An official website of the United States government
Abstract Citations and text analysis are both used to study the distribution and flow of ideas between researchers, fields and countries, but the resulting flows are rarely equal. We argue that the differences in these two flows capture a growing global inequality in the production of scientific knowledge. We offer a framework called ‘citational lensing’ to identify where citations should appear between countries but are absent given that what is embedded in their published abstract texts is highly similar. This framework also identifies where citations are overabundant given lower similarity. Our data come from nearly 20 million papers across nearly 35 years and 150 fields from the Microsoft Academic Graph. We find that scientific communities increasingly centre research from highly active countries while overlooking work from peripheral countries. This inequality is likely to pose substantial challenges to the growth of novel ideas.
more »
« less
Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science
In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1800956
- PAR ID:
- 10298863
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Volume:
- 118
- Issue:
- 41
- ISSN:
- 0027-8424
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e2021636118
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Accurate prediction of scientific impact is important for scientists, academic recommender systems, and granting organizations alike. Existing approaches rely on many years of leading citation values to predict a scientific paper’s citations (a proxy for impact), even though most papers make their largest contributions in the first few years after they are published. In this paper, we tackle a new problem: predicting a new paper’s citation time series from the date of publication (i.e., without leading values). We propose HINTS, a novel end-to-end deep learning framework that converts citation signals from dynamic heterogeneous information networks (DHIN) into citation time series. HINTS imputes pseudo-leading values for a paper in the years before it is published from DHIN embeddings, and then transforms these embeddings into the parameters of a formal model that can predict citation counts immediately after publication. Empirical analysis on two real-world datasets from Computer Science and Physics show that HINTS is competitive with baseline citation prediction models. While we focus on citations, our approach generalizes to other “cold start” time series prediction tasks where relational data is available and accurate prediction in early timestamps is crucial.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Communication of scientific findings is fundamental to scholarly discourse. In this article, we show that academic review articles, a quintessential form of interpretive scholarly output, perform curatorial work that substantially transforms the research communities they aim to summarize. Using a corpus of millions of journal articles, we analyze the consequences of review articles for the publications they cite, focusing on citation and co-citation as indicators of scholarly attention. Our analysis shows that, on the one hand, papers cited by formal review articles generally experience a dramatic loss in future citations. Typically, the review gets cited instead of the specific articles mentioned in the review. On the other hand, reviews curate, synthesize, and simplify the literature concerning a research topic. Most reviews identify distinct clusters of work and highlight exemplary bridges that integrate the topic as a whole. These bridging works, in addition to the review, become a shorthand characterization of the topic going forward and receive disproportionate attention. In this manner, formal reviews perform creative destruction so as to render increasingly expansive and redundant bodies of knowledge distinct and comprehensible.more » « less
-
Introduction: There is an overwhelming amount of journal articles for modern researchers to parse through. For instance, there have already been 168,168 cancer-related papers archived on PubMed this year. In order to keep up with this substantial amount of literature, there are emerging interests in applying artificial intelligence (AI) to facilitate paper reading and drafting of new scientific ideas. Here, we extend the application of the state-of-the-art automatic research assistants to the cancer field. Using training datasets composed of over 5,000 cancer-related journal papers abstracts, we evaluated AI-based background knowledge extraction and abstract writing. The best AI performance is rated to be on par with human writers through a survey to university cancer researchers. This automatic research assistant tool can potentially speed up scientific discovery and production by helping researchers to efficiently read existing papers, create new ideas and write up new discoveries.more » « less
-
Exposure to ideas in domains outside a scientist's own may benefit her in reformulating existing research problems in novel ways and discovering new application domains for existing solution ideas. While improved performance in scholarly search engines can help scientists efficiently identify relevant advances in domains they may already be familiar with, it may fall short of helping them explore diverse ideas \textit{outside} such domains. In this paper we explore the design of systems aimed at augmenting the end-user ability in cross-domain exploration with flexible query specification. To this end, we develop an exploratory search system in which end-users can select a portion of text core to their interest from a paper abstract and retrieve papers that have a high similarity to the user-selected core aspect but differ in terms of domains. Furthermore, end-users can `zoom in' to specific domain clusters to retrieve more papers from them and understand nuanced differences within the clusters. Our case studies with scientists uncover opportunities and design implications for systems aimed at facilitating cross-domain exploration and inspiration.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
