Science of science

Science

Volumn 359, Issue 6379, 2018, Pages

  Fortunato, Santo ^a,b   Bergstrom, Carl T ^c   Börner, Katy ^a,b   Evans, James A ^d   Helbing, Dirk ^e   Milojević, Staša ^a   Petersen, Alexander M ^f   Radicchi, Filippo ^a   Sinatra, Roberta ^g,h   Uzzi, Brian ^i,j   Vespignani, Alessandro ^h,k   Waltman, Ludo ^l   Wang, Dashun ^i,j   Barabási, Albert László ^g,h,m  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^e ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^f Merced   (United States)

^g CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^h NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k ISI FOUNDATION   (Italy)

^l LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^m DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; EVOLUTION; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; INSTRUMENTATION; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY APPROACH; POLICY DEVELOPMENT;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ATTITUDE; AUTOMATION; AWARDS AND PRIZES; AWARENESS; CAREER MOBILITY; CITATION ANALYSIS; CITATION DYNAMICS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COOPERATION; CREATIVITY; CULTURAL FACTOR; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING; EVOLUTION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FUNDING; HUMAN; INNOVATION; KNOWLEDGE; MACHINE LEARNING; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MOTIVATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; ORGANIZATION; PEER GROUP; POLICY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PRODUCTIVITY; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SCIENCE OF SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; SELECTION BIAS; SOCIAL STRUCTURE; SOCIOECONOMICS; SPECIALIZATION; TEAMWORK; TREND STUDY;

EID: 85042855814     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.aao0185     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. E. Garfield, Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122, 108-111 (1955). doi: 10.1126/science.122.3159.108; pmid: 14385826
2. D. J. S. Price, Little Science, Big Science (Columbia Univ. Press, 1963).
3. J. G. Foster, A. Rzhetsky, J. A. Evans, Tradition and innovation in scientists' research strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80, 875-908 (2015). doi:10.1177/0003122415601618
4. S. Milojević, Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. J. Informetr. 9, 962-973 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.005
5. T. Kuhn, M. Perc, D. Helbing, Inheritance patterns in citation networks reveal scientific memes. Phys. Rev. X 4, 041036 (2014). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041036
6. R. Klavans, K. W. Boyack, Which type of citation analysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68, 984-998 (2016). doi:10.1002/asi.23734
7. U. Shwed, P. S. Bearman, The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75, 817-840 (2010). doi: 10.1177/0003122410388488; pmid: 21886269
8. J. Bruggeman, V. A. Traag, J. Uitermark, Detecting communities through network data. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77, 1050-1063 (2012). doi:10.1177/0003122412463574
9. F. Shi, J. G. Foster, J. A. Evans, Weaving the fabric of science: Dynamic network models of science's unfolding structure. Soc. Networks 43, 73-85 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2015.02.006
10. L. M. A. Bettencourt, D. I. Kaiser, J. Kaur, Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. J. Informetr. 3, 210-221 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.001
11. X. Sun, J. Kaur, S. Milojević, A. Flammini, F. Menczer, Social dynamics of science. Sci. Rep. 3, 1069 (2013). doi: 10.1038/srep01069; pmid: 23323212
12. T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977).
13. P. Bourdieu, The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reasons. Soc. Sci. Inf. (Paris) 14, 19-47 (1975). doi:10.1177/053901847501400602
14. T. Jia, D. Wang, B. K. Szymanski, Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0078 (2017). doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0078
15. A. Rzhetsky, J. G. Foster, I. T. Foster, J. A. Evans, Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 14569-14574 (2015). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1509757112; pmid: 26554009
16. R. Rosenthal, The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638-641 (1979). doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
17. S. B. Nissen, T. Magidson, K. Gross, C. T. Bergstrom, Publication bias and the canonization of false facts. eLife 5, e21451 (2016). doi: 10.7554/eLife.21451; pmid: 27995896
18. L. Yao, Y. Li, S. Ghosh, J. A. Evans, A. Rzhetsky, Health ROI as a measure of misalignment of biomedical needs and resources. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 807-811 (2015). doi: 10.1038/nbt.3276; pmid: 26252133
19. C. S. Wagner et al., Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. J. Informetr. 5, 14-26 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
20. V. Larivière, S. Haustein, K. Börner, Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLOS ONE 10, e0122565 (2015). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122565; pmid: 25822658
21. K. J. Boudreau, E. C. Guinan, K. R. Lakhani, C. Riedl, Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Manage. Sci. 62, 2765-2783 (2016). doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285; pmid: 27746512
22. E. Leahey, J. Moody, Sociological innovation through subfield integration. Soc. Currents 1, 228-256 (2014). doi:10.1177/2329496514540131
23. A. Yegros-Yegros, I. Rafols, P. D'Este, Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLOS ONE 10, e0135095 (2015). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135095; pmid: 26266805
24. L. Bromham, R. Dinnage, X. Hua, Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534, 684-687 (2016). doi: 10.1038/nature18315; pmid: 27357795
25. D. Kim, D. B. Cerigo, H. Jeong, H. Youn, Technological novelty profile and inventions future impact. EPJ Data Sci. 5, 8 (2016). doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0069-1
26. B. Uzzi, S. Mukherjee, M. Stringer, B. Jones, Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468-472 (2013). doi: 10.1126/science.1240474; pmid: 24159044
27. J. Wang, R. Veugelers, P. Stephan, "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators" (NBER Working Paper No. 22180, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016).
28. J. P. Walsh, Y.-N. Lee, The bureaucratization of science. Res. Policy 44, 1584-1600 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.010
29. A. M. Petersen, M. Riccaboni, H. E. Stanley, F. Pammolli, Persistence and uncertainty in the academic career. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 5213-5218 (2012). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1121429109; pmid: 22431620
30. P. E. Stephan, How Economics Shapes Science (Harvard Univ. Press, 2012).
31. P. Azoulay, J. S. Graff Zivin, G. Manso, Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. Rand J. Econ. 42, 527-554 (2011). doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.x
32. R. Freeman, E. Weinstein, E. Marincola, J. Rosenbaum, F. Solomon, Competition and careers in biosciences. Science 294, 2293-2294 (2001). doi: 10.1126/science.1067477; pmid: 11743184
33. J. A. Evans, J. G. Foster, Metaknowledge. Science 331, 721-725 (2011). doi: 10.1126/science.1201765; pmid: 21311014
34. V. Larivière, C. Ni, Y. Gingras, B. Cronin, C. R. Sugimoto, Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504, 211-213 (2013). doi: 10.1038/504211a; pmid: 24350369
35. S. F. Way, D. B. Larremore, A. Clauset, in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'16) (ACM, 2016), pp. 1169-1179.
36. J. Duch et al., The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLOS ONE 7, e51332 (2012). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051332; pmid: 23251502
37. J. D. West, J. Jacquet, M. M. King, S. J. Correll, C. T. Bergstrom, The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE 8, e66212 (2013). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066212; pmid: 23894278
38. X. H. T. Zeng et al., Differences in collaboration patterns across discipline, career stage, and gender. PLOS Biol. 14, e1002573 (2016). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002573; pmid: 27814355
39. T. J. Ley, B. H. Hamilton, The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science 322, 1472-1474 (2008). doi: 10.1126/science.1165878; pmid: 19056961
40. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L Brescoll, M. J. Graham, J Handelsman Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 16474-16479 (2012). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109; pmid: 22988126
41. R. Van Noorden, Global mobility: Science on the move. Nature 490, 326-329 (2012). doi: 10.1038/490326a; pmid: 23075963
42. O. A. Doria Arrieta, F. Pammolli, A. M. Petersen, Quantifying the negative impact of brain drain on the integration of European science. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602232 (2017). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602232; pmid: 28439544
43. C. Franzoni, G. Scellato, P. Stephan, The mover's advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists. Econ. Lett. 122, 89-93 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.040
44. C. R. Sugimoto et al., Scientists have most impact when they're free to move. Nature 550, 29-31 (2017). doi: 10.1038/550029a; pmid: 28980663
45. A. Clauset, S. Arbesman, D. B. Larremore, Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400005 (2015). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400005; pmid: 26601125
46. P. Deville et al., Career on the move: Geography, stratification, and scientific impact. Sci. Rep. 4, 4770 (2014). pmid: 24759743
47. A. M. Petersen et al., Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 15316-15321 (2014). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323111111; pmid: 25288774
48. D. K. Simonton, Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychol. Rev. 104, 66-89 (1997). doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.66
49. R. Sinatra, D. Wang, P. Deville, C. Song, A.-L. Barabási, Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science 354, aaf5239 (2016). doi: 10.1126/science.aaf5239; pmid: 27811240
50. S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, B. Uzzi, The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036-1039 (2007). doi: 10.1126/science.1136099; pmid: 17431139
51. N. J. Cooke, M. L. Hilton, Eds., Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (National Academies Press, 2015).
52. V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, C. R. Sugimoto, A. Tsou, Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 1323-1332 (2015). doi:10.1002/asi.23266
53. L. Wu, D. Wang, J. A. Evans, Large teams have developed science and technology; small teams have disrupted it. arXiv:1709.02445 [physics.soc-ph] (7 September 2017).
54. B. F. Jones, The burden of knowledge and the "death of the renaissance man": Is innovation getting harder? Rev. Econ. Stud. 76, 283-317 (2009). doi:10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00531.x
55. S. Milojević, Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 3984-3989 (2014). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309723111; pmid: 24591626
56. G. Palla, A.-L. Barabási, T. Vicsek, Quantifying social group evolution. Nature 446, 664-667 (2007). doi: 10.1038/nature05670; pmid: 17410175
57. G. J. Borjas, K. B. Doran, Which peers matter? The relative impacts of collaborators, colleagues, and competitors. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97, 1104-1117 (2015). doi:10.1162/REST-a-00472
58. P. Azoulay, J. G. Zivin, J. Wang, Superstar extinction. Q. J. Econ. 125, 549-589 (2010). doi:10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.549
59. A. M. Petersen, Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, E4671-E4680 (2015). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501444112; pmid: 26261301
60. R. K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science. Science 159, 56-63 (1968). doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56
61. L. Allen, J. Scott, A. Brand, M. Hlava, M. Altman, Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature 508, 312-313 (2014). doi: 10.1038/508312a; pmid: 24745070
62. H.-W. Shen, A.-L. Barabási, Collective credit allocation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 12325-12330 (2014). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1401992111; pmid: 25114238
63. L. Waltman, A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J. Informe 10, 365-391 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
64. J. E. Hirsch, An inde to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Pro Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 16569-16572 (2005) doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102; pmid: 16275915
65. H. F. Moed, Citation Ana sis in Research Evaluation (Springer, 2010).
66. E. Garfield, Citation a alysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178, 471-47 (1972). doi: 10.1126/science.178.4060.471 pmid: 5079701
67. D. J. de Solla Price, Networks of scientific papers. Science 149, 510-515 (1965) doi: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510; pmid: 14325149
68. Q. Zhang, N. Perra, B. Gonçalves, F. Ciulla, A. Vespignani, Characterizing scientific production and consumption in physics. Sci. Rep. 3, 1640 (2013). doi: 10.1038/srep01640; pmid: 23571320
69. F. Radicchi, S. Fortunato, C. Castellano, Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 17268-17272 (2008). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806977105; pmid: 18978030
70. L. Waltman, N. J. van Eck, A. F. J. van Raan, Universality of citation distributions revisited. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 72-77 (2012). doi:10.1002/asi.21671
71. M. Golosovsky, S. Solomon, Runaway events dominate the heavy tail of citation distributions. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 205, 303-311 (2012). doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01576-4
72. C. Stegehuis, N. Litvak, L. Waltman, Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. J. Informetr. 9, 642-657 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.06.005
73. M. Thelwall, The discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data: Best options for modelling and regression. J. Informetr. 10, 336-346 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.12.007
74. D. de Solla Price, A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 27, 292-306 (1976). doi:10.1002/asi.4630270505
75. A.-L. Barabási, R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509-512 (1999). doi: 10.1126/science.286.5439.509; pmid: 10521342
76. P. D. B. Parolo et al., Attention decay in science. J. Informetr. 9, 734-745 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.006
77. D. Wang, C. Song, A.-L. Barabási, Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science 342,127-132 (2013). doi: 10.1126/science.1237825; pmid: 24092745
78. Y.-H. Eom, S. Fortunato, Characterizing and modeling citation dynamics. PLOS ONE 6, e24926 (2011). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024926; pmid: 21966387
79. M. Golosovsky, S. Solomon, Stochastic dynamical model of a growing citation network based on a self-exciting point process. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 098701 (2012). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.098701; pmid: 23002894
80. A. F. J. van Raan, Sleeping Beauties in science. Scientometrics 59, 467-472 (2004). doi:10.1023/B: SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1
81. Q. Ke, E. Ferrara, F. Radicchi, A. Flammini, Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 7426-7431 (2015). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1424329112; pmid: 26015563
82. I. Tahamtan, A. Safipour Afshar, K. Ahamdzadeh, Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics 107, 1195-1225 (2016). doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2
83. J. E. Hirsch, Does the h index have predictive power? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 19193-19198 (2007). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707962104; pmid: 18040045
84. D. E. Acuna, S. Allesina, K. P. Kording, Future impact: Predicting scientific success. Nature 489, 201-202 (2012). doi: 10.1038/489201a; pmid: 22972278
85. O. Penner, R. K. Pan, A. M. Petersen, K. Kaski, S. Fortunato, On the predictability of future impact in science Sci. Rep. 3, 3052 (2013). doi: 10.1038/srep03052; pmid: 24165898
86. J. R. Cole, H. Zuckerman, in The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, L. A. Coser, Ed. (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975), pp. 139-174.
87. P. Azoulay, Research efficiency: Turn the scientific method on ourselves. Nature 484, 31-32 (2012). doi: 10.1038/484031a; pmid: 22481340
88. M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 1: Citations and links to academic articles from the Web. Prof. Inf. 24, 587-606 (2015). doi: 10.3145/epi.2015.sep.08
89. M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics. Prof. Inf. 24, 607-620 (2015). doi: 10.3145/epi.2015.sep.09
90. L. Bornmann, What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Adv. Inf. Sci. 64, 217-233 (2013).
91. C. Haeussler, L. Jiang, J. Thursby, M. Thursby, Specific and general information sharing among competing academic researchers. Res. Policy 43, 465-475 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.017
92. A. Oettl, Sociology: Honour the helpful. Nature 489, 496-497 (2012). doi: 10.1038/489496a; pmid: 23018949
93. S. Ravindran, "Getting credit for peer review," Science, 8 February 2016; www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/02/getting-credit-peer-review.
94. R. Costas, Z. Zahedi, P. Wouters, Do "altmetrics" correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 2003-2019 (2015). doi:10.1002/asi.23309
95. A. Clauset, D. B. Larremore, R. Sinatra, Data-driven predictions in the science of science. Science 355, 477-480 (2017). doi:10.1126/science.aal4217
96. S. Wessely, Peer review of grant applications: What do we know? Lancet 352, 301-305 (1998). doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-1; pmid: 9690424
97. N. Geard, J. Noble, paper presented at the 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation, Kassel, Germany, 6 to 9 September 2010.
98. Calm in a crisis. Nature 468, 1002 (2010). doi: 10.1038/4681002a; pmid: 21170024
99. R. Roy, Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Sci. Technol. Human Values 10, 73-81 (1985). doi:10.1177/016224398501000309
100. J. Bollen, D. Crandall, D. Junk, Y. Ding, K. Börner, An efficient system to fund science: From proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions. Scientometrics 110, 521-528 (2017). doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3
101. M. S. Kohn et al., IBM's health analytics and clinical decision support. Yearb. Med. Inform. 9, 154-162 (2014). doi: 10.15265/IY-2014-0002; pmid: 25123736
102. J. Kleinberg, H. Lakkaraju, J. Leskovec, J. Ludwig, S. Mullainathan, "Human decisions and machine predictions" (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017).
103. B. Liu, R. Govindan, B. Uzzi, Do emotions expressed online correlate with actual changes in decision-making?: The case of stock day traders. PLOS ONE 11, e0144945 (2016). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144945; pmid: 26765539