  Inequality prevails in science. Individual inequality means that most perish
quickly and only a few are successful, while gender inequality implies that
there are differences in achievements for women and men. Using large-scale
bibliographic data and following a computational approach, we study the
evolution of individual and gender inequality for cohorts from 1970 to 2000 in
the whole field of computer science as it grows and becomes a team-based
science. We find that individual inequality in productivity (publications)
increases over a scholar's career but is historically invariant, while
individual inequality in impact (citations), albeit larger, is stable across
cohorts and careers. Gender inequality prevails regarding productivity, but
there is no evidence for differences in impact. The Matthew Effect is shown to
accumulate advantages to early achievements and to become stronger over the
decades, indicating the rise of a "publish or perish" imperative. Only some
authors manage to reap the benefits that publishing in teams promises. The
Matthew Effect then amplifies initial differences and propagates the gender
gap. Women continue to fall behind because they continue to be at a higher risk
of dropping out for reasons that have nothing to do with early-career
achievements or social support. Our findings suggest that mentoring programs
for women to improve their social-networking skills can help to reduce gender
inequality.
