اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدThe dominance of big teams in Chinas scientific output
203
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Modern science is dominated by scientific productions from teams. A recent finding shows that teams with both large and small sizes are essential in research, prompting us to analyze the extent to which a countrys scientific work is carried out by big/small teams. Here, using over 26 million publications from Web of Science, we find that Chinas research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, which is particularly the case in fields of natural science. Despite the global trend that more papers are done by big teams, Chinas drop in small team output is much steeper. As teams in China shift from small to large size, the team diversity that is essential for innovative works does not increase as much as that in other countries. Using the national average as the baseline, we find that the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports fewer small team works than the National Science Foundation of U.S. (NSF) does, implying that big teams are more preferred by grant agencies in China. Our finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which urges a need to balance small and big teams.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Inspired by the social and economic benefits of diversity, we analyze over 9 million papers and 6 million scientists to study the relationship between research impact and five classes of diversity: ethnicity, discipline, gender, affiliation, and acad
emic age. Using randomized baseline models, we establish the presence of homophily in ethnicity, gender and affiliation. We then study the effect of diversity on scientific impact, as reflected in citations. Remarkably, of the classes considered, ethnic diversity had the strongest correlation with scientific impact. To further isolate the effects of ethnic diversity, we used randomized baseline models and again found a clear link between diversity and impact. To further support these findings, we use coarsened exact matching to compare the scientific impact of ethnically diverse papers and scientists with closely-matched control groups. Here, we find that ethnic diversity resulted in an impact gain of 10.63% for papers, and 47.67% for scientists.
We provide an up-to-date view on the knowledge management system ScienceWISE (SW) and address issues related to the automatic assignment of articles to research topics. So far, SW has been proven to be an effective platform for managing large volumes
of technical articles by means of ontological concept-based browsing. However, as the publication of research articles accelerates, the expressivity and the richness of the SW ontology turns into a double-edged sword: a more fine-grained characterization of articles is possible, but at the cost of introducing more spurious relations among them. In this context, the challenge of continuously recommending relevant articles to users lies in tackling a network partitioning problem, where nodes represent articles and co-occurring concepts create edges between them. In this paper, we discuss the three research directions we have taken for solving this issue: i) the identification of generic concepts to reinforce inter-article similarities; ii) the adoption of a bipartite network representation to improve scalability; iii) the design of a clustering algorithm to identify concepts for cross-disciplinary articles and obtain fine-grained topics for all articles.
Science is built upon scholarship consensus that changes over time. This raises the question of how revolutionary theories and assumptions are evaluated and accepted into the norm of science as the setting for the next science. Using two recently pro
posed metrics, we identify the novel paper with high atypicality, which models how research draws upon unusual combinations of prior research in crafting their own contributions, and evaluate recognition to novel papers by citation and disruption, which captures the degree to which a research article creates a new direction by eclipsing citations to the prior work it builds upon. Only a small fraction of papers (2.3%) are highly novel, and there are fewer novel papers over time, with a nearly threefold decrease from 3.9% in 1970 to 1.4% in 2000. A highly novel paper indeed has a much higher chance (61.3%) to disrupt science than conventional papers (36.4%), but this recognition only comes from a distant future as reflected in citations, and it typically takes 10 years or longer for the disruption score of a paper to stabilize. In comparison, only nearly 20% of scholars survived in academia over this long period, measured in publications. We also provide the first computational model reformulating atypicality as the distance across the latent knowledge spaces learned by neural networks, as a proxy to the socially agreed relevance between distinct fields of scientific knowledge. The evolution of this knowledge space characterizes how yesterdays novelty forms todays scientific conventions, which condition the novelty--and surprise--of tomorrows breakthroughs. This computational model may be used to inform science policy that aims to recognize and cultivate novelty, so as to mitigate the conflict between individual career success and collective advance in science and direct human creativity to the unknown frontier of scientific knowledge.
Nowadays, researchers have moved to platforms like Twitter to spread information about their ideas and empirical evidence. Recent studies have shown that social media affects the scientific impact of a paper. However, these studies only utilize the t
weet counts to represent Twitter activity. In this paper, we propose TweetPap, a large-scale dataset that introduces temporal information of citation/tweets and the metadata of the tweets to quantify and understand the discourse of scientific papers on social media. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/lingo-iitgn/TweetPap
The ability to confront new questions, opportunities, and challenges is of fundamental importance to human progress and the resilience of human societies, yet the capacity of science to meet new demands remains poorly understood. Here we deploy a new
measurement framework to investigate the scientific response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the adaptability of science as a whole. We find that science rapidly shifted to engage COVID-19 following the advent of the virus, with scientists across all fields making large jumps from their prior research streams. However, this adaptive response reveals a pervasive pivot penalty, where the impact of the new research steeply declines the further the scientists move from their prior work. The pivot penalty is severe amidst COVID-19 research, but it is not unique to COVID-19. Rather it applies nearly universally across the sciences, and has been growing in magnitude over the past five decades. While further features condition pivoting, including a scientists career stage, prior expertise and impact, collaborative scale, the use of new coauthors, and funding, we find that the pivot penalty persists and remains substantial regardless of these features, suggesting the pivot penalty acts as a fundamental friction that governs sciences ability to adapt. The pivot penalty not only holds key implications for the design of the scientific system and human capacity to confront emergent challenges through scientific advance, but may also be relevant to other social and economic systems, where shifting to meet new demands is central to survival and success.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
