DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Italian Research in Statistics: Interdisciplinary Or Multidisciplinary?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Assessing Italian Research in Statistics: Interdisciplinary or Multidisciplinary? Sandra De Francisci Epifani*, Maria Gabriella Grassia**, Nicole Triunfo**, Emma Zavarrone* [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we assess cross disciplinary of research produced by the Italian Academic Statisticians (IAS) combining text mining and bibliometrics techniques Textual and bibliometric approaches have together advantages and disadvantages, and provide different views on the same interlinked corpus of scientific publications. In addition textual information in such documents, jointly citations also constitute huge networks that yield additional information. We incorporate both points of view and show how to improve on existing text-based and bibliometric methods. In particular, we propose an hybrid clustering procedure based on Fisher ╒s inverse chi-square method as the preferred method for integrating textual content and citation information. Given clustered papers, it’s possible to evaluate ISI subject categories (SCs) as descriptive labels for statistical documents, and to address individual researchers interdisciplinary. Keywords : Bibliometrics, Text mining, Social network Analysis, Hybrid Clustering 1 Introduction Increasing dissemination of scientific and technological publications via web sides, and their availability in large-scale bibliographic databases, opened to massive opportunities for improving classification and bibliometric cartography for science and technology. This metascience benefits of the continuous arise of computing power and development of new algorithms. The purpose of mapping, charting or cartography of scientific fields is the knowledge of the structure and the evolution for different areas of research and link other fields, based on scientific publications. Research fields can be profiled using different keywords i.e. in terms of prolific authors, major concepts, important publications and journals, institutions, regions and countries, etc. Knowledge about the amount of activity in various fields and about new, emerging and converging fields is important to organizations, research institutions and nations. Quantitative information can be used for evaluation of research performance, interdisciplinary, collaboration, internationalization and for the support of innovation management, science and technology policies (for example, what fields should be supported through funding?). Such policies are crucial for competitive positions at university. We focus on cross disciplinary within scientific areas of research Italian Universities using clustering algorithms and techniques in bibliometrics and text mining. The multidisciplinary context given by statistical affords an excellent opportunity to examine the methods used to study interdisciplinary and integration. 2 Background Research that occurs at the intersection between disciplines is thought to lead to great advances in science (Porter and Rafols, 2009). Interdisciplinary research would be supported and encouraged to solve new statistical challenges. A cynical disposition to this problem is eloquently stated in Brewer (1999): ╥The world has problems, but universities have departments. ╙ The term interdisciplinary tends to be tacitly understood by researchers, without shared definition. We adopt the definition suggested by Porter et al. (2007), given by the National Academies (2005): interdisciplinary research requires an integration of concepts, theories, techniques and/or data from two or more bodies of specialized knowledge. Multidisciplinary research may incorporate elements of other specialized knowledges, but without * UNIVERSITA' IULM - Via Carlo Bo, 1 Milano ** Dipartimento di Matematica e Statistica, Università degli Studi Federico II Napoli – via Cintia, Napoli Assessing Italian Research in Statistics:Interdisciplinarity or Multidisciplinatory? interdisciplinary synthesis (Wagner et al., 2011) which includes more than single parts. Analysis of cross disciplinary improves traditional indicators assessing and quantifying interdisciplinary research (Morillo et al., 2001) (fig.1). Fig. 1: Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary Indicators of different disciplinary describe heterogeneity of a bibliometric set obtained starting from predefined categories i.e. using a top-down approach, we allocate the set on the global map of science. Network coherence indicators are constructed to measure the intensity of similarity relations within a bibliometric set, i.e. using a bottom-up approach, which reveals the structural consistency of the publications network (Rafols and Meyer, 2010). Instead of exploring large-scale trends in publications using a top-down approach, it is necessary to have a large amount of data that represents the research track of each statistician using a bottom-up approach. We suggest to measure one or more individuals versed in statistics. Therefore, an unsupervised approach is optimal as such methods can find trends in data without prior knowledge of its structure. Substantial distinction between text world and graph world refers to different parts of views on a collection of interlinked publications. In addition, textual information such as citations, kept in documents, are large networks, which yield additional information. To create groups of publications in clusters or groups of documents, we consider two complementary approaches. In integrated or hybrid analysis we include how to improve existing text-based and graph analytic (or bibliometric) methods by deeply merging textual content with the structure of the citation graph. The main difference between text world and graph world refers to an interlinked data collection such as World Wide Web and bibliographic databases containing written scientific communications. These documents contain textual information that can be mined for knowledge by using text mining techniques. Moreover, each document refers to other documents that are related in some way. Most scientific papers indeed cite previous research on which it is based or which is considered to be relevant for the subject. These citations are collected in the bibliography of a publication. Although various reasons are conceivable for citing other works, citations usually imply endorsement or recommendation of previous work. All citations among publications or hyperlinks among Web pages constitute extremely large networks, of which the World Wide Web is the biggest example. Instead of the Web, where each Web page can have hyperlinks to any other page, a citation network or literature network is a kind of/or similar to directed acyclic graph (DAG). Citations and hyperlinks have, respectively, a direction (they point from one entity to another), but citations are not reciprocal and no directed cycles occur in the citation graph. Usually, a scientific paper only cites documents that have already been published. Textual and graph-based approaches might be applied to a dataset. For example, similarity of different perceptions Page 2 Assessing Italian Research in Statistics:Interdisciplinarity or Multidisciplinatory? between documents or groups of documents can be described using different methods. In addition, we observe dynamics in evolving databases. We include viewpoints and claim jointly to improve on existing text-based and graph analytic or bibliometric methods to science and statistics mapping. Indeed, textual information can indicate similarities that are invisible to bibliometric techniques. Based only on text, true document similarity can be overshadowed by differences in vocabulary use, or spurious similarities might be introduced as a result of textual pre-processing, or because of polysemous words (a word with several meanings) or words with little semantic values. Widely used method of co-citation clustering was introduced independently by Small (1973, 1978) and Marshakova (1973). Cross-citation-based cluster analysis for science mapping is different; while the former is usually based on links connecting individual documents, the latter requires aggregation of documents to units like journals or subject fields among which cross-citation links are established. Some advantages of this method are undermined by possible biases. (for instance, analyze directed information flows). For example, bias could be caused by the use of predefined units (journals, subject categories, etc.), in some way, this implies an initial level of structural classification. Journal crosscitation clustering has been used by Leydesdorff (2006), Leydesdorff and Rafols (2009), and Boyack, BÜrner, and Klavans (2005), while Moya-Anegùn et al. (2007) applied subject co-citation analysis to visualize the structure of science and its dynamics. The integration of lexical similarities and citation links are attractive also in other fields such as search engine design (i.e., Google combines text and links; Brin & Page 1998). In early 90’s, the combination of link-based clustering with a textual approach was suggested for better efficiency and appliability of co-citation and coword analysis. A new Weighted hybrid clustering framework was proposed by Liu, Yu, Janssens, Glènzel, Moreau & De Moor (2010) the focus was on text mining with bibliometrics in journal set analysis. This framework integrates two different approaches: clustering ensemble and kernel-fusion clustering. 3 Aims, methods and data collection In order to verify the hypothesis of accuracy of clustering and
Recommended publications
  • Citation Analysis for the Modern Instructor: an Integrated Review of Emerging Research

    Citation Analysis for the Modern Instructor: an Integrated Review of Emerging Research

    CITATION ANALYSIS FOR THE MODERN INSTRUCTOR: AN INTEGRATED REVIEW OF EMERGING RESEARCH Chris Piotrowski University of West Florida USA Abstract While online instructors may be versed in conducting e-Research (Hung, 2012; Thelwall, 2009), today’s faculty are probably less familiarized with the rapidly advancing fields of bibliometrics and informetrics. One key feature of research in these areas is Citation Analysis, a rather intricate operational feature available in modern indexes such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO. This paper reviews the recent extant research on bibliometrics within the context of citation analysis. Particular focus is on empirical studies, review essays, and critical commentaries on citation-based metrics across interdisciplinary academic areas. Research that relates to the interface between citation analysis and applications in higher education is discussed. Some of the attributes and limitations of citation operations of contemporary databases that offer citation searching or cited reference data are presented. This review concludes that: a) citation-based results can vary largely and contingent on academic discipline or specialty area, b) databases, that offer citation options, rely on idiosyncratic methods, coverage, and transparency of functions, c) despite initial concerns, research from open access journals is being cited in traditional periodicals, and d) the field of bibliometrics is rather perplex with regard to functionality and research is advancing at an exponential pace. Based on these findings, online instructors would be well served to stay abreast of developments in the field. Keywords: Bibliometrics, informetrics, citation analysis, information technology, Open resource and electronic journals INTRODUCTION In an ever increasing manner, the educational field is irreparably linked to advances in information technology (Plomp, 2013).
  • Ois Laruelle

    Ois Laruelle

    Frans;ois Laruelle --- and collaborators --- Dictio nary of Non-Philosophy -- translated by Taylor Adkins I Univocal -- Fran\:ois Laruelle ------ and collaborators -----­ To ny Brachet. Gilbert Kieffer, Laurent Leroy, Da niel Nicolet, Anne-Fran�oise Schmid, Serge Valdinoci Dictio nary of Non-Philosophy translated by Taylor Adkins I Univocal ---- DJCT!ONNAIREDE LA NON-PHILOSOPH!Eby Fran�ois Laruelle ©Editions Kime, 1998 Translated by Taylor Adkins as Dictionary ofNon-Philosophy First Edition Minneapolis©2013, Univocal Publishing Published by Univocal 123 North 3rd Street, #202 Minneapolis, MN 55401 No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including phorocopying, recording or any other information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Thanks to John David Ebert and Ben Woodard Designed & Printed by Jason Wagner Distributed by the University of Minnesota Press ISBN 9781937561130 Library of Congress Control Number 2013939530 TA BLE OF CONTENTS Translator's Introduction .......................................... .....................9 Preface to the English Language Edition...................... ................. 15 Preface .........................................................................................19 Theory of the Non-Philosophical Dictionary....................... .......23 Auto-position .......................... .....................................................39 Being-in-One (Being-according-to-the-One)...............................
  • Empiricism, Stances, and the Problem of Voluntarism

    Empiricism, Stances, and the Problem of Voluntarism

    Swarthmore College Works Philosophy Faculty Works Philosophy 1-1-2011 Empiricism, Stances, And The Problem Of Voluntarism Peter Baumann Swarthmore College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-philosophy Part of the Philosophy Commons Let us know how access to these works benefits ouy Recommended Citation Peter Baumann. (2011). "Empiricism, Stances, And The Problem Of Voluntarism". Synthese. Volume 178, Issue 1. 27-36. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9519-7 https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-philosophy/13 This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Empiricism, Stances and the Problem of Voluntarism Peter Baumann Synthese 178, 2011, 207-224 Empiricism can be very roughly characterized as the view that our knowledge about the world is based on sensory experience. Our knowledge about the world is "based" on sensory experience in the sense that we could not know what we know without relying on sense experience. This leaves open the possibility that sense experience is only necessary but not sufficient for the knowledge based upon it1-as long as the non-empirical elements are not themselves sufficient for the relevant piece of knowledge.2 The basing relation is not just a genetic one but also a justificatory one: Sense experience does not only lead to beliefs which happen to count as knowledge but also qualifies them as knowledge. In his important book The Empirical Stance Bas van Fraassen characterizes traditional empiricism at one point in a more negative way-as involving the rejection of "metaphysical" explanations which proceed by postulating the existence of something not 1 "But although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from experience." (Kant, CpR, B1).
  • Reply by Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal

    Reply by Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal

    Reply to Turnbull Krips Dusek and Fuller For Metascience Jean Bricmont Institut de Physique Theorique Universite Catholique de Louvain chemin du Cyclotron B LouvainlaNeuve BELGIUM Internet BRICMONTFYMAUCLACBE Telephone Fax Alan Sokal Department of Physics New York University Washington Place New York NY USA Internet SOKALNYUEDU Telephone Fax February Biographical Note Jean Bricmont is professor of theoretical physics at the University of Louvain Belgium Alan Sokal is professor of physics at New York University Introduction 1 In the preface to the second edition of Intel lectual Impostures we wrote that the criticisms of our b o ok can b e divided roughly into four types A very few reviewers discuss what we wrote and try to refute it Other commentators raise ob jections often p erfectly valid ones to ideas that are not in fact ours and that we may have expressly rejected in the b o ok while attributing them to us implicitly or explicitly Yet a third group of critics pretend to discuss our b o ok while actually doing something completely dierent for example attacking our p ersonalities our alleged motivations for writing the b o ok or the failings of scientists in general And nally some reviewers agree with us but think that we do not go far enough I I p xv The comments by Turnbull and Dusek fall squarely into the second and third cat egories apart from o ccasional brief excursions into category while Krips and Fuller oer a mixture of the rst and second categories It would b e a hop eless task to address al l the issues
  • LD5655.V855 1993.C655.Pdf (11.60Mb)

    LD5655.V855 1993.C655.Pdf (11.60Mb)

    SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE, SOCIOLOGICALT HEORY, AND THE STRUCTURE OF RHETORIC by James H. Collier Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Science and Technology Studies APPROVED: Y— Joseph C. Pitt, Chair Aone ble EtaaT hone, Steve Fuller Elisworth Fuhrman April, 1993 Blacksburg, VA LD S635 VE5S , DaQa cose} aM’~ Scientific Discourse, Sociological Theory, and the Structure of Rhetoric James H. Collier Graduate Program in Science and Technology Studies Chair: Joseph C. Pitt (ABSTRACT) This thesis examines the rhetorical, analytical and critical efficacy of reflexivity and sociological theory as means for reconciling the normative and descriptive functions of the rhetoric of science. In attempting to define a separate research domain within Science Studies, rhetoric of science has borrowed Strong Program and constructivist principles and descriptions of scientific practice from the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) as a basis for analyzing scientific discourse. While epistemological claims in the social sciences have been considered inherently self-referential and subject to reflexive analysis and critique, rhetoricians have generally taken these claims on face value and applied them to a treatment of scientific practice. Accordingly, rhetoricians have maintained a natural ontological attitude to sociological theories and descriptions supporting an understanding of scientific discourse as implicitly rhetorical. Recently, however, the concept of "rhetoric" in rhetoric of science has come under scrutiny. This thesis will connect arguments involving the relation of the "irreducibly social" nature of science, to a concept of scientific discourse as rhetorical "without remainder,” to the philosophical commitments of reflexive analysis.
  • Three Positivist Disputes in the 1960S

    Three Positivist Disputes in the 1960S

    JOURNAL FOR THE HISTORY OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY THREE POSITIVIST DISPUTES IN THE 1960S VOLUME 6, NUMBER 8 CARL-GörAN HEIDEGREN EDITOR IN CHIEF MARCUS ROSSBERG, UnIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT The West German positivist dispute in the 1960s is well known EDITORIAL BOARD and thoroughly studied. At about the same time positivist dis- ANNALISA COLIVA, UC IRVINE putes also took place in two Scandinavian countries: one in Nor- HENRY JACKMAN, YORK UnIVERSITY way and one in Sweden. What did the front lines in the debate KEVIN C. KLEMENt, UnIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS look like in the three countries? What was the outcome of the dif- CONSUELO PRETI, THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY ferent disputes? The main focus in the article is on the Swedish ANTHONY SKELTON, WESTERN UnIVERSITY case, but some comparative perspectives relating to the three MARK TEXTOR, KING’S COLLEGE LonDON disputes will also be presented. The Swedish positivist dispute AUDREY YAP, UnIVERSITY OF VICTORIA originated with Gerard Radnitzky’s doctoral dissertation in the- RICHARD ZACH, UnIVERSITY OF CALGARY ory of science, defended at the University of Gothenburg in May 1968, Contemporary Schools of Metascience (2 volumes). The dis- EDITOR FOR SPECIAL ISSUES sertation caused a stir of controversy. It meant a challenge to the SANDRA LaPOINte, MCMASTER UnIVERSITY Swedish philsophical establishment because it leaned heavily on continental philosophers such as Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen REVIEW EDITORS Habermas, who at the time were more or less unknown in Swe- SEAN MORRIS, METROPOLITAN STATE UnIVERSITY OF DenVER den. The controversy was continuated in the following years, SANFORD SHIEH, WESLEYAN UnIVERSITY most notably in the leftist journal Häften för kritiska studier (Note- DESIGN AND LAYOUT books for Critical Studies).
  • A History of Soviet Cybernetics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002

    A History of Soviet Cybernetics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002

    REVIEWS THE RISE OF CYBERNEWSPEAK Slava Gerovitch, From Newspeak to Cyberspeak: A History of Soviet Cybernetics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002. Pp. xiv + 369. £25.95, US$37.95 HB. By Andrew Pickering The growing interest in the history of cybernetics has so far largely focused on its early days in the US, the 1940s and 1950s: Norbert Wiener, Claude Shannon, Warren McCulloch, the Macy conferences. That cybernetics enjoyed more success institutionally on the other side of the Iron Curtain is well known, but Slava Gerovitch’s book is the first to tell us at any length about how that occurred, covering the decades from the 1950s to the 1970s. It is a valuable addition to the literature. Gerovitch distinguishes three phases in the history of Soviet cyber- netics. In the early 1950s, towards the end of the Stalinist era, cybernetics was trashed as “An American Pseudo-Science” and “cyberneticians were branded ‘semanticist-cannibals’ ” (p. 94 – what a splendid insult!). This despite the fact that a plausible ancestry for cybernetics could readily be constructed from the work of Soviet scientists and mathematicians, and that almost nothing about cybernetics was then known in the Soviet Union. Gerovitch argues that this was not the result of any centrally organised campaign, but rather the upshot of an almost randomly generated ritual of ideological denunciation of a type that was ubiquitous in the period. All sorts of sciences were liable to be condemned for their inconsistency with the official philosophy of dialectical materialism, condemnations always articulated in the formulaic terms that Gerovitch calls Newspeak – ‘mech- anist’, ‘idealist’, ‘formalist’, etc.
  • A Scientometric Analysis

    A Scientometric Analysis

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln Summer 5-3-2021 RESEARCH OUTPUT ON LEPROSY DURING THE YEAR OF 2010-2020: A SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS Victoria P [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac Part of the Library and Information Science Commons P, Victoria, "RESEARCH OUTPUT ON LEPROSY DURING THE YEAR OF 2010-2020: A SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS" (2021). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 5604. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5604 RESEARCH OUTPUT ON LEPROSY DURING THE YEAR OF 2010-2020: A SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS VICTORIA. P1 Ph.D. Research Scholar, DLIS, Periyar University, Salem-11. E-mail: [email protected] Dr.P.GOMATHI2 Assistant Professor, DLIS Periyar University, Salem-11 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to measure the number of contributions and highlight the contributions made by the researchers in the field of leprosy and published on the Web of Science database during 2010-2020 using scientometric analysis. Data were interpreted by using software such as Bibexcel, Vosviewer, and tabulated using MS Excel. The results indicated that 4544 papers were published during 2010 - 2020 and the highest number of publications 456 (10.03%) was produced in 2020. The trends in multi-authored papers have tremendously increased (89.28%) compared to (10.72%) single-authored papers. The relative growth rate (3.13) and degree of collaboration (0.89) is noted significantly and the highest no of papers (12.50%) was contributed by the collaboration of four authors and source wise most of the records were published an article 3063.
  • Unit 1 Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy of Science

    Unit 1 Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy of Science

    UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Contents 1.0 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Meaning of Science 1.3 Science and Explanation 1.4 Laws and Theories 1.5 Methods 1.6 Newton’s Concept of Scientific Method 1.7 Let Us Sum Up 1.8 Key Words 1.9 Further Readings and References 1.10 Answers to Check Your Progress 1.0 OBJECTIVES This unit introduces you to the significance of philosophy of science and its relation to science. The manner in which science differs from philosophy of science is another issue with which you must become familiar. As science progresses philosophy of science also progresses. Therefore an understanding of contemporary philosophy of science helps you to assess and evaluate contemporary science. While doing so emphasis is laid on physics since physics and cosmology are interrelated. When you are through this unit, you will be in a position to discover the hidden elements of science and critically evaluate various claims made by science 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 It is difficult to locate exactly the origin of philosophy of science and to decide whether in antiquity or in modern era there was anything like philosophy of science either in the writings of philosophers or in the writings of scientists. This observation is essential because none of those philosophers who grappled with epistemological and metaphysical issues could afford to neglect the external world. Though some problems were common to philosophers and scientists, not all are philosophers of science. In the history of western philosophy Hume was the first philosopher to criticize certain aspects of science.
  • Arxiv:2010.04147V1 [Cs.LG] 8 Oct 2020

    Arxiv:2010.04147V1 [Cs.LG] 8 Oct 2020

    Automatic generation of reviews of scientific papers Anna Nikiforovskaya∗y, Nikolai Kapralovz, Anna Vlasovax, Oleg Shpynov{k and Aleksei Shpilman∗{ ∗National Research University Higher School of Economics, Saint Petersburg, Russia yIDMC, Universite´ de Lorraine, Nancy, France zSechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry RAS, Saint Petersburg, Russia xSaint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia {JetBrains Research, Saint Petersburg, Russia kCorresponding author, Email: [email protected] Abstract—With an ever-increasing number of scientific papers area. However, it was shown that the author and the place of published each year, it becomes more difficult for researchers publication of the paper affect the number of citations [3]. to explore a field that they are not closely familiar with Also, the meaning of citation is actively studied. For exam- already. This greatly inhibits the potential for cross-disciplinary ple, it has been shown that there are 15 different meanings research. A traditional introduction into an area may come in of the citation [4]. the form of a review paper. However, not all areas and sub- Another aspect of the paper analysis is the summariza- areas have a current review. In this paper, we present a method tion of the scientific papers [5]. Studies in this area show that for the automatic generation of a review paper corresponding the citation context, i.e., the text surrounding the link to the to a user-defined query. This method consists of two main paper, can be used for its summarization [6]. Moreover, it parts. The first part identifies key papers in the area by their was demonstrated that citation context reflects the meaning bibliometric parameters, such as a graph of co-citations.
  • H-Index Manipulation by Merging Articles

    H-Index Manipulation by Merging Articles

    Artificial Intelligence 240 (2016) 19–35 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Artificial Intelligence www.elsevier.com/locate/artint H-index manipulation by merging articles: Models, theory, ✩ and experiments ∗ René van Bevern a,b,d, , Christian Komusiewicz c,d, Rolf Niedermeier d, Manuel Sorge d, Toby Walsh d,e,f a Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation b Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation c Institut für Informatik, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany d Institut für Softwaretechnik und Theoretische Informatik, TU Berlin, Germany e University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia f Data61, Sydney, Australia a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: An author’s profile on Google Scholar consists of indexed articles and associated data, Received 9 March 2016 such as the number of citations and the H-index. The author is allowed to merge Received in revised form 26 July 2016 articles; this may affect the H-index. We analyze the (parameterized) computational Accepted 5 August 2016 complexity of maximizing the H-index using article merges. Herein, to model realistic Available online 10 August 2016 manipulation scenarios, we define a compatibility graph whose edges correspond to Keywords: plausible merges. Moreover, we consider several different measures for computing the Citation index citation count of a merged article. For the measure used by Google Scholar, we give Hirsch index an algorithm that maximizes the H-index in linear time if the compatibility graph has Parameterized complexity constant-size connected components.
  • EHR AC Slides Improving Openness and Reproducibility of Scientific

    EHR AC Slides Improving Openness and Reproducibility of Scientific

    Improving Openness and Reproducibility of Scientific Research Brian Nosek University of Virginia -- Center for Open Science http://briannosek.com/ -- http://cos.io/ New Problems? Low power Overabundance of positive results Ignoring null results Questionable research practices Lack of replication Limitations of NHST Sterling, 1959; Cohen, 1962; Lykken, 1968; Tukey, 1969; Greenwald, 1975; Meehl, 1978; Rosenthal, 1979 New Solutions? Transparency Confirmatory v. Exploratory Replication Sterling, 1959; Cohen, 1962; Lykken, 1968; Tukey, 1969; Greenwald, 1975; Meehl, 1978; Rosenthal, 1979 Incentives for individual success are focused on getting it published, not getting it right Challenges 1. Perceived norms (Anderson, Martinson, & DeVries, 2007) Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularlism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularlism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Disinterestedness Self-interestedness Motivated by knowledge and discovery Treat science as a competition Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularlism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Disinterestedness Self-interestedness Motivated by knowledge and discovery Treat science as a competition Organized skepticism Organized dogmatism Consider all new evidence, even Invest career promoting