1,720,972 research outputs found
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment - Persian Translation
No full textThis preprint presents the Persian translation of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). The original English text was accessed in May 2022: https://sfdora.org/read/Special thanks to Sara Habibitabar, Aliakbar Akbaritabar, Shiva Sharifzad, Elaheh Hosseini and Ehsan Mohammadi for their helpful suggestions and feedback
Scientific collaboration networks in the interdisciplinary field of biodiversity in central Germany
No full text<p>Examining the effectiveness of institutional scientific coalitions informs future policies. Since 1995, three universities in a central region in Germany have formed a coalition which later established an interdisciplinary centre. We consider the structure of scientific collaborations between coalition members, and the new centre within their regional context. We investigate the coalition's impact on the region's structure of collaborations with a specific focus on the field of biodiversity. Using publications data from 1996-2018 and co-authorship networks, we identify the most cohesive communities in the region and compare them with the scientific outcome of the coalition and new centre. Our results show that the newly established interdisciplinary centre has extensively bridged the member institutions. Yet, we identified more unrealized potential in the region. The level of interdisciplinary collaboration the coalition achieved could inform policymakers regarding other regions' and fields' scientific development plans. Nevertheless, geographical proximity, collaboration policies, funding, and organizational structure alone would not ensure a comprehensive scientific collaboration structure such as the one that the coalition aimed to construct.</p>
Scripts needed to replicate methodology used in "A Quantitative View of the Structure of Institutional Scientific Collaborations Using the Example of Berlin" published in Quantitative Science Studies.
No full textFirst version
Published in https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_0013
Thinking spatially in computational social science
No full textAbstract Deductive and theory-driven research starts by asking questions. Finding tentative answers to these questions in the literature is next. It is followed by gathering, preparing and modelling relevant data to empirically test these tentative answers. Inductive research, on the other hand, starts with data representation and finding general patterns in data. Ahn suggested, in his keynote speech at the seventh International Conference on Computational Social Science (IC2S2) 2021, that the way this data is represented could shape our understanding and the type of answers we find for the questions. He discussed that specific representation learning approaches enable a meaningful embedding space and could allow spatial thinking and broaden computational imagination. In this commentary, I summarize Ahn’s keynote and related publications, provide an overview of the use of spatial metaphor in sociology, discuss how such representation learning can help both inductive and deductive research, propose future avenues of research that could benefit from spatial thinking, and pose some still open questions
Merits and Limits: Applying open data to monitor open access publications in bibliometric databases
No full textIdentifying and monitoring Open Access (OA) publications might seem a trivial task while practical efforts prove otherwise. Contradictory information arise often depending on metadata employed. We strive to assign OA status to publications in Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus while complementing it with different sources
of OA information to resolve contradicting cases. We linked publications from WOS and Scopus via DOIs and ISSNs to Unpaywall, Crossref, DOAJ and ROAD. Only about 70% of articles and reviews from WOS and Scopus could be matched via a DOI to Unpaywall. Matching with Crossref brought 53 distinct licences, which define in many cases the legally binding access status of publications. But only 53% of publications hold only a single licence on Crossref, while more than 42% have no licence information submitted to Crossref. Contrasting OA information from Crossref licences with Unpaywall we found contradictory cases overall amounting to more than 13%, which might be partially explained by (ex-)including green OA. A further manual check found about 17% of OA publications that are not accessible and about 15% non-OA publications that are accessible through publishers’ websites. These preliminary results suggest that identification of OA state of publications denotes a difficult and currently unfulfilled task
Resolving the paradox between migration and collaboration of scholars worldwide
No full textScholars substantially contribute to innovation in knowledge economies. Identifying where scholars come from and move to is a core focus of the recent literature. However, whether collaboration networks of scholars affect where they move next is understudied. Studies which do consider scholarly migration and collaboration in tandem report paradoxical findings.
We take a two pronged approach, considering both how spatial representations of mobility and collaboration networks compare and how collaboration patterns of mobile authors relate to their movement between institutions. We selected a random sample of authors worldwide from Scopus 2020 data based on number of publications, corresponding authorship, publication in top-ranked journals, and mobility status to construct comparable control/observation groups. Our results enabled us to resolve the paradoxical effect between collaboration and mobility. We found that while the histories of these two variables are highly similar across groups, embedding representations of collaboration are more densely packed than those for mobility which could indicate higher costs of mobility than collaboration. Authors who are mobile or identified as top performers, top 1\% based on our selection criteria, are more likely to have a higher number of collaborators. Furthermore, though few authors collaborate only before or after a mobility event, collaboration increases leading up to a mobility event and the majority of publications with a target institution are published prior to the initial move there. Hence our rigorous investigation using multiple methodologies show that the aggregate direction of effect is from collaboration to mobility. Our methodological framework opens up promising avenues for future research on individual level forecasting of scholarly migration and on global dynamics of academic talent circulation
Gender Patterns of Publication in Top Sociological Journals
No full textThis article examines publication patterns over the last seventy years from the American Sociological Review and American Journal of Sociology, the two most prominent journals in sociology. We reconstructed the gender of all published authors and each author’s academic pedigree. Results would suggest that these journals published disproportionally more articles by male authors and their coauthors. These gender inequalities persisted even when considering citations and after controlling for the influence of academic affiliation. It would seem that the potentially positive advantage of working in a prestigious, elite sociology department, in terms of better learning environment and reputational signal, for higher publication opportunities only significantly benefits male authors. While our findings do not mean that these journals have biased internal policies or implicit practices, this publication pattern needs to be considered especially regarding the possibility of their “social closure” and isomorphis
Applying Crossref and Unpaywall information to identify gold, hidden gold, hybrid and delayed Open Access publications in the KB publication corpus
No full textIdentifying Open Access (OA) publications might seem a trivial task while practical efforts prove otherwise. In this project, we wanted to assign OA tags to publications in KB database. We queried KB in-house database up to 2017 (including Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus) for all articles and reviews. We then matched the corresponding DOIs to three sources of OA information: Unpaywall, Crossref and Bielefeld list of gold OA journals. This allowed us to define the OA status for publications. We found close to 14 million publications (articles and reviews between 2000 and 2016) from WOS (69.75% of all) and close to 18 million from Scopus (68.67% of all) with an equivalent DOI in Unpaywall. We matched KB publications database with Crossref data (from April 2018) and found 53 distinct licence URLs, which define in many cases the legally binding access status of publications. We found that more than half a million publications have more than one licence record in Crossref (in contrast to near 8 million with only one record and more than 6 million without a licence URL). We evaluated if these licences were open or closed access. We also matched respective journal ISSNs with DOAJ and ROAD databases and presented a categorization of publications to Gold, Hidden Gold, Hybrid and Delayed OA accounting for uncertainty due to missing licence information via a new sub-category Probable Hybrid OA. We validate our findings via manual checks and a crosscheck of OA information from the aforementioned varying sources. While the manual check on a sample of publications revealed a small but noticeable degree of apparently incorrect meta-information on publication’s OA status, the contrast of OA information from the diverse OA information sources highlights the partially unsteady base for an OA monitoring based on open data
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
