Pub Date : 2022-06-16DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-14430-4
Amlan J Kalita, Kangkan Sarmah, Farnaz Yashmin, Ritam R Borah, Indrani Baruah, Rinu P Deka, Ankur K Guha
Planar hypercoordinate structures are gaining immense attention due to the shift from common paradigm. Herein, our high level ab initio calculations predict that planar pentacoordinate aluminium and gallium centres in Cu5Al2+ and Cu5Ga2+ clusters are global minima in their singlet ground states. These clusters are thermodynamically and kinetically very stable. Detailed electronic structure analyses reveal the presence of σ-aromaticity which is the driving force for the stability of the planar form.
平面超配位结构由于改变了常见的范式而受到极大关注。在此，我们的高水平 ab initio 计算预测，Cu5Al2+ 和 Cu5Ga2+ 簇中的平面五配位铝和镓中心是其单子基态的全局最小值。这些团簇在热力学和动力学上都非常稳定。详细的电子结构分析表明，σ芳香性的存在是平面形式稳定性的驱动力。
{"title":"σ-Aromaticity in planar pentacoordinate aluminium and gallium clusters.","authors":"Amlan J Kalita, Kangkan Sarmah, Farnaz Yashmin, Ritam R Borah, Indrani Baruah, Rinu P Deka, Ankur K Guha","doi":"10.1038/s41598-022-14430-4","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41598-022-14430-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Planar hypercoordinate structures are gaining immense attention due to the shift from common paradigm. Herein, our high level ab initio calculations predict that planar pentacoordinate aluminium and gallium centres in Cu<sub>5</sub>Al<sup>2+</sup> and Cu<sub>5</sub>Ga<sup>2+</sup> clusters are global minima in their singlet ground states. These clusters are thermodynamically and kinetically very stable. Detailed electronic structure analyses reveal the presence of σ-aromaticity which is the driving force for the stability of the planar form.</p>","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"10041"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203769/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57543452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following my letter to QSS (Siler, 2021), Yves Gingras (2022) responded with a variety of bad faith arguments, ad hominem attacks, and hyperbole. Gingras repeatedly distorted what I actually wrote, then attacked the distortion. Straw men might be convenient interlocutors, and can provide ballast for hot takes, but seldom yield intellectual progress. In his letter, Gingras broadly posited a false dichotomy, with “rational,” apolitical stalwarts (including himself ) protecting the integrity of modern science against an incursion of hysterical, moralizing social justice warriors hostile to unpopular truths. Not only does this perspective betray a facile understanding of modern scientific communication, it also entails the fallacious notion that scientific empirics and underlying values are mutually exclusive.
{"title":"Values matter in science, so do facts: Response to Gingras","authors":"Kyle Siler","doi":"10.1162/qss_c_00197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00197","url":null,"abstract":"Following my letter to QSS (Siler, 2021), Yves Gingras (2022) responded with a variety of bad faith arguments, ad hominem attacks, and hyperbole. Gingras repeatedly distorted what I actually wrote, then attacked the distortion. Straw men might be convenient interlocutors, and can provide ballast for hot takes, but seldom yield intellectual progress. In his letter, Gingras broadly posited a false dichotomy, with “rational,” apolitical stalwarts (including himself ) protecting the integrity of modern science against an incursion of hysterical, moralizing social justice warriors hostile to unpopular truths. Not only does this perspective betray a facile understanding of modern scientific communication, it also entails the fallacious notion that scientific empirics and underlying values are mutually exclusive.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"485-487"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43370859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ai Linh Nguyen, Wenyuan Liu, K. Khor, Andrea Nanetti, S. Cheong
Abstract Scientific research is an essential stage of the innovation process. However, it remains unclear how a scientific idea becomes applied knowledge and, after that, a commercial product. This paper describes a hypothesis of innovation based on the emergence of new research fields from more mature research fields after interactions between the latter. We focus on graphene, a rising field in materials science, as a case study. First, we used a coclustering method on titles and abstracts of graphene papers to organize them into four meaningful and robust topics (theory and experimental tests, synthesis and functionalization, sensors, and supercapacitors and electrocatalysts). We also demonstrated that they emerged in the order listed. We then tested all topics against the literature on nanotubes and batteries, and the possible parent fields of theory and experimental tests, as well as supercapacitors and electrocatalysts. We found incubation signatures for all topics in the nanotube papers collection and weaker incubation signatures for supercapacitors and electrocatalysts in the battery papers collection. Surprisingly, we found and confirmed that the 2004 breakthrough in graphene created a stir in both the nanotube and battery fields. Our findings open the door for a better understanding of how and why new research fields coalesce.
{"title":"The emergence of graphene research topics through interactions within and beyond","authors":"Ai Linh Nguyen, Wenyuan Liu, K. Khor, Andrea Nanetti, S. Cheong","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00193","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Scientific research is an essential stage of the innovation process. However, it remains unclear how a scientific idea becomes applied knowledge and, after that, a commercial product. This paper describes a hypothesis of innovation based on the emergence of new research fields from more mature research fields after interactions between the latter. We focus on graphene, a rising field in materials science, as a case study. First, we used a coclustering method on titles and abstracts of graphene papers to organize them into four meaningful and robust topics (theory and experimental tests, synthesis and functionalization, sensors, and supercapacitors and electrocatalysts). We also demonstrated that they emerged in the order listed. We then tested all topics against the literature on nanotubes and batteries, and the possible parent fields of theory and experimental tests, as well as supercapacitors and electrocatalysts. We found incubation signatures for all topics in the nanotube papers collection and weaker incubation signatures for supercapacitors and electrocatalysts in the battery papers collection. Surprisingly, we found and confirmed that the 2004 breakthrough in graphene created a stir in both the nanotube and battery fields. Our findings open the door for a better understanding of how and why new research fields coalesce.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"457-484"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48924251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Data archives are an important source of high-quality data in many fields, making them ideal sites to study data reuse. By studying data reuse through citation networks, we are able to learn how hidden research communities—those that use the same scientific data sets—are organized. This paper analyzes the community structure of an authoritative network of data sets cited in academic publications, which have been collected by a large, social science data archive: the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Through network analysis, we identified communities of social science data sets and fields of research connected through shared data use. We argue that communities of exclusive data reuse form “subdivisions” that contain valuable disciplinary resources, while data sets at a “crossroads” broadly connect research communities. Our research reveals the hidden structure of data reuse and demonstrates how interdisciplinary research communities organize around data sets as shared scientific inputs. These findings contribute new ways of describing scientific communities to understand the impacts of research data reuse.
{"title":"Subdivisions and crossroads: Identifying hidden community structures in a data archive’s citation network","authors":"Sara Lafia, Lizhou Fan, A. Thomer, Libby Hemphill","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00209","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Data archives are an important source of high-quality data in many fields, making them ideal sites to study data reuse. By studying data reuse through citation networks, we are able to learn how hidden research communities—those that use the same scientific data sets—are organized. This paper analyzes the community structure of an authoritative network of data sets cited in academic publications, which have been collected by a large, social science data archive: the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Through network analysis, we identified communities of social science data sets and fields of research connected through shared data use. We argue that communities of exclusive data reuse form “subdivisions” that contain valuable disciplinary resources, while data sets at a “crossroads” broadly connect research communities. Our research reveals the hidden structure of data reuse and demonstrates how interdisciplinary research communities organize around data sets as shared scientific inputs. These findings contribute new ways of describing scientific communities to understand the impacts of research data reuse.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"694-714"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44399351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kristofer Rolf Söderström, Fredrik Åström, Olof Hallonsten
Abstract This paper explores the concept and the levels of genericity of different instruments, or beamlines, at a synchrotron radiation facility. We use conceptual tools from the sociology of science, bibliometrics and data from the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) publication database, enriched by data from Web of Science. The sample size is of 11,218 observations for the period 1996 to 2018. The combined data set includes the beamline name, available from the ESRF library database, which makes the instrument-level analysis possible. We operationalize instrument genericity as the disciplinary diversity in the corpus related to each instrument with a Herfindahl-based index theoretically supported by the concept of generic instruments. As a result, we gain a quantitative insight into the generic character of the instruments, as well as the way in which different scientific fields and the experimental use of instruments group and align.
摘要本文探讨了同步辐射设施中不同仪器或光束线的通用性的概念和水平。我们使用来自科学社会学的概念工具，文献计量学和来自欧洲同步辐射设施(ESRF)出版数据库的数据，并通过Web of science的数据进行了丰富。样本量为1996年至2018年期间的11218个观测值。合并的数据集包括波束线名称，可从ESRF库数据库中获得，这使得仪器级分析成为可能。我们将仪器通用性作为语料库中与每种仪器相关的学科多样性，并使用基于赫芬达尔的指数，从理论上支持通用仪器的概念。因此，我们可以定量地了解这些仪器的一般特征，以及不同科学领域和仪器实验使用的组合和排列方式。
{"title":"Generic instruments in a synchrotron radiation facility","authors":"Kristofer Rolf Söderström, Fredrik Åström, Olof Hallonsten","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00190","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper explores the concept and the levels of genericity of different instruments, or beamlines, at a synchrotron radiation facility. We use conceptual tools from the sociology of science, bibliometrics and data from the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) publication database, enriched by data from Web of Science. The sample size is of 11,218 observations for the period 1996 to 2018. The combined data set includes the beamline name, available from the ESRF library database, which makes the instrument-level analysis possible. We operationalize instrument genericity as the disciplinary diversity in the corpus related to each instrument with a Herfindahl-based index theoretically supported by the concept of generic instruments. As a result, we gain a quantitative insight into the generic character of the instruments, as well as the way in which different scientific fields and the experimental use of instruments group and align.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"420-442"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41439572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This work investigates the effects of researchers’ mobility on their research performance. The reference context is that of national intrasector mobility, in a country, Italy, characterized by a research system lacking the typical elements of an academic labor market. In particular, the analysis was conducted on 568 academics working at national universities and affected by mobility in the period 2009–2014. The effect of mobility on the variation of performance at the turn of the transfer was analyzed considering the interplay of demographic/sociological characteristics of the researchers, as well as contextual factors related to both the organization of origin and destination. Results show that it is the less productive academics who represent the larger share of those who move, and more than half of the mobile academics worsen their performance after the transfer.
{"title":"The effect of academic mobility on research performance: The case of Italy","authors":"G. Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, F. D. Costa","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00192","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This work investigates the effects of researchers’ mobility on their research performance. The reference context is that of national intrasector mobility, in a country, Italy, characterized by a research system lacking the typical elements of an academic labor market. In particular, the analysis was conducted on 568 academics working at national universities and affected by mobility in the period 2009–2014. The effect of mobility on the variation of performance at the turn of the transfer was analyzed considering the interplay of demographic/sociological characteristics of the researchers, as well as contextual factors related to both the organization of origin and destination. Results show that it is the less productive academics who represent the larger share of those who move, and more than half of the mobile academics worsen their performance after the transfer.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"345-362"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47480630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Some studies have shown that women undertake interdisciplinary research more than men, whereas other studies have shown no difference by gender. Women have also been shown to self-cite less often than men, a difference at least partly mediated through differences in career stages and prior productivity. Existing evidence on gender-based differences in interdisciplinarity may therefore be biased. If interdisciplinarity is inferred from the disciplinary diversity of a paper’s cited references, a greater share of self-citations by men could decrease their measured interdisciplinarity relative to women. Such biases could lead to erroneous conclusions, because after correcting for self-citations one might uncover that women participate in interdisciplinary research equally to, or less than, men. Given that funding for interdisciplinary research is gaining in importance, obtaining accurate measurements of interdisciplinarity by gender is highly relevant for funders so that they can take appropriate action(s) in leveling the playing field across gender. For instance, evidence suggests women are sometimes advised not to participate in interdisciplinary research due to the risk it represents for their career progression. This study shows that a paper’s interdisciplinarity increases with the presence of female authors, accounting or not for self-citations in the interdisciplinarity measurement.
{"title":"Do women undertake interdisciplinary research more than men, and do self-citations bias observed differences?","authors":"Henrique Pinheiro, M. Durning, David Campbell","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00191","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Some studies have shown that women undertake interdisciplinary research more than men, whereas other studies have shown no difference by gender. Women have also been shown to self-cite less often than men, a difference at least partly mediated through differences in career stages and prior productivity. Existing evidence on gender-based differences in interdisciplinarity may therefore be biased. If interdisciplinarity is inferred from the disciplinary diversity of a paper’s cited references, a greater share of self-citations by men could decrease their measured interdisciplinarity relative to women. Such biases could lead to erroneous conclusions, because after correcting for self-citations one might uncover that women participate in interdisciplinary research equally to, or less than, men. Given that funding for interdisciplinary research is gaining in importance, obtaining accurate measurements of interdisciplinarity by gender is highly relevant for funders so that they can take appropriate action(s) in leveling the playing field across gender. For instance, evidence suggests women are sometimes advised not to participate in interdisciplinary research due to the risk it represents for their career progression. This study shows that a paper’s interdisciplinarity increases with the presence of female authors, accounting or not for self-citations in the interdisciplinarity measurement.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"363-392"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49176751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cian Naik, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, V. Larivière, Chenlei Leng, Weisi Guo
Abstract Diversity in human capital is widely seen as critical to creating holistic and high-quality research, especially in areas that engage with diverse cultures, environments, and challenges. Quantification of diverse academic collaborations and their effect on research quality is lacking, especially at international scale and across different domains. Here, we present the first effort to measure the impact of geographic diversity in coauthorships on the citation of their papers across different academic domains. Our results unequivocally show that geographic coauthor diversity improves paper citation, but very long distance collaborations have variable impact. We also discover “well-trodden” collaboration circles that yield much less impact than similar travel distances. These relationships are observed to exist across different subject areas, but with varying strengths. These findings can help academics identify new opportunities from a diversity perspective, as well as inform funders on areas that require additional mobility support.
{"title":"Impact of geographic diversity on citation of collaborative research","authors":"Cian Naik, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, V. Larivière, Chenlei Leng, Weisi Guo","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00248","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00248","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Diversity in human capital is widely seen as critical to creating holistic and high-quality research, especially in areas that engage with diverse cultures, environments, and challenges. Quantification of diverse academic collaborations and their effect on research quality is lacking, especially at international scale and across different domains. Here, we present the first effort to measure the impact of geographic diversity in coauthorships on the citation of their papers across different academic domains. Our results unequivocally show that geographic coauthor diversity improves paper citation, but very long distance collaborations have variable impact. We also discover “well-trodden” collaboration circles that yield much less impact than similar travel distances. These relationships are observed to exist across different subject areas, but with varying strengths. These findings can help academics identify new opportunities from a diversity perspective, as well as inform funders on areas that require additional mobility support.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"4 1","pages":"442-465"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49630173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The confirmation of scientific theories is approached by combining Bayesian probabilistic methods, in particular Bayesian causal networks, and the analysis of citing sentences for highly cited papers. It is assumed that causes and their effects can be identified by linguistic methods from the citing sentences and that the cause-and-effect pairs can be equated with theories and their evidence. Further, it is proposed that citation context sentiments for “evidence” and “uncertainty” can be used to supply the required conditional probabilities for Bayesian analysis where data is drawn from citing sentences for highly cited papers from various fields. Hence, the approach combines citation and linguistic methods in a probabilistic framework and, given the small sample of papers, should be considered a feasibility study. Special attention is given to the case of nociception in medicine, and analogies are drawn with various episodes from the history of science, such as the Watson and Crick discovery of the structure of DNA and other discoveries where a striking and improbable fit between theory and evidence leads to a sense of confirmation.
{"title":"The confirmation of scientific theories using Bayesian causal networks and citation sentiments","authors":"H. Small","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00189","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The confirmation of scientific theories is approached by combining Bayesian probabilistic methods, in particular Bayesian causal networks, and the analysis of citing sentences for highly cited papers. It is assumed that causes and their effects can be identified by linguistic methods from the citing sentences and that the cause-and-effect pairs can be equated with theories and their evidence. Further, it is proposed that citation context sentiments for “evidence” and “uncertainty” can be used to supply the required conditional probabilities for Bayesian analysis where data is drawn from citing sentences for highly cited papers from various fields. Hence, the approach combines citation and linguistic methods in a probabilistic framework and, given the small sample of papers, should be considered a feasibility study. Special attention is given to the case of nociception in medicine, and analogies are drawn with various episodes from the history of science, such as the Watson and Crick discovery of the structure of DNA and other discoveries where a striking and improbable fit between theory and evidence leads to a sense of confirmation.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"393-419"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47387467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Research coauthorship is useful to combine different skill sets, especially for applied problems. While it has increased over the last century, it is unclear whether this increase is universal across academic fields and which fields coauthor the most and least. In response, we assess changes in the rate of journal article coauthorship 1900–2020 for all 27 Scopus broad fields and all 332 Scopus narrow fields. Although all broad fields have experienced reasonably continuous growth in coauthorship, in 2020, there were substantial disciplinary differences, from Arts and Humanities (1.3 authors) to Immunology and Microbiology (6 authors). All 332 Scopus narrow fields also experienced an increase in the average number of authors. Immunology and Classics are extreme Scopus narrow fields, as exemplified by 9.6 authors per Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer article, whereas 93% of Trends in Classics articles were solo in 2020. The reason for this large difference seems to be the need for multiple complementary methods in Immunology, making it fundamentally a team science. Finally, the reasonably steady and universal increases in academic coauthorship over 121 years show no sign of slowing, suggesting that ever-expanding teams are a central part of current professional science.
{"title":"Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion","authors":"M. Thelwall, Nabeil Maflahi","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00188","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research coauthorship is useful to combine different skill sets, especially for applied problems. While it has increased over the last century, it is unclear whether this increase is universal across academic fields and which fields coauthor the most and least. In response, we assess changes in the rate of journal article coauthorship 1900–2020 for all 27 Scopus broad fields and all 332 Scopus narrow fields. Although all broad fields have experienced reasonably continuous growth in coauthorship, in 2020, there were substantial disciplinary differences, from Arts and Humanities (1.3 authors) to Immunology and Microbiology (6 authors). All 332 Scopus narrow fields also experienced an increase in the average number of authors. Immunology and Classics are extreme Scopus narrow fields, as exemplified by 9.6 authors per Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer article, whereas 93% of Trends in Classics articles were solo in 2020. The reason for this large difference seems to be the need for multiple complementary methods in Immunology, making it fundamentally a team science. Finally, the reasonably steady and universal increases in academic coauthorship over 121 years show no sign of slowing, suggesting that ever-expanding teams are a central part of current professional science.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"331-344"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44996013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号