Cross-disciplinary evolution of the genomics revolution

Petersen, Alexander M.; Majeti, Dinesh; Kwon, Kyeong-An; Ahmed, Mohammed Emtiaz; Pavlidis, Ioannis

doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat4211

Cited by 25 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…calculated by adding c p,y across individual articles), should have a clear and intuitive relation to the overall size of the aggregate unit. By way of contradistinction, there do exist standardized 'intensive' citation measures, such as the citation percentile q(c p,y,Δt ) and the normally-distributed z-statistic (obtained by standardizing the location and scale of the log-normal distribution) (Petersen, 2015;Petersen et al, 2018), which both facilitate standardized comparisons. While these methods produce citation measures that are time-independent, and thus robust to citation inflation, they are not amenable to aggregation because these quantities lack intuitive meaning when they are tallied across articles.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to Account for Citation Inflation in Research Evaluation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative research evaluation requires measures that are transparent, relatively simple, and free of disciplinary and temporal bias. We document and provide a solution to a hitherto unaddressed temporal biascitation inflationwhich arises from the basic fact that scientific publication is steadily growing at roughly 4% per year. Moreover, because the total production of citations grows by a factor of 2 every 12 years, this means that the real value of a citation depends on when it was produced. Consequently, failing to convert nominal citation values into real citation values produces significant mis-measurement of scientific impact. To address this problem, we develop a citation deflator method, outline the steps to generalize and implement it using the Web of Science portal, and analyze a large set of researchers from biology and physics to demonstrate how two common evaluation metricstotal citations and h-indexcan differ by a remarkable amount depending on whether the underlying citation counts are deflated or not. In particular, our results show that the scientific impact of prior generations is likely to be significantly underestimated when citations are not deflated, often by 100% or more of the nominal value. Thus, our study points to the need for a systemic overhaul of the counting methods used evaluating citation impactespecially in the case of researchers, journals, and institutionswhich can span several decades and thus several doubling periods.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to Account for Citation Inflation in Research Evaluation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The increasing number of international collaborations allows for the formation of global research networks and a greater sharing of research resources, including materials, equipment, data, knowledge, specialization and diverse cultural perspectives (Wagner 2005;Witze 2016). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaborations are yielding innovative breakthroughs (Larivière et al 2015;Petersen et al 2018). And compared to single-authored publications, works of collaborative science are published in higher impact journals and result in significantly more citations and patents (Wuchty et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who "contribute significantly" to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011-2015 (8,364 respondents). Of the 6,673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically

show abstract

“…These results quantify the extent to which mobile researchers facilitate a valuable interface for intellectual exchange. A prime example was the cross-disciplinary interface formed by computing and biology researchers in the genomics revolution, in which this constructive configuration facilitated the cross-pollination of methods and institutional know-how that were crucial for the success of the Human Genome Project [ 13 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moving forward on these issues, especially in consideration of the inherent difficulties—both ethical and statistical—in testing and empirically measuring the impacts of immigration policy [ 60 ], there is a need to develop better data-driven analytical and systems modelling methods to inform science policy on these issues. Indeed, anticipating the multiscale impacts of science policy is a formidable challenge calling for continued trans-disciplinary efforts to better understand the scientific enterprise [ 5 , 6 , 13 , 61 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be specific, z i , p ≡ (ln( n i , p , t + 1) − μ t )/ σ t , where μ t = 〈ln( n t + 1)〉 and σ t = σ [ln( n t + 1)] denote the mean and standard deviation calculated over the set of publications from a specific year cohort ( t ). By mapping citations to their log value (adding +1 to avoid the divergence associated with ln 0), and accounting for the age-cohort-specific mean and standard deviation, z i , p follows a normal distribution N (0, 1) that is stable across t [ 11 , 13 ]. Publications with z i , p > 0 are thus above the average log citation impact, μ t , and since they are measured in units of σ , standard intuition and statistics of z -scores apply.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multiscale impact of researcher mobility

Petersen¹

2018

J. R. Soc. Interface.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International mobility facilitates the exchange of scientific, institutional and cultural knowledge. Yet whether globalization and advances in virtual communication technologies have altered the impact of researcher mobility is a relevant and open question that we address by analysing a broad international set of 26 170 physicists from 1980 to 2009, focusing on the 10-year period centred around each mobility event to assess the impact of mobility on research outcomes. We account for secular globalization trends by splitting the analysis into three periods, measuring for each period the effect of mobility on researchers' citation impact, research topic diversity, collaboration networks and geographical coordination. In order to identify causal effects we leverage statistical matching methods that pair mobile researchers with non-mobile researchers that are similar in research profile attributes prior the mobility event. We find that mobile researchers gain up to a 17% increase in citations relative to their non-mobile counterparts, which can be explained by the simultaneous increase in their diversity of co-authors, topics and geographical coordination in the period immediately following migration. Nevertheless, we also observe that researcher's completely curtail prior collaborations with their source country in 11% of the cross-border mobility events. As such, these individual-level perturbations fuel multiscale churning in scientific networks, e.g. rewiring the connectivity of individuals and ideas and affecting international integration. Together these results provide additional clarity on the complex relationship between human capital mobility and the dynamics of social capital investment, with implications for immigration and national innovation system policy.

show abstract

Cross-disciplinary evolution of the genomics revolution

Abstract: Pervasive cross-disciplinarity has been a key factor in the genomics revolution.

Cited by 25 publications

References 59 publications

Methods to Account for Citation Inflation in Research Evaluation

Methods to Account for Citation Inflation in Research Evaluation

Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

Multiscale impact of researcher mobility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About