Academic Inbreeding: Unraveling Its Complex Impact on Early-Career STEM Researchers in Russia
A pervasive phenomenon known as academic inbreeding—where early-career scientists pursue their academic trajectories at the very institutions from which they earned their degrees—continues to shape the landscape of scientific research worldwide. In Russia, this practice is remarkably prevalent, with nearly half of PhD holders choosing to remain at their alma mater after graduation. Despite long-standing concerns about academic isolation and its potential detrimental effects on innovation, a nuanced understanding of how academic inbreeding influences scientific productivity has remained elusive. Recent research conducted by Victoria Slepykh, Junior Research Fellow at the Higher School of Economics (HSE) Laboratory for University Development, offers a rigorous and multifaceted exploration of this issue within the natural sciences and mathematics, providing key insights into its differential impacts across institutional types, geographic regions, and scientific disciplines.
The comprehensive study scrutinized the career trajectories of 1,132 Russian PhD graduates from the year 2012, focusing on those specializing in physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics. Using quantitative indicators of scientific output—including the number of publications indexed in international databases, citation metrics, and the frequency of articles published in first-quartile (Q1) journals—the research probed how remaining at one’s doctoral institution versus moving to a different university affects early-career productivity. Notably, the analysis was conducted over an eight-year post-graduation window, providing a medium-term perspective on academic development and output.
One of the most striking findings was that 61% of these researchers exhibited academic inbreeding by staying at their original universities. However, on average, those who transitioned to different institutions showed heightened research productivity. Specifically, mobile scientists were not only more prolific in publishing but also more successful in having their work accepted in prestigious journals with higher citation counts. This differential points toward the role of institutional mobility as a catalyst for scientific impact, underscoring potential benefits accruing from diversified academic environments and exposure to broader professional networks.
Delving deeper, the study revealed that the adverse effects of academic inbreeding are most pronounced in universities lacking special status—namely, those which are not federally recognized research institutions nor beneficiaries of government-supported science programs. In these settings, early-career researchers remaining at their original universities published on average 34% fewer Scopus-indexed articles compared to their more mobile peers. Moreover, their likelihood of producing articles in top-tier journals was nearly halved. Such disparities are indicative of a self-reinforcing cycle, where constrained scientific activity and limited resources at the institutional level might perpetuate subdued research agendas and hinder academic growth.
Victoria Slepykh emphasizes the critical influence of institutional environment and infrastructure. At universities without substantial research funding, equipment, or collaborative networks, early-career researchers face difficult conditions that restrict their ability to excel. By remaining embedded in such insular settings, they are more likely to reproduce existing academic norms and standards rather than challenge or advance them. The absence of diverse professional experiences further exacerbates challenges in competitiveness and innovation relative to peers who seek opportunities elsewhere.
Conversely, the scenario is notably different at prestigious, research-intensive institutions. Here, academic inbreeding appears to exert minimal negative impact on productivity. Such universities tend to provide a stimulating research environment furnished with advanced laboratories, vibrant research teams, stable inter-institutional collaborations, and inclusion in large-scale projects. These resources create conditions conducive to sustained scientific output irrespective of whether a researcher has moved or stayed post-PhD. Slepykh suggests that the richness of these environments serves as a buffer against the potentially isolating effects of inbreeding, enabling scientists to thrive even within their alma mater’s confines.
Further nuance emerged when focusing on a subset of the most productive researchers—defined by those whose publication counts exceeded the median, ranging from four to six papers within eight years after obtaining their doctorate. Within this highly productive group of 417 individuals, the incidence of academic inbreeding was lower at 56%. Importantly, academic inbreeding’s influence on productivity in this cohort was generally marginal and manifested predominantly among scientists working in regions with saturated academic labor markets. This observation sheds light on the interplay between regional academic ecosystems and career mobility choices, suggesting location-specific contingencies that shape research outcomes.
Regions abundant in scientific organizations provide PhD graduates with numerous employment alternatives, facilitating mobility and enabling better alignment between researchers’ skills and institutional opportunities. When graduates remain at their original universities in such competitive markets, it often reflects inertia or a lack of strategic career planning rather than deliberate preference, potentially limiting their professional growth. Conversely, in less developed areas where academic employers are scarce, inbreeding is less a product of choice and more a structural constraint. Hence, the study posits that the negative repercussions of academic inbreeding on productivity are most salient when researchers have ample employment options but do not capitalize on them.
The study also uncovered disciplinary differences in patterns of academic inbreeding and mobility. For example, mathematicians were comparatively more mobile and less inclined to remain within their alma mater, contrasting with physicists and chemists who displayed higher rates of academic inbreeding. These differences are likely reflective of varying research infrastructures, collaborative cultures, and publication norms inherent to different STEM fields. Fields with strong traditions of collaboration and well-established external networks may encourage mobility, while others with localized or institution-specific resources might foster retention within original universities.
Slepykh’s findings challenge the monolithic perception of academic inbreeding as uniformly detrimental. While it is not intrinsically problematic, its ramifications are heavily context-dependent. Particularly at universities with limited scientific capacity and resource constraints, inbreeding contributes to diminished research output and hinders innovation. To counteract these drawbacks, institutions and policymakers must actively cultivate environments that incentivize and facilitate academic mobility and external collaboration. Practical measures may include structured internships, academic exchange programs, and partnerships with leading research centers nationally and internationally.
Such initiatives are critical not only for enhancing scientific productivity but also for invigorating the academic ecosystem by broadening perspectives and fostering knowledge exchange. By promoting mobility, early-career researchers can access advanced equipment, cutting-edge methodologies, and interdisciplinary collaborations that are less attainable in isolated university settings. Beyond productivity metrics, the enrichment of scientific culture and the diversification of research networks impart lasting benefits to the trajectory of STEM research in Russia and beyond.
In sum, Victoria Slepykh’s study provides a vital, data-driven examination of academic inbreeding’s heterogeneous impact on early-career STEM researchers. It reveals that while remaining at one’s alma mater carries risks related to reduced output and diminished academic vitality under certain conditions, these effects are mediated by the institutional prestige, resource availability, disciplinary traditions, and regional labor markets. The research underscores the necessity for tailored strategies to promote mobility where beneficial, thereby empowering emerging scientists to realize their full scholarly potential and contribute robustly to global scientific advancement.
Subject of Research: Academic inbreeding and its effects on research productivity among early-career STEM scientists in Russia
Article Title: Academic inbreeding and productivity of STEM early career researchers in different environments
News Publication Date: 1-Jul-2025
Web References:
– https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733325000691#:~:text=However%2C%20academic%20inbreeding%20negatively%20correlates,of%20academic%20inbreeding%20is%20mitigated.
– http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105240
References:
Victoria Slepykh, Academic inbreeding and productivity of STEM early career researchers in different environments, Research Policy, Volume 54, Issue 6, 2025
Image Credits: Victoria Slepykh, Academic inbreeding and productivity of STEM early career researchers in different environments, Research Policy, Volume 54, Issue 6, 2025
Keywords: Education, Science education, Students, Science careers
