (9.73% vs 4.07), family (5.20% vs 2.28), daycare (3.39% vs 1.30). Overall, mothers’ greater mention of caregiving/domestic terms aligns with reports of reduced research time and productivity. - Positive counterpoints: some reported gains in productivity due to remote meeting efficiency, reduced commuting, expanded COVID-19-related research funding/output, and strategic shifts toward writing and data analysis. - Overall: Widespread disruptions and burdens decreased perceived productivity for many, especially those in lab-based fields and those with increased caregiving, with evidence of gendered inequities.

The findings corroborate and extend prior evidence that COVID-19 restrictions disrupted academic work, particularly for lab- and human-subjects research, and increased teaching and administrative burdens. The thematic analysis illuminates mechanisms behind reduced productivity metrics beyond publication counts, including access restrictions, staffing shortfalls, remote supervision inefficiencies, and diminished in-person collaboration. Importantly, text analysis supports the hypothesis of gendered inequities in caregiving during the pandemic, with mothers reporting greater childcare/domestic burdens than fathers, contributing to less time for research and heightened stress. While some scientists experienced benefits—flexibility, commute savings, and COVID-19 research opportunities—these advantages were unevenly distributed and often offset by mental and physical health strains and blurred work–life boundaries. The results highlight a need for institutional responses that maintain research continuity (e.g., access protocols, supply chain support), bolster administrative and IT assistance, mitigate teaching overload during modality shifts, and address equity through caregiving support and flexible policies. Given concerns about long-term career impacts, especially for caregivers and early-career scientists, promotion and evaluation criteria may need to account for pandemic-related disruptions.

This global, multi-language qualitative study identifies a comprehensive set of pandemic-related factors shaping scientists’ productivity across STEM and medicine and documents gendered caregiving burdens that likely exacerbated pre-existing inequities. The work contributes by elucidating concrete obstacles and some adaptive strategies, moving beyond output metrics to the lived dynamics of academic work. Institutions should: provide rapid administrative and IT support; plan for lab access and supply continuity; offer resources for effective online teaching and supervision; adopt flexible, family-friendly policies (e.g., tenure clock extensions, caregiving supports); and recognize differential impacts in evaluations. Future research should incorporate more granular quantitative analyses across regions, fields, and career stages; use designs that distinguish sex and gender identities with culturally sensitive language; and explore long-term career trajectories and effectiveness of institutional interventions.

- Generalizability limited to STEM/medicine; findings may not extend to other disciplines. - Potential selection bias: recruitment via publication databases and stated focus on gender and mental health may have attracted particular respondents; likely overrepresents research-focused roles versus government or solely teaching roles. - Cross-sectional design precludes temporal causality. - Thematic analysis entails subjectivity; despite double-coding and consensus, interpretative bias is possible. - Limited subgroup comparisons (e.g., by region, employment type, tenure status) due to qualitative design. - Language/translation and cross-cultural differences complicate distinctions between sex and gender; small non-binary sample prevented analysis. - Word cloud/text search methods rely on frequency and may miss contextual nuance; translated terms could affect counts. - Unsolicited email recruitment raised privacy concerns; alternative recruitment strategies are advisable. - Variable, self-defined notions of “productivity” across participants.