International Careers of Researchers in Biomedical Sciences

Lawson, Cornelia; Geuna, Aldo; Fernández-Zubieta, Ana; Kataishi, Rodrigo; Toselli, Manuel

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801396-0.00003-x

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, like its “trade deficit” in the world of commerce [40–42], North America has a “mobility deficit” in science, meaning that more foreign scientists are imported to (than exported from) North America [43]. The mobility to North America is typically motivated by improved opportunities for increased productivity and/or scientific impact [44, 45] and by career advancement [46].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population

Heinze¹,

Jappe²,

Pithan³

2019

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the entire population of Nobel laureates in science from 1901 to 2017, we show that North America’s rise as global power in science started in the 1920s. Following a transition period (1940s to 1960s), its scientific hegemony was consolidated in the 1970s. Yet since the 2000s, North America’s global leadership in science has come under pressure. In that time, its share of laureates across disciplines dropped, although it has retained its attractiveness as a destination for future laureates from Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, we find that North America has become apparently less effective since 2010 in transferring capacities for conducting ground-breaking research from one generation of scientists to another. Furthermore, both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region have similarly high shares of newcomer organizations with regard to where prize-winning work is conducted, indicating that these two regions are very active in the inter-organizational competition for scientific talent. Despite this competition, however, we find no support for the rise of a new global center of science.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population

Heinze¹,

Jappe²,

Pithan³

2019

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The situation is similar in the United Kingdom, which has the largest population of foreign-born PhD students in all of Europe (Edler et al, 2013;Franzoni et al, 2012;Gagliardi, 2011;Galgoczi et al, 2016). In 2012, 47% of U.S. doctoral students came from abroad (European Commission, 2014;Lanka, 2022;Lawson et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Nature and Dimensions of Scientific Mobility

Raghupathi,

Ren,

Raghupathi

2023

International Journal of Technology Diffusion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprehending the characteristics or potential benefits of global mobility of scientists has been inadequate from academic/practical perspectives. The authors attempt to fill a theoretical gap by focusing on the nature/dimensions of the mobility of highly educated people to other countries. They analyze data from the Open Researcher and Contributor ID-ORCID database and examine the characteristics of scientists as well as the propensity of these highly qualified individuals to migrate. Using 6000 migration records of PhDs from 194 countries, the authors utilize visual analytics to explore the various dimensions of scientists and their movements. Results show that the largest numbers of researchers reside in developed countries; there is net inflow of PhD researchers to developed countries. Also, scientific immigration is impacted not only by the availability of research positions in academic institutions, but also by economics (supply/demand) as well as contemporary immigration policies and social trends.

show abstract

“…Recent studies have shown that not only are research teams larger than in previous eras [ 2 ], but they are increasingly likely to be more globalized in their constitution as well [ 3 ]. At the same time, in many areas of practice and research, multi-lateral collaboration is already common place and is quickly becoming the norm [ 4 – 6 ]. Although English has quietly become accepted as the lingua franca for biomedical publication and collaboration [ 7 – 10 ], this development has not been without its detractors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the lexico-grammatical differences in the writing of native and non-native speakers of English in peer-reviewed medical journals in the field of pediatric oncology: Creation of the genuine index scoring system

Gayle

Shimaoka

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe predominance of English in scientific research has created hurdles for “non-native speakers” of English. Here we present a novel application of native language identification (NLI) for the assessment of medical-scientific writing. For this purpose, we created a novel classification system whereby scoring would be based solely on text features found to be distinctive among native English speakers (NS) within a given context. We dubbed this the “Genuine Index” (GI).MethodologyThis methodology was validated using a small set of journals in the field of pediatric oncology. Our dataset consisted of 5,907 abstracts, representing work from 77 countries. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to generate our model and for scoring.ResultsAccuracy, precision, and recall of the classification model were 93.3%, 93.7%, and 99.4%, respectively. Class specific F-scores were 96.5% for NS and 39.8% for our benchmark class, Japan. Overall kappa was calculated to be 37.2%. We found significant differences between countries with respect to the GI score. Significant correlation was found between GI scores and two validated objective measures of writing proficiency and readability. Two sets of key terms and phrases differentiating NS and non-native writing were identified.ConclusionsOur GI model was able to detect, with a high degree of reliability, subtle differences between the terms and phrasing used by native and non-native speakers in peer reviewed journals, in the field of pediatric oncology. In addition, L1 language transfer was found to be very likely to survive revision, especially in non-Western countries such as Japan. These findings show that even when the language used is technically correct, there may still be some phrasing or usage that impact quality.

show abstract

International Careers of Researchers in Biomedical Sciences

Cited by 6 publications

References 50 publications

From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population

From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population

Exploring the Nature and Dimensions of Scientific Mobility

Evaluating the lexico-grammatical differences in the writing of native and non-native speakers of English in peer-reviewed medical journals in the field of pediatric oncology: Creation of the genuine index scoring system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About