-
Min, C.; Ding, Y.; Li, J.; Bu, Y.; Pei, L.; Sun, J.: Innovation or imitation : the diffusion of citations (2018)
0.00
0.0019582848 = product of:
0.0039165695 = sum of:
0.0039165695 = product of:
0.007833139 = sum of:
0.007833139 = weight(_text_:a in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007833139 = score(doc=4445,freq=16.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citations in scientific literature are important both for tracking the historical development of scientific ideas and for forecasting research trends. However, the diffusion mechanisms underlying the citation process remain poorly understood, despite the frequent and longstanding use of citation counts for assessment purposes within the scientific community. Here, we extend the study of citation dynamics to a more general diffusion process to understand how citation growth associates with different diffusion patterns. Using a classic diffusion model, we quantify and illustrate specific diffusion mechanisms which have been proven to exert a significant impact on the growth and decay of citation counts. Experiments reveal a positive relation between the "low p and low q" pattern and high scientific impact. A sharp citation peak produced by rapid change of citation counts, however, has a negative effect on future impact. In addition, we have suggested a simple indicator, saturation level, to roughly estimate an individual article's current stage in the life cycle and its potential to attract future attention. The proposed approach can also be extended to higher levels of aggregation (e.g., individual scientists, journals, institutions), providing further insights into the practice of scientific evaluation.
- Type
- a
-
Lu, C.; Bu, Y.; Wang, J.; Ding, Y.; Torvik, V.; Schnaars, M.; Zhang, C.: Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity : a cross-level moderation model (2019)
0.00
0.0018577921 = product of:
0.0037155843 = sum of:
0.0037155843 = product of:
0.0074311686 = sum of:
0.0074311686 = weight(_text_:a in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0074311686 = score(doc=5219,freq=10.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. To uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (a) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (b) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.
- Type
- a
-
Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018)
0.00
0.0016616598 = product of:
0.0033233196 = sum of:
0.0033233196 = product of:
0.006646639 = sum of:
0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006646639 = score(doc=4011,freq=8.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.
- Type
- a
-
Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.; Liang, X.; Gao, G.; Zhao, Y.: Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career (2018)
0.00
0.0015481601 = product of:
0.0030963202 = sum of:
0.0030963202 = product of:
0.0061926404 = sum of:
0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0061926404 = score(doc=4012,freq=10.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.
- Type
- a
-
Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Liang, X.; Murray, D.S.: Understanding persistent scientific collaboration (2018)
0.00
0.0015481601 = product of:
0.0030963202 = sum of:
0.0030963202 = product of:
0.0061926404 = sum of:
0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 4176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0061926404 = score(doc=4176,freq=10.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4176, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4176)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Common sense suggests that persistence is key to success. In academia, successful researchers have been found more likely to be persistent in publishing, but little attention has been given to how persistence in maintaining collaborative relationships affects career success. This paper proposes a new bibliometric understanding of persistence that considers the prominent role of collaboration in contemporary science. Using this perspective, we analyze the relationship between persistent collaboration and publication quality along several dimensions: degree of transdisciplinarity, difference in coauthor's scientific age and their scientific impact, and research-team size. Contrary to traditional wisdom, our results show that persistent scientific collaboration does not always result in high-quality papers. We find that the most persistent transdisciplinary collaboration tends to output high-impact publications, and that those coauthors with diverse scientific impact or scientific ages benefit from persistent collaboration more than homogeneous compositions. We also find that researchers persistently working in large groups tend to publish lower-impact papers. These results contradict the colloquial understanding of collaboration in academia and paint a more nuanced picture of how persistent scientific collaboration relates to success, a picture that can provide valuable insights to researchers, funding agencies, policy makers, and mentor-mentee program directors. Moreover, the methodology in this study showcases a feasible approach to measure persistent collaboration.
- Type
- a
-
Liu, M.; Bu, Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, J.; Li, D.; Leng, Y.; Freeman, R.B.; Meyer, E.T.; Yoon, W.; Sung, M.; Jeong, M.; Lee, J.; Kang, J.; Min, C.; Zhai, Y.; Song, M.; Ding, Y.: Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty : evidence from COVID-19 (2022)
0.00
0.0015481601 = product of:
0.0030963202 = sum of:
0.0030963202 = product of:
0.0061926404 = sum of:
0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0061926404 = score(doc=633,freq=10.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.
- Type
- a
-
Xu, H.; Bu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Y.; Meyer, E.; Salas, E.; Ding, Y.: Team power dynamics and team impact : new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power (2022)
0.00
0.0015481601 = product of:
0.0030963202 = sum of:
0.0030963202 = product of:
0.0061926404 = sum of:
0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0061926404 = score(doc=663,freq=10.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.
- Type
- a
-
Huang, Y.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Lu, W.: From zero to one : a perspective on citing (2019)
0.00
0.0011749709 = product of:
0.0023499418 = sum of:
0.0023499418 = product of:
0.0046998835 = sum of:
0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 5387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0046998835 = score(doc=5387,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5387, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5387)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
