An official website of the United States government
The past four years have seen major advances in the field of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) (also known as brain–machine interfaces or BMIs). The journal Brain–Computer Interfaces published its first issue in January 2014. The Brain–Computer Interface Society was founded in 2015. And the number of BCI articles in journals continued to increase; these studies explore a broad range of BCIs that replace, restore, enhance, supplement, or improve natural brain outputs or that are used in other scientific research. The new BCI Society organized the Sixth International Brain–Computer Interface Meeting, held 30 May–3 June 2016 at the Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California, USA. Papers resulting from that Meeting appear in this special issue. A subscription to the BCI journal will now be a benefit for BCI Society members.
more »
« less
First person – Sonu S. Baral
ABSTRACT First Person is a series of interviews with the first authors of a selection of papers published in Biology Open, helping early-career researchers promote themselves alongside their papers. Sonu S. Baral is first author on ‘Nucleolar stress in Drosophila neuroblasts, a model for human ribosomopathies’, published in BiO. Sonu conducted the research described in this article while a PhD student in Patrick J. DiMario's lab at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. She is now a R&D scientist at Thermo Fisher Scientific, Santa Clara, CA, USA, investigating various genetic disorders relevant to reproductive health and newborn screening.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1712975
- PAR ID:
- 10352082
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Biology Open
- Volume:
- 9
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 2046-6390
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)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
-
Abstract The second special issue on big data in finance showcases advancements in research related to data of large size, high dimension, and complex structure since the first NBER/RFS big data conference. The papers published in this next chapter address some questions that were proposed in the initial special issue in 2021. Other papers are more directly connected to recent developments in the markets. We discuss some new research directions, following on the papers published here. They include evaluating market microstructure reforms, understanding medium-frequency trading, improving missing data imputations, and deepening data valuation. We look forward to more developments to follow.more » « less
-
Diamond, J; Rosenfeld, S (Ed.)Museum workers believe that museums are critical vectors for social change. The 2022 ICOM definition of museums made claimed that museums are necessary for fixing social wrongs, paths for cultural diplomacy, and venues for advancing a sustainable future. Unfortunately, there seems to be a scarcity of evidence to back up these social impact claims. An effort to synthesize research in the USA published in the first two decades of the 21st century sought to describe what can be considered common understanding in the museum field about how social issues and science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) come together in museum practice. Our study focused on the methods and data reporting: we examined where claims may overshoot what should be considered generalizable fact. To do that, we analyzed a subset of papers assembled through a configurative review of the Museums, STEM, and Social Issues domain in the USA.1 The initial review described the topics and types of research related to our focal subject. Here, we focus on the choices made about the research methods. By selecting only those papers that assessed the intersection of STEM and social issues in museums, we were able to look across three primary sources of knowledge: peer-reviewed journals, grey literature from a national online repository, and dissertations or theses in the ProQuest database. We used these reports to understand whether there is sufficient evidence to make claims about the museum sector or museums as a class capable of supporting the many claims about their impacts. In this case, we focused only on museums’ capacity to use STEM to engage audiences with social issues and acknowledge the exclusion of humanities content as a path for social change.more » « less
-
Abstract <italic>Research summary</italic>To what extent do firms rely on basic science in their R&D efforts? Several scholars have sought to answer this and related questions, but progress has been impeded by the difficulty of matching unstructured references in patents to published papers. We introduce an open‐access dataset of references from the front pages of patents granted worldwide to scientific papers published since 1800. Each patent‐paper linkage is assigned a confidence score, which is characterized in a random sample by false negatives versus false positives. All matches are available for download athttp://relianceonscience.org. We outline several avenues for strategy research enabled by these new data. <italic>Managerial summary</italic>To what extent do firms rely on basic science in their R&D efforts? Several scholars have sought to answer this and related questions, but progress has been impeded by the difficulty of matching unstructured references in patents to published papers. We introduce an open‐access dataset of references from the front pages of patents granted worldwide to scientific papers published since 1800. Each patent‐paper linkage is assigned a confidence score, and we check a random sample of these confidence scores by hand in order to estimate both coverage (i.e., of the matches we should have found, what percentage did we find) and accuracy (i.e., of the matches we found, what percentage are correct). We outline several avenues for strategy research enabled by these new data.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.052167
