Scientific productivity as a random walk
Authors:
Sam Zhang,
Nicholas LaBerge,
Samuel F. Way,
Daniel B. Larremore,
Aaron Clauset
Abstract:
The expectation that scientific productivity follows regular patterns over a career underpins many scholarly evaluations, including hiring, promotion and tenure, awards, and grant funding. However, recent studies of individual productivity patterns reveal a puzzle: on the one hand, the average number of papers published per year robustly follows the "canonical trajectory" of a rapid rise to an ear…
▽ More
The expectation that scientific productivity follows regular patterns over a career underpins many scholarly evaluations, including hiring, promotion and tenure, awards, and grant funding. However, recent studies of individual productivity patterns reveal a puzzle: on the one hand, the average number of papers published per year robustly follows the "canonical trajectory" of a rapid rise to an early peak followed by a gradual decline, but on the other hand, only about 20% of individual productivity trajectories follow this pattern. We resolve this puzzle by modeling scientific productivity as a parameterized random walk, showing that the canonical pattern can be explained as a decrease in the variance in changes to productivity in the early-to-mid career. By empirically characterizing the variable structure of 2,085 productivity trajectories of computer science faculty at 205 PhD-granting institutions, spanning 29,119 publications over 1980--2016, we (i) discover remarkably simple patterns in both early-career and year-to-year changes to productivity, and (ii) show that a random walk model of productivity both reproduces the canonical trajectory in the average productivity and captures much of the diversity of individual-level trajectories. These results highlight the fundamental role of a panoply of contingent factors in shaping individual scientific productivity, opening up new avenues for characterizing how systemic incentives and opportunities can be directed for aggregate effect.
△ Less
Submitted 13 March, 2025; v1 submitted 8 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
Gender, Productivity, and Prestige in Computer Science Faculty Hiring Networks
Authors:
Samuel F. Way,
Daniel B. Larremore,
Aaron Clauset
Abstract:
Women are dramatically underrepresented in computer science at all levels in academia and account for just 15% of tenure-track faculty. Understanding the causes of this gender imbalance would inform both policies intended to rectify it and employment decisions by departments and individuals. Progress in this direction, however, is complicated by the complexity and decentralized nature of faculty h…
▽ More
Women are dramatically underrepresented in computer science at all levels in academia and account for just 15% of tenure-track faculty. Understanding the causes of this gender imbalance would inform both policies intended to rectify it and employment decisions by departments and individuals. Progress in this direction, however, is complicated by the complexity and decentralized nature of faculty hiring and the non-independence of hires. Using comprehensive data on both hiring outcomes and scholarly productivity for 2659 tenure-track faculty across 205 Ph.D.-granting departments in North America, we investigate the multi-dimensional nature of gender inequality in computer science faculty hiring through a network model of the hiring process. Overall, we find that hiring outcomes are most directly affected by (i) the relative prestige between hiring and placing institutions and (ii) the scholarly productivity of the candidates. After including these, and other features, the addition of gender did not significantly reduce modeling error. However, gender differences do exist, e.g., in scholarly productivity, postdoctoral training rates, and in career movements up the rankings of universities, suggesting that the effects of gender are indirectly incorporated into hiring decisions through gender's covariates. Furthermore, we find evidence that more highly ranked departments recruit female faculty at higher than expected rates, which appears to inhibit similar efforts by lower ranked departments. These findings illustrate the subtle nature of gender inequality in faculty hiring networks and provide new insights to the underrepresentation of women in computer science.
△ Less
Submitted 2 February, 2016;
originally announced February 2016.
