Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Salganik MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7165437 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Disruptive advancements in science and technology often rely on new ideas and findings, which in turn brings us to focus on the value of novelty in scholarly activities. Using Web of Science publication data from European regions for the period between 2008 and 2017, this study examines, first, the impact of scientific collaboration on novelty of research. Here, five levels of collaboration are considered for each article-country, three levels of regions, and institutions, and novelty is measured with keywords information. Second, we investigate both the effect and moderating effect of research funding on novelty. Our findings show that there is a negative and significant relationship between scientific collaboration and novelty. Furthermore, funded papers show lower novelty than the unfunded, but funding does have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between collaboration and novelty. This study contributes by linking diverse levels of collaboration and funding sources to article's novelty and thus extending the scope of bibliometric research of publications.
| S-EPMC9312390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cuba and the U.S. have the oldest Academies of Sciences outside Europe. Both countries have a long history of scientific collaboration that dates to the 1800s. Both scientific communities also share geographical proximity and common scientific research interests mainly in Biotechnology, Meteorology, and Public Health research. Despite these facts, scientists from both nations face serious barriers to cooperation raised by the U.S. embargo established in 1961 that prohibits exchanges with Cuba. The study aims to analyze the effects of U.S. policy on scientific collaboration with Cuban scientific institutions. The results of the bibliometric analysis of Cuba-U.S. joint publications in the Web of Science, and Scopus databases between 1980 to 2020 indicate sustained growth of scientific collaboration between scientists of both nations over the past forty years. The results also show that after the 1980 Smithsonian Institution and the Cuba's Academy of Sciences agreement significantly increased scientific collaboration between U.S. scientists with their Cuban peers. President Barack Obama's approach to normalizing the U.S. Cuba relations in 2015 enhanced Cuban scientific production with U.S. scientists by exceeding the number of collaborative papers published during any preceding U.S. Presidential administration. By 2020, Cuba had expanded its scientific links to 80% of the countries in the world. Cuban and U.S. scientists converted from adversaries into partners, showing that science is an effective diplomatic channel. A particularly important question for the future is how robust is the collaboration system in the face of greater political restrictions?
| S-EPMC8297818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Researchers collaborate on scientific projects that are often measured by both the quantity and the quality of the resultant peer-reviewed publications. However, not all collaborators contribute to these publications equally, making metrics such as the total number of publications and the H-index insufficient measurements of individual scientific impact. To remedy this, we use an axiomatic approach to assign relative credits to the coauthors of a given paper, referred to as the A-index for its axiomatic foundation. In this paper, we use the A-index to compute the weighted sums of peer-reviewed publications and journal impact factors, denoted as the C- and P-indexes for collaboration and productivity, respectively. We perform an in-depth analysis of bibliometric data for 186 biomedical engineering faculty members and from extensive simulation. It is found that these axiomatically weighted indexes better capture a researcher's scientific caliber than do the total number of publications and the H-index, allowing for fairer and sharper evaluation of researchers with diverse collaborative behaviors.
| S-EPMC3683734 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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 academic 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.
| S-EPMC6279741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Understanding spontaneous transitions between dynamical modes in a network is of significant importance. These transitions may separate pathological and normal functions of the brain. In this paper, we develop a set of measures that, based on spatio-temporal features of network activity, predict autonomous network transitions from asynchronous to synchronous dynamics under various conditions. These metrics quantify spike-timing distributions within a narrow time window as a function of the relative location of the active neurons. We applied these metrics to investigate the properties of these transitions in excitatory-only and excitatory-and-inhibitory networks and elucidate how network topology, noise level, and cellular heterogeneity affect both the reliability and the timeliness of the predictions. The developed measures can be calculated in real time and therefore potentially applied in clinical situations.
| S-EPMC4391948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer review is the main institution responsible for the evaluation and gestation of scientific research. Although peer review is widely seen as vital to scientific evaluation, anecdotal evidence abounds of gatekeeping mistakes in leading journals, such as rejecting seminal contributions or accepting mediocre submissions. Systematic evidence regarding the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of scientific gatekeeping is scant, largely because access to rejected manuscripts from journals is rarely available. Using a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers. Among rejected articles, desk-rejected manuscripts, deemed as unworthy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review. Among both rejected and accepted articles, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published. However, hindsight reveals numerous questionable gatekeeping decisions. Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were desk-rejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill--suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research. Despite this finding, results show that in our case studies, on the whole, there was value added in peer review. Editors and peer reviewers generally--but not always-made good decisions regarding the identification and promotion of quality in scientific manuscripts.
| S-EPMC4299220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific knowledge is an underlying basis for technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Collaboration is the main way to participate in the creation of scientific knowledge for pharmaceutical firms. Will network positions in scientific collaboration affect their technological innovation performance? Moreover, what factors moderate the firms' scientific collaboration network positions and technological innovation link? Using a dataset based on 194 Chinese publicly traded pharmaceutical companies, this paper constructs the dynamic scientific collaboration networks among 1,826 organizations by analyzing 4,092 papers included in CNKI and Web of Science databases. Then we probe the impact and boundaries of positions in the scientific collaboration network of pharmaceutical firms on their technological innovation performance through the negative binomial modeling approach. Our study confirms that degree centrality has an inverted U-shaped impact on pharmaceutical firms' technological innovation performance, while structural holes benefit it. Moreover, this article identifies that the strength of scientific collaboration positively moderates the U-shaped relationship between degree centrality and technological innovation of pharmaceutical firms, the matching of high patent stock and high structural holes can promote their technological innovation performance. The results deepen the present understanding of scientific collaboration in the pharmaceutical industry and offer new insights into the formulation of pharmaceutical firms' scientific collaboration strategies.
| S-EPMC9401607 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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 to those of 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 Prize. 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.
| S-EPMC7211484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The friendship paradox states that your friends have on average more friends than you have. Does the paradox "hold" for other individual characteristics like income or happiness? To address this question, we generalize the friendship paradox for arbitrary node characteristics in complex networks. By analyzing two coauthorship networks of Physical Review journals and Google Scholar profiles, we find that the generalized friendship paradox (GFP) holds at the individual and network levels for various characteristics, including the number of coauthors, the number of citations, and the number of publications. The origin of the GFP is shown to be rooted in positive correlations between degree and characteristics. As a fruitful application of the GFP, we suggest effective and efficient sampling methods for identifying high characteristic nodes in large-scale networks. Our study on the GFP can shed lights on understanding the interplay between network structure and node characteristics in complex networks.
| S-EPMC3980335 | biostudies-other
Project description:Tie strength has been examined as an antecedent of creativity. Although it has been discovered that international collaboration affects scientific performance, the effect of tie strength in the international collaboration network has been largely neglected. Based on international publications of 72 countries/regions published from 1993 to 2013, we combine descriptive and panel regression methods to examine how the bonding of strong collaboration ties contributes to countries’ international scientific performance. Strong ties occur at an average rate of 1 in 4 collaborators, whereas countries/regions share on average 84% of articles with their strong-tie collaborators. Our quantitative results provide an explanation for this phenomenon in international collaboration: the establishment of a strong tie relationship contributes to above-average productivity and citation frequency for countries/regions. To further explore which types of strong ties tend to have stronger citation impact, we analyse the relationship between persistent and stable collaboration and publication citation impact. Experimental results show that international collaborations with greater persistence and moderate stability tend to produce high impact publications. It is noteworthy that when the collaboration period is divided into different time intervals, similar findings can be found after the same analysis procedure is carried out. This indicates that our conclusions are robust. Overall, this study provides quantitative insights into the added value of long-term commitment and social trust associated with strong collaborative partnerships in international collaboration.
| S-EPMC9844855 | biostudies-literature