Teamwork is cooperative, participative and power sharing. In science of science, few studies have looked at the impact of team collaboration from the perspective of team power and hierarchy. This research examines in depth the relationships between t
eam power and team success in the field of Computer Science (CS) using the DBLP dataset. Team power and hierarchy are measured using academic age and team success is quantified by citation. By analyzing 4,106,995 CS teams, we find that high power teams with flat structure have the best performance. On the contrary, low-power teams with hierarchical structure is a facilitator of team performance. These results are consistent across different time periods and team sizes.
Scientific novelty is important during the pandemic due to its critical role in generating new vaccines. Parachuting collaboration and international collaboration are two crucial channels to expand teams search activities for a broader scope of resou
rces required to address the global challenge. Our analysis of 58,728 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pre-trained on 29 million PubMed articles, and parachuting collaboration dramatically increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, while international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During the COVID-19, papers with more parachuting collaboration and internationally collaborative papers are predicted to be more novel. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources, and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond established networks and nationalism during a pandemic.
Responsible indicators are crucial for research assessment and monitoring. Transparency and accuracy of indicators are required to make research assessment fair and ensure reproducibility. However, sometimes it is difficult to conduct or replicate st
udies based on indicators due to the lack of transparency in conceptualization and operationalization. In this paper, we review the different variants of the Probabilistic Affinity Index (PAI), considering both the conceptual and empirical underpinnings. We begin with a review of the historical development of the indicator and the different alternatives proposed. To demonstrate the utility of the indicator, we demonstrate the application of PAI to identifying preferred partners in scientific collaboration. A streamlined procedure is provided, to demonstrate the variations and appropriate calculations. We then compare the results of implementation for five specific countries involved in international scientific collaboration. Despite the different proposals on its calculation, we do not observe large differences between the PAI variants, particularly with respect to country size. As with any indicator, the selection of a particular variant is dependent on the research question. To facilitate appropriate use, we provide recommendations for the use of the indicator given specific contexts.
The number of publications and the number of citations received have become the most common indicators of scholarly success. In this context, scientific writing increasingly plays an important role in scholars scientific careers. To understand the re
lationship between scientific writing and scientific impact, this paper selected 12 variables of linguistic complexity as a proxy for depicting scientific writing. We then analyzed these features from 36,400 full-text Biology articles and 1,797 full-text Psychology articles. These features were compared to the scientific impact of articles, grouped into high, medium, and low categories. The results suggested no practical significant relationship between linguistic complexity and citation strata in either discipline. This suggests that textual complexity plays little role in scientific impact in our data sets.
