The Hidden Cost of Big Labs

A 2025 study published in Nature Human Behaviour analyzed mentorship data from:

→ 1.5 million scientists
→ 16 million papers
→ 1.8 million mentor–mentee relationships across Chemistry, Physics, and Neuroscience. The authors asked a deceptively simple question:

Is it better for young researchers to train in a large, prestigious lab — or in a smaller research group? The answer revealed a striking paradox.

Big labs produce stars. Small labs produce stability

The study found that mentees trained in large research groups had a 38–48% lower chance of remaining in academia compared to those trained in smaller groups.

In the paper, "survival" meant continuing to publish scientific papers 10 years after a researcher's first publication. In other words: Joining a large, prestigious lab may make you significantly less likely to stay in academia long-term.

But here's the paradox:

If researchers from large groups do survive, they often outperform everyone else.

They tend to have:

→ Higher citation impact
→ Greater likelihood of becoming top-cited scientists
→ More future mentees of their own
→ Greater long-term academic visibility

This creates a high-risk/high-reward structure within academia: Large labs produce many elite academic "winners" — but also lose more trainees along the way.

Why might this happen?

Large research groups offer enormous advantages:

→ Prestigious networks
→ High-impact publications
→ More funding and resources
→ Access to cutting-edge projects
→ Strong institutional reputation

For ambitious students, these environments can be incredibly attractive. But the study suggests there may also be hidden structural costs:

→ Less individual attention from the PI
→ More internal competition
→ Uneven mentorship opportunities
→ Greater risk of being overlooked
→ Higher dropout rates

One of the paper's most surprising findings was this: Mentors with higher yearly publication output tended to have students with lower academic survival rates.

Why? Because time is finite. A PI managing grants, committees, collaborations, conferences, papers, and a large research group simply cannot devote the same amount of attention to every trainee.

The study repeatedly points toward one central idea: > Mentor attention matters enormously.

The strongest predictor of survival

One finding stood out above almost everything else. The strongest predictor of future academic survival was not middle-author publications. It was: First-author papers published with the mentor.

The authors interpret this as a signal of:

→ Direct supervision
→ Meaningful scientific guidance
→ Hands-on mentorship
→ Investment in the trainee's development

In other words, the trainees who received the most focused mentorship were the most likely to remain in academia and succeed long-term.

The tradeoff

The paper ultimately describes a difficult tradeoff.

Large groups

→ Higher upside
→ Greater visibility
→ Better resources
→ Higher citation potential
→ Lower odds of long-term survival

Small groups

→ More personal mentorship
→ More direct supervision
→ Higher academic survival rates
→ Lower average citation impact

Neither environment is universally better.

Some students thrive in highly competitive, fast-moving labs. Others perform far better in smaller, more supportive settings. But the study makes one thing clear: > The structure of mentorship matters far more than most students realize.

Questions worth asking before joining a lab

For students choosing a PhD or postdoc position, this paper suggests some important questions:

→ How many students does the PI supervise?
→ How often are 1-on-1 meetings held?
→ How many first-author papers do trainees publish?
→ What percentage of students stay in academia?
→ How evenly distributed is mentor attention within the group?

Big labs are not inherently bad. Small labs are not automatically better.

But students should understand the tradeoffs before making one of the most important decisions of their academic careers.

Because the reality may be simpler than most people expect:

Big labs create stars.
Small labs create stability.

---

Source

Study: Academic mentees thrive in big groups, but survive in small groups
Authors: Yanmeng Xing, Yifang Ma, Ying Fan, Roberta Sinatra & An Zeng
Journal: Nature Human Behaviour (2025)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02114-8