Mapping Diversity of Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: An Approach Making Use of Fuzzy Cluster Analysis

&lt;b&gt;Purpose:&lt;/b&gt; To present a method for systematically mapping diversity of publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities in terms of publication type, publication language and co-authorship.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Design/methodology/approach:&lt;/b&gt; In a follow-up to the hard partitioning clustering by Verleysen and Weeren in 2016, we now propose the complementary use of fuzzy cluster analysis, making use of a membership coefficient to study gradual differences between publication styles among authors within a scholarly discipline. The analysis of the probability density function of the membership coefficient allows to assess the distribution of publication styles within and between disciplines.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Findings:&lt;/b&gt; As an illustration we analyze 1,828 productive authors affiliated in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas a hard partitioning previously identified two broad publication styles, an international one vs. a domestic one, fuzzy analysis now shows gradual differences among authors. Internal diversity also varies across disciplines and can be explained by researchers&#39; specialization and dissemination strategies.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Research limitations:&lt;/b&gt; The dataset used is limited to one country for the years 2000-2011; a cognitive classification of authors may yield a different result from the affiliation-based classification used here.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Practical implications:&lt;/b&gt; Our method is applicable to other bibliometric and research evaluation contexts, especially for the social sciences and humanities in non-Anglophone countries.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Originality/value:&lt;/b&gt; The method proposed is a novel application of cluster analysis to the field of bibliometrics. Applied to publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities, for the first time it systematically documents intra-disciplinary diversity.&lt;b&gt;Purpose:&lt;/b&gt; To present a method for systematically mapping diversity of publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities in terms of publication type, publication language and co-authorship.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Design/methodology/approach:&lt;/b&gt; In a follow-up to the hard partitioning clustering by Verleysen and Weeren in 2016, we now propose the complementary use of fuzzy cluster analysis, making use of a membership coefficient to study gradual differences between publication styles among authors within a scholarly discipline. The analysis of the probability density function of the membership coefficient allows to assess the distribution of publication styles within and between disciplines.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Findings:&lt;/b&gt; As an illustration we analyze 1,828 productive authors affiliated in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas a hard partitioning previously identified two broad publication styles, an international one vs. a domestic one, fuzzy analysis now shows gradual differences among authors. Internal diversity also varies across disciplines and can be explained by researchers&#39; specialization and dissemination strategies.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Research limitations:&lt;/b&gt; The dataset used is limited to one country for the years 2000-2011; a cognitive classification of authors may yield a different result from the affiliation-based classification used here.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Practical implications:&lt;/b&gt; Our method is applicable to other bibliometric and research evaluation contexts, especially for the social sciences and humanities in non-Anglophone countries.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Originality/value:&lt;/b&gt; The method proposed is a novel application of cluster analysis to the field of bibliometrics. Applied to publication patterns at the author level in the social sciences and humanities, for the first time it systematically documents intra-disciplinary diversity.</span

Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics

The number of papers published in journals indexed by the Web of Science core collection is steadily increasing. In recent years, nearly two million new papers were published each year; somewhat more than one million papers when primary research papers are considered only (articles and reviews are the document types where primary research is usually reported or reviewed). However, who reads these papers? More precisely, which groups of researchers from which (self-assigned) scientific disciplines and countries are reading these papers? Is it possible to visualize readership patterns for certain countries, scientific disciplines, or academic status groups? One popular method to answer these questions is a network analysis. In this study, we analyze Mendeley readership data of a set of 1,133,224 articles and 64,960 reviews with publication year 2012 to generate three different kinds of networks: (1) The network based on disciplinary affiliations of Mendeley readers contains four groups: (i) biology, (ii) social science and humanities (including relevant computer science), (iii) bio-medical sciences, and (iv) natural science and engineering. In all four groups, the category with the addition "miscellaneous" prevails. (2) The network of co-readers in terms of professional status shows that a common interest in papers is mainly shared among PhD students, Master's students, and postdocs. (3) The country network focusses on global readership patterns: a group of 53 nations is identified as core to the scientific enterprise, including Russia and China as well as two thirds of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.Comment: 26 pages, 6 figures (also web-based startable), and 2 table

Andrzej Pekalski networks of scientific interests with internal degrees of freedom through self-citation analysis

Old and recent theoretical works by Andrzej Pekalski (APE) are recalled as possible sources of interest for describing network formation and clustering in complex (scientific) communities, through self-organisation and percolation processes. Emphasis is placed on APE self-citation network over four decades. The method is that used for detecting scientists field mobility by focusing on author's self-citation, co-authorships and article topics networks as in [1,2]. It is shown that APE's self-citation patterns reveal important information on APE interest for research topics over time as well as APE engagement on different scientific topics and in different networks of collaboration. Its interesting complexity results from "degrees of freedom" and external fields leading to so called internal shock resistance. It is found that APE network of scientific interests belongs to independent clusters and occurs through rare or drastic events as in irreversible "preferential attachment processes", similar to those found in usual mechanics and thermodynamics phase transitions.Comment: 7 pages, 1 table, 44 references, submitted to Int J Mod Phys

Collaboration networks from a large CV database: dynamics, topology and bonus impact

Understanding the dynamics of research production and collaboration may reveal better strategies for scientific careers, academic institutions and funding agencies. Here we propose the use of a large and multidisciplinar database of scientific curricula in Brazil, namely, the Lattes Platform, to study patterns of scientific production and collaboration. In this database, detailed information about publications and researchers are made available by themselves so that coauthorship is unambiguous and individuals can be evaluated by scientific productivity, geographical location and field of expertise. Our results show that the collaboration network is growing exponentially for the last three decades, with a distribution of number of collaborators per researcher that approaches a power-law as the network gets older. Moreover, both the distributions of number of collaborators and production per researcher obey power-law behaviors, regardless of the geographical location or field, suggesting that the same universal mechanism might be responsible for network growth and productivity.We also show that the collaboration network under investigation displays a typical assortative mixing behavior, where teeming researchers (i.e., with high degree) tend to collaborate with others alike. Finally, our analysis reveals that the distinctive collaboration profile of researchers awarded with governmental scholarships suggests a strong bonus impact on their productivity.Comment: 8 pages, 8 figure

A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance

This paper explores the relationship between author-level bibliometric indicators and the researchers the "measure", exemplified across five academic seniorities and four disciplines. Using cluster methodology, the disciplinary and seniority appropriateness of author-level indicators is examined. Publication and citation data for 741 researchers across Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health was collected in Web of Science (WoS). Forty-four indicators of individual performance were computed using the data. A two-step cluster analysis using IBM SPSS version 22 was performed, followed by a risk analysis and ordinal logistic regression to explore cluster membership. Indicator scores were contextualized using the individual researcher's curriculum vitae. Four different clusters based on indicator scores ranked researchers as low, middle, high and extremely high performers. The results show that different indicators were appropriate in demarcating ranked performance in different disciplines. In Astronomy the h2 indicator, sum pp top prop in Environmental Science, Q2 in Philosophy and e-index in Public Health. The regression and odds analysis showed individual level indicator scores were primarily dependent on the number of years since the researcher's first publication registered in WoS, number of publications and number of citations. Seniority classification was secondary therefore no seniority appropriate indicators were confidently identified. Cluster methodology proved useful in identifying disciplinary appropriate indicators providing the preliminary data preparation was thorough but needed to be supplemented by other analyses to validate the results. A general disconnection between the performance of the researcher on their curriculum vitae and the performance of the researcher based on bibliometric indicators was observed.Comment: 28 pages, 7 tables, 2 figures, 2 appendice

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

Two fundamentally different perspectives on knowledge diffusion dominate debates about academic disciplines. On the one hand, critics of disciplinary research and education have argued that disciplines are isolated silos, within which specialists pursue inward-looking and increasingly narrow research agendas. On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries. These perspectives have different implications for how knowledge diffuses, how intellectuals gain and lose status within their disciplines, and how intellectual reputations evolve within and across disciplines. We argue that highly general claims about the nature of disciplinary boundaries are counterproductive, and that research on the nature of specific disciplinary boundaries is more useful. To that end, this paper uses a novel publication and citation network dataset and statistical models of citation networks to test hypotheses about the boundaries between philosophy of science and 11 disciplinary clusters. Specifically, we test hypotheses about whether engaging with and being cited by scientific communities outside philosophy of science has an impact on one’s position within philosophy of science. Our results suggest that philosophers of science produce interdisciplinary scholarship, but they tend not to cite work by other philosophers when it is published in journals outside of their discipline. Furthermore, net of other factors, receiving citations from other disciplines has no meaningful impact—positive or negative—on citations within philosophy of science. We conclude by considering this evidence for simultaneous interdisciplinarity and insularity in terms of scientific trading theory and other work on disciplinary boundaries and communication

Geographical trends in research: a preliminary analysis on authors' affiliations

In the last decade, research literature reached an enormous volume with an unprecedented current annual increase of 1.5 million new publications. As research gets ever more global and new countries and institutions, either from academia or corporate environment, start to contribute with their share, it is important to monitor this complex scenario and understand its dynamics. We present a study on a conference proceedings dataset extracted from Springer Nature Scigraph that illustrates insightful geographical trends and highlights the unbalanced growth of competitive research institutions worldwide. Results emerged from our micro and macro analysis show that the distributions among countries of institutions and papers follow a power law, and thus very few countries keep producing most of the papers accepted by high-tier conferences. In addition, we found that the annual and overall turnover rate of the top 5, 10 and 25 countries is extremely low, suggesting a very static landscape in which new entries struggle to emerge. Finally, we highlight the presence of an increasing gap between the number of institutions initiating and overseeing research endeavours (i.e. first and last authors' affiliations) and the total number of institutions participating in research. As a consequence of our analysis, the paper also discusses our experience in working with affiliations: an utterly simple matter at first glance, that is instead revealed to be a complex research and technical challenge yet far from being solved