Russell J. Funk

Kara Kedrick, Ekaterina Levitskaya, Russell J. Funk

A growing stream of research finds that scientific contributions are evaluated differently depending on the gender of the author. In this article, we consider whether gender differences in writing styles - how men and women communicate their work - may contribute to these observed gender gaps. We ground our investigation in a framework for characterizing the linguistic style of written text, with two sets of features - informational (i.e., features that emphasize facts) and involved (i.e., features that emphasize relationships). Using a large sample of academic papers and patents, we find significant differences in writing style by gender, with women using more involved features in their writing. Papers and patents with more involved features also tend to be cited more by women. Our findings suggest that scientific text is not devoid of personal character, which could contribute to bias in evaluation, thereby compromising the norm of universalism as a foundational principle of science.

Michael Park, Erin Leahey, Russell J. Funk

We respond to Holst et al.'s critique that the decline in scientific disruptiveness documented in Park et al. (Nature, 2023) is an artifact of including works with zero backward citations. Using their advocated dataset, metric, and exclusion criteria, we find declines equivalent to major benchmark transformations in science. Their own regression model--designed to address their concerns about zero-citation works--yields large and significant declines for both papers and patents (p<0.001), a result found in their supplementary tables yet left unaddressed, despite directly contradicting their central claim. Their critique is further undermined by severe quality issues in their data, which contain three times more zero-citation works than ours. We trace this excess to their inclusion of at least 2.8 million editorials, obituaries, and comments, 1.5 million books and proceedings, and 254,000 product and artistic reviews--in all, 20% of their sample is non-research content that almost by definition lacks backward citations. Simple keyword searches confirm the problem's severity, identifying among others 456 For Dummies guides, 50 Dr. Seuss and Curious George books, and the Captain Underpants series--all zero-citation entries in their sample. Applying granular document type classification to their data reveals that such non-research content fell from 40% to 8% of their sample between 1945 and 2010--a shift sufficient to generate the decline in zero-citation prevalence they attribute to metadata errors in our study. Standard practice excludes such content to guard against the metadata quality concerns at the center of their critique--concerns their dataset exemplifies rather than addresses. Declining disruptiveness has been documented in nearly 100 studies across multiple databases, metrics, and non-citation-based measures. The weight of evidence does not support an artifact-based explanation.