Research patterns in communication (2009–2019): testing female representation and productivity differences, within the most cited authors and the field

This study compares the share of male/female as first authors, the growth of authors per paper, and the differences in publication productivity in the last decade of the most cited authors versus the field of communication (i.e., a representative sample of papers published in the field of communication). Results indicate that there are significantly more female first authors in the field than a decade ago, but their proportion among the most cited authors has not grown at a similar pace. Likewise, the number of authors per paper has significantly increased in the field, but not among the most cited authors, who, in turn, publish significantly more papers than the field, both in 2009 and 2019. And not only that, the productivity gap between the most cited authors and the field has substantially increased between the span of this decade. Theoretical implications of these findings and suggestions for future studies are also discussed.

Towards a moralization of bibliometrics? A response to Kyle Siler

In a recent letter to QSS, Kyle Siler (2021), made harsh comments against the decision of the editors to publish a controversial paper signed by Alessandro Strumia (2021) about gender differences in high-energy physics. My aim here is to point to the elements in Siler’s letter that are typical of a new tendency to replace rational and technical arguments with a series of moral statements and ex cathedra affirmations that are not supported by cogent arguments. Such an approach can only be detrimental to rational debates within the bibliometric research community.