- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Trends and themes of twenty years of physics education research: A bibliometric analysis of PRPER publications

Yajun Wei*, Xiuli Wei, and Ziqiang Chen

  • *Contact author: weiyajun@gzhu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010104 – Published 21 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/384p-1hfv

Abstract

Physics education research (PER) has shown substantial growth in recent years, yet comprehensive reviews mapping the field’s overall trajectory remain scarce. The leading journal, Physical Review Physics Education Research (PRPER), has been a cornerstone of the discipline since its launch in 2005. Marking its 20th anniversary, this study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of PRPER publications from July 2005 to June 2025. Using data extracted from the Web of Science and Scopus, this study examines key indicators, including publication/citation trends, contributor demographics, prolific author characteristics, and collaborations, alongside the field’s intellectual structures and their evolution. The results reveal sustained growth in publication volume and a concentration of authorship within U.S.-based institutions. The analysis finds that PRPER publications group well into seven major research clusters: Understanding and Supporting Student Learning; Identity and Equity; Conceptual Inventory; Physics Laboratory; Physics Problem Solving; Attitude and Epistemology; and Quantum Physics Education. Notably, Quantum Physics Education emerges in this analysis as one of the seven distinct major research clusters identified through bibliographic coupling. Timeline analysis reveals a shift in thematic emphasis from foundational work on conceptual assessment toward increasing focus on identity, equity, and quantum education. This bibliometric overview not only traces the intellectual trajectory of PRPER but also offers insights into the broader evolution of PER, highlighting existing gaps, such as the need to integrate equity research into quantum education, and suggesting future directions for the field.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (84)

  1. N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines, J. Bus. Res. 133, 285 (2021).
  2. I. Zupic and T. Čater, Bibliometric methods in management and organization, Organ. Res. Methods 18, 429 (2014).
  3. A. Pritchard, Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?, J. Doc. 25, 348 (1969).
  4. X. Chen, D. Zou, and H. Xie, Fifty years of British Journal of Educational Technology: A topic modeling based bibliometric perspective, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 51, 692 (2020).
  5. T. C. Lin, T. J. Lin, and C. C. Tsai, Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 1346 (2014).
  6. S. Qiu and M. Natarajarathinam, Fifty-three years of the Journal of Engineering Education: A bibliometric analysis, J. Eng. Educ. 113, 767 (2024).
  7. N. M. Modak, V. Lobos, J. M. Merigó, B. Gabrys, and J. H. Lee, Forty years of computers & chemical engineering: A bibliometric analysis, Comput. Chem. Eng. 141, 106978 (2020).
  8. S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  9. A. Pawlak, P. W. Irving, and M. D. Caballero, Development of the modes of collaboration framework, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010101 (2018).
  10. D. E. Meltzer and R. K. Thornton, Resource letter ALIP–1: Active-learning instruction in physics, Am. J. Phys. 80, 478 (2012).
  11. D. E. Meltzer, How should physics teachers be prepared? A review of recommendations, Phys. Teach. 59, 530 (2021).
  12. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  13. H. K. Baker, S. Kumar, and N. Pandey, Forty years of the Journal of Futures Markets: A bibliometric overview, J. Futures Mark. 41, 1027 (2021).
  14. D. Zeleznik, H. B. Vošner, and P. Kokol, A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1976–2015, J. Adv. Nurs. 73, 2407 (2017).
  15. S. Verma and A. Gustafsson, Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach, J. Bus. Res. 118, 253 (2020).
  16. N. Donthu, S. Kumar, and N. Pandey, A retrospective evaluation of Marketing Intelligence & Planning: 1983–2019, Mark. Intell. Plan. 39, 48 (2020).
  17. M. J. Cobo, A. G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62, 1382 (2011).
  18. A. Durán-Sánchez, M. de la C. Del Río-Rama, J. Álvarez-García, and D. F. García-Vélez, Mapping of scientific coverage on education for entrepreneurship in higher education, J. Enterprising Communities 13, 84 (2019).
  19. M. Sigala, S. Kumar, N. Donthu, R. Sureka, and Y. Joshi, A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management: Research contributions and influence, J. Hospitality Tour. Manage. 47, 273 (2021).
  20. F. Strozzi, C. Colicchia, A. Creazza, and C. Noè, Literature review on the “smart factory” concept using bibliometric tools, Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 6572 (2017).
  21. E. Garfield and I. H. Sher, Brief communication Keywords Plus: Algorithmic derivative indexing, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 44, 298 (1993).
  22. E. Segev, Semantic Network Analysis in Social Sciences (Routledge, London, 2021), https://www.routledge.com/Semantic-Network-Analysis-in-Social-Sciences/Segev/p/book/9780367636524.
  23. K. Gupta, An analysis of the co-occurrence of keywords on the topic sustainable development of libraries: A scientometrics analysis, Libr. Philos. Pract. 7868 (2023), https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/7868/.
  24. N. J. Van Eck and L. Waltman, vosviewer Manual Version 1.6.19 (Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, 2023), pp. 1–53, https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.19.pdf.
  25. M. M. Kessler, Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers, Am. Doc. 14, 10 (1963).
  26. V. A. Traag, L. Waltman, and N. J. van Eck, From Louvain to Leiden: Guaranteeing well-connected communities, Sci. Rep. 9, 5233 (2019).
  27. L. Waltman and N. J. van Eck, A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection, Eur. Phys. J. B 86, 471 (2013).
  28. N. J. Van Eck and L. Waltman, Software survey: vosviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics 84, 523 (2010).
  29. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006).
  30. N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, S. Reid, and R. LeMaster, When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010103 (2005).
  31. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020102 (2007).
  32. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
  33. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  34. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
  35. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
  36. L. Ding and R. Beichner, Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020103 (2009).
  37. K. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, H. J. Pol, A. Brinkman, and W. R. van Joolingen, Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010109 (2017).
  38. K. L. Lewis, J. G. Stout, S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and T. A. Ito, Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016).
  39. S. L. Eddy and S. E. Brownell, Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020106 (2016).
  40. E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020123 (2018).
  41. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  42. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  43. R. S. Barthelemy, M. McCormick, and C. Henderson, Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020119 (2016).
  44. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  45. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009).
  46. K. Rosa and F. M. Mensah, Educational pathways of Black women physicists: Stories of experiencing and overcoming obstacles in life, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020113 (2016).
  47. E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with class, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 013102 (2009).
  48. K. L. Malone, Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventory, and problem-solving behaviors, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020107 (2008).
  49. S. White and R. Y. Chu, Who teaches high school physics, AIP Report, April 2024, https://www.aip.org/statistics/who-teaches-high-school-physics-19?.
  50. K. A. Anderson, M. Crespi, and E. C. Sayre, Linking behavior in the physics education research coauthorship network, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010121 (2017).
  51. A. D. Robertson, L. M. Goodhew, L. C. Bauman, B. Hansen, and A. T. Alesandrini, Identifying student conceptual resources for understanding physics: A practical guide for researchers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020138 (2023).
  52. A. Gupta, A. Elby, and B. A. Danielak, Exploring the entanglement of personal epistemologies and emotions in students’ thinking, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010129 (2018).
  53. J. M. Bailey, D. Lombardi, J. R. Cordova, and G. M. Sinatra, Meeting students halfway: Increasing self-efficacy and promoting knowledge change in astronomy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020140 (2017).
  54. Y. Li and C. Singh, Sense of belonging is an important predictor of introductory physics students academic performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020137 (2023).
  55. Y. Li and C. Singh, Inclusive learning environments can improve student learning and motivational beliefs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020147 (2022).
  56. A. L. Traxler, X. C. Cid, J. Blue, and R. Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  57. J. Stewart, C. Zabriskie, S. DeVore, and G. Stewart, Multidimensional item response theory and the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010137 (2018).
  58. D. Hewagallage, E. Christman, and J. Stewart, Examining the relation of high school preparation and college achievement to conceptual understanding, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010149 (2022).
  59. J. Wells, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, J. Yang, and A. Traxler, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force Concept Inventory with modified module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020122 (2019).
  60. J. M. May, Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020168 (2023).
  61. M. Vignal, G. Geschwind, B. Pollard, R. Henderson, M. D. Caballero, and H. J. Lewandowski, Survey of physics reasoning on uncertainty concepts in experiments: An assessment of measurement uncertainty for introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020139 (2023).
  62. D. Buggé, Improving scientific abilities through lab report revision in a high school investigative science learning environment classroom, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020166 (2023).
  63. M. Good, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Impact of traditional or evidence-based active-engagement instruction on introductory female and male students’ attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020129 (2019).
  64. A. Maries, S-Y Lin, and C. Singh, Challenges in designing appropriate scaffolding to improve students’ representational consistency: The case of a Gauss’s law problem, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020103 (2017).
  65. A. Robinson, J. H. Simonetti, K. Richardson, and M. Wawro, Positive attitudinal shifts and a narrowing gender gap: Do expertlike attitudes correlate to higher learning gains for women in the physics classroom?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010101 (2021).
  66. M. M. Hull, B. A. Lindsey, M. Archambault, K. Davey, and A. Y. Liu, Unexpected attitudinal growth in a course combining reformed curricula, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010101 (2016).
  67. A. Elby and S. Yerdelen-Damar, Rethinking the relationship between instructors and physics education researchers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020151 (2020).
  68. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Framework for understanding the patterns of student difficulties in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020119 (2015).
  69. V. Dini and D. Hammer, Case study of a successful learner’s epistemological framings of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010124 (2017).
  70. C. Keebaugh, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, Challenges in sensemaking and reasoning in the context of degenerate perturbation theory in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020139 (2024).
  71. J. L. Rosenberg, N. Holincheck, and M. Colandene, Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics undergraduates’ knowledge and interest in quantum careers: Barriers and opportunities to building a diverse quantum workforce, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010138 (2024).
  72. T. O. B. Odden, H. Tyseng, J. T. Mjaaland, M. F. Kreutzer, and A. Malthe-Sørenssen, Using text embeddings for deductive qualitative research at scale in physics education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020151 (2024).
  73. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Surveying students’ understanding of quantum mechanics in one spatial dimension, Am. J. Phys. 80, 252 (2012).
  74. G. Pospiech, May teaching quantum physics between quantum technology and general education, in International Conference on Frontiers of Fundamental Physics (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2024), pp. 393–416.
  75. H. K. E. Stadermann, E. van den Berg, and M. J. Goedhart, Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010130 (2019).
  76. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Quantum Computing: Progress and Prospects (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2019).
  77. W. B. Lane, M. Michelini, and C. Singh, Editorial: Focused collection: Investigating and improving quantum education through research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010002 (2025).
  78. E. Yun, Review of trends in physics education research using topic modeling, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 19, 388 (2020).
  79. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  80. A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta, The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century, Sci. Educ. 88, 28 (2004).
  81. AAPT Committee on Laboratories, Goals of the introductory physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 66, 483 (1998).
  82. N. G. Holmes, C. E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  83. E. Brewe, Goals from the incoming chief editor, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010001 (2025).
  84. Y. Wei and X. Wei, Bibliometric data from 20 years of PRPER (2005–2025), Mendeley Data, V1, 2025, 10.17632/zzf8xmhc6k.1.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010104– Published 21 January, 2026
  • Received 9 April 2025
  • Accepted 16 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation