Prof Strumia analysed papers available in a database of particle physics research. He produced a series of graphs which, he claimed, showed that women were hired over men whose research was cited more by other scientists in their publications, which is an indication of higher quality.
He also presented data that he claimed showed that male and female researchers were equally cited at the start of their careers but men scored progressively better as their careers progressed.
This evidence, he said indicated that men produced better research than women. But a group of physicists posted their take on the analysis at particlesforjustice.org, external and stated that they believed it to be "fundamentally unsound".
They said the correlation was a reflection of the difficulties faced by women in research rather than their abilities. There are many more men in particle physics, and they tend to cite other male colleagues over women. Senior researchers, who are mostly men, often add their names to research conducted by their junior colleagues on the grounds that they supervised the work, although their contribution to the work can often be minimal or non-existent. And disproportionately higher rates of women leave the field.
Those rebutting Prof Stumia's analysis said that "Prof Strumia is not an expert on these topics and is misusing his physics credentials to put himself forward as one. Those among us who are familiar with the relevant literature know that Strumia's conclusions are in stark disagreement with those of experts.
"He frequently made the basic error of conflating correlation with causation, and while Strumia claimed to be proving that there is no discrimination against women, his arguments were rooted in a circumscribed, biased reading of the data available, to the point of promoting a perspective that is biased against women".
Follow Pallab on Twitter, external