Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExploring the Disproportion Between Scientific Productivity and Knowledge Amount
143
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Huquan Kang
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Luoyi Fu
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The pursuit of knowledge is the permanent goal of human beings. Scientific literature, as the major medium that carries knowledge between scientists, exhibits explosive growth during the last century. Despite the frequent use of many tangible measures, such as citation, impact factor and g-index, to quantify the influence of papers from different perspectives based on scientific productivity, it has not yet been well understood how the relationship between scientific productivity and knowledge amount turns out to be, i.e., how the knowledge value of papers and knowledge amount vary with development of the discipline. This raises the question of whether high scientific productivity equals large knowledge amount. Here, building on rich literature on academic conferences and journals, we collect 185 million articles covering 19 disciplines published during 1970 to 2020, and establish citation network research area to represent the knowledge flow from the authors of the article being cited to the authors of the articles that cite it under each specific area. As a result, the structure formed during the evolution of each scientific area can implicitly tells how the knowledge flows between nodes and how it behaves as the number of literature (productivity) increases. By leveraging Structural entropy in structured high-dimensional space and Shannon entropy in unstructured probability space, we propose the Quantitative Index of Knowledge (KQI), which is taken as the subtraction between the two types of entropy, to reflect the extent of disorder difference (knowledge amount) caused by structure (order). With the aid of KQI, we find that, although the published literature shows an explosive growth, the amount of knowledge (KQI) contained in it obviously slows down, and there is a threshold after which the growth of knowledge accelerates...
rate research
Read More
Throughout history, a relatively small number of individuals have made a profound and lasting impact on science and society. Despite long-standing, multi-disciplinary interests in understanding careers of elite scientists, there have been limited attempts for a quantitative, career-level analysis. Here, we leverage a comprehensive dataset we assembled, allowing us to trace the entire career histories of nearly all Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine over the past century. We find that, although Nobel laureates were energetic producers from the outset, producing works that garner unusually high impact, their careers before winning the prize follow relatively similar patterns as ordinary scientists, being characterized by hot streaks and increasing reliance on collaborations. We also uncovered notable variations along their careers, often associated with the Nobel prize, including shifting coauthorship structure in the prize-winning work, and a significant but temporary dip in the impact of work they produce after winning the Nobel. Together, these results document quantitative patterns governing the careers of scientific elites, offering an empirical basis for a deeper understanding of the hallmarks of exceptional careers in science.
The association between productivity and impact of scientific production is a long-standing debate in science that remains controversial and poorly understood. Here we present a large-scale analysis of the association between yearly publication numbers and average journal-impact metrics for the Brazilian scientific elite. We find this association to be discipline-specific, career-age dependent, and similar among researchers with outlier and non-outlier performance. Outlier researchers either outperform in productivity or journal prestige, but they rarely do so in both categories. Non-outliers also follow this trend and display negative correlations between productivity and journal prestige but with discipline-dependent intensity. Our research indicates that academics are averse to simultaneous changes in their productivity and journal-prestige levels over consecutive career years. We also find that career patterns concerning productivity and journal prestige are discipline-specific, having in common a raise of productivity with career age for most disciplines and a higher chance of outperforming in journal impact during early career stages.
Analysing research trends and predicting their impact on academia and industry is crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the advances in a research field and to inform critical decisions about research funding and technology adoption. In the last years, we saw the emergence of several publicly-available and large-scale Scientific Knowledge Graphs fostering the development of many data-driven approaches for performing quantitative analyses of research trends. This chapter presents an innovative framework for detecting, analysing, and forecasting research topics based on a large-scale knowledge graph characterising research articles according to the research topics from the Computer Science Ontology. We discuss the advantages of a solution based on a formal representation of topics and describe how it was applied to produce bibliometric studies and innovative tools for analysing and predicting research dynamics.
Knowledge distillation is a generalized logits matching technique for model compression. Their equivalence is previously established on the condition of $textit{infinity temperature}$ and $textit{zero-mean normalization}$. In this paper, we prove that with only $textit{infinity temperature}$, the effect of knowledge distillation equals to logits matching with an extra regularization. Furthermore, we reveal that an additional weaker condition -- $textit{equal-mean initialization}$ rather than the original $textit{zero-mean normalization}$ already suffices to set up the equivalence. The key to our proof is we realize that in modern neural networks with the cross-entropy loss and softmax activation, the mean of back-propagated gradient on logits always keeps zero.
Publish or perish is an expression describing the pressure on academics to consistently publish research to ensure a successful career in academia. With a global pandemic that has changed the world, how has it changed academic productivity? Here we show that academics are posting just as many publications on the arXiv pre-print server as if there were no pandemic: 168,630 were posted in 2020, a +12.6% change from 2019 and $+1.4sigma$ deviation above the predicted 162,577 $pm$ 4,393. However, some immediate impacts are visible in individual research fields. Conference cancellations have led to sharp drops in pre-prints, but laboratory closures have had mixed effects. Only some experimental fields show mild declines in outputs, with most being consistent on previous years or even increasing above model expectations. The most significant change is a 50% increase ($+8sigma$) in quantitative biology research, all related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of these publications are by biologists using arXiv for the first time, and some are written by researchers from other fields (e.g., physicists, mathematicians). While quantitative biology pre-prints have returned to pre-pandemic levels, 20% of the research in this field is now focussed on the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating a strong shift in research focus.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
