-
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
0.002269176 = product of:
0.004538352 = sum of:
0.004538352 = product of:
0.009076704 = sum of:
0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009076704 = score(doc=5219,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = 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
-
Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=2337,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
- Type
- a
-
Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=4011,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = 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
-
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
0.0018909799 = product of:
0.0037819599 = sum of:
0.0037819599 = product of:
0.0075639198 = sum of:
0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075639198 = score(doc=663,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = 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
-
Lu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ahn, Y.-Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, C.; Ma, D.: Co-contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations (2020)
0.00
0.0011959607 = product of:
0.0023919214 = sum of:
0.0023919214 = product of:
0.0047838427 = sum of:
0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047838427 = score(doc=5963,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.
- Type
- a
