Gender issues in fundamental physics: A bibliometric analysis

Abstract

I analyze bibliometric data about fundamental physics worldwide from 1970 to now, extracting quantitative data about gender issues. I do not find significant gender differences in hiring rates, hiring timing, career gaps and slowdowns, abandonment rates, citation, and self-citation patterns. Furthermore, various bibliometric indicators (number of fractionally counted papers, citations, etc.) exhibit a productivity gap at hiring moments, at career level, and without integrating over careers. The gap persists after accounting for confounding factors and manifests as an increasing fraction of male authors going from average to top authors in terms of bibliometric indices, with a quantitative shape that can be fitted by higher male variability.

L’Affaire Strumia reveals troubling gatekeeping values and outcomes at Quantitative Science Studies

“…

Much ink has already been spilled about Strumia (2021). Shortly after QSS agreed to publish the article, Cassidy Sugimoto-current ISSI president and QSS editorial board member-told Science the article was "methodologically flawed," contained "several unsubstantiated claims," and "fails to meet the standards of the bibliometric community" (Chawla, 2019).

…”

“…There is a reasonable argument that it is best not to legitimate bad articles with attention. However, as QSS legitimated and published Strumia (2021), it is perhaps not possible to ignore the article. Even retracted articles still get cited (Schneider et al, 2020).…”

“…I was also disappointed with this response. MIT Press stated by publishing Strumia (2021) with critical rejoinders, they "welcome the opportunity to publish these wide-ranging views," hoping "this approach sheds more light than heat on gender bias in the sciences." 3 This response is either naïve or disingenuous.…”

“…None of us-whether individuals or institutions-are perfect. Given the overwhelmingly negative response to Strumia (2021), I am astounded that neither Waltman nor MIT Press publicly acknowledged the mere possibility that mistakes or shortcomings may have occurred in peer review and gatekeeping at QSS. The stubbornness-if not arrogance-in Waltman's statement is disappointing.…”

“…It is easy to play games with "controversial" ideas when one's social location inures one from negative consequences of legitimating and propagating those ideas. However, I would argue that Waltman harmed his reputation as a gatekeeper, as well as QSS more broadly with his decisions and responses regarding Strumia (2021).…”