Contrasting Views of Complexity and Their Implications For Network-Centric Infrastructures

There exists a widely recognized need to better understand and manage complex “systems of systems,” ranging from biology, ecology, and medicine to network-centric technologies. This is motivating the search for universal laws of highly evolved systems and driving demand for new mathematics and methods that are consistent, integrative, and predictive. However, the theoretical frameworks available today are not merely fragmented but sometimes contradictory and incompatible. We argue that complexity arises in highly evolved biological and technological systems primarily to provide mechanisms to create robustness. However, this complexity itself can be a source of new fragility, leading to “robust yet fragile” tradeoffs in system design. We focus on the role of robustness and architecture in networked infrastructures, and we highlight recent advances in the theory of distributed control driven by network technologies. This view of complexity in highly organized technological and biological systems is fundamentally different from the dominant perspective in the mainstream sciences, which downplays function, constraints, and tradeoffs, and tends to minimize the role of organization and design

Translational medical research in Nigeria:Challenges, prospects and recommendations for the future

In this review we discussed the challenges and prospects for translational medical research in Nigeria, a developing African country. We also provided some relevant recommendations on how to improve the future of translational medical research in the Nigeria

Assessing Subject Areas of Worldwide Information Literacy Research and Practice: A Discipline Co-Occurrence Network Analysis Approach

IL is important due to its potentiality to optimize the use of available information and to transform the novice into self-directed lifelong learners. It has gained ground and much attention in every field of knowledge which is assured by rapid increase in related literature. Since, the IL skills require subject-oriented approach not only to develop standard, guide, framework, tools, etc. but also to evaluate, assess, and impact of IL skills. Thus, measuring of the subject areas of IL publications and it co-occurrence is imperative and the objective of the present study. Based on data from Scopus database, network visualization technique is applied for the measure subject areas co-occurrence and related trends in the IL research articles published during 2001-16. IL publications show linear growth in the study period and trend is also in the same line. IL publications are spread into 26 out of 27 subject areas of Scopus database while there is research gap in Immunology and Microbiology. Social Science is observes as the core subject area while Computer Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Engineering, and Medicine are playing key role in IL research and practices. Social Sciences control the knowledge flow in the network i.e. every new ideas in the network is communicated through this. Highest co-occurrences are observed in Social Sciences and Computer Science followed by Social Sciences--Arts and Humanities; Social Sciences--Business, Management and Accounting; and Social Sciences--Medicine. The findings of the study are proxy of the current status and trend in the subject areas of worldwide IL publications thus provides panoramic view of IL publications in different subjects of world of knowledge

Medicina traslacional e innovación en salud: mecanismos y perspectivas

Many new discoveries in Life Sciences cannot be translated into products, services or new applications to improve human health. Translational medicine, defined as "from bench to bedside", refers to the transfer of results or new knowledge achieved in the laboratory into health innovation. We aim to review the state of art of translational medicine, its relationship with innovation processes and the different perspectives to consider. Finally, we contextualize the situation of Research and Development (R&D) in Chile and the main issues of the biotechnology market in the country

Academic dependency: the influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET

Background The prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, not only determined by leading academic institutions but also by large pharmaceutical companies, has been shown to prioritize the exploration of novel pharmacological interventions over the study of the socio-environmental factors influencing illness onset and progression. The aim of this investigation is to quantitatively explore whether and to what extent the prevailing international HBMS research agenda and the key actors setting this agenda influence research in non-core countries. Methods We used the Web of Science database and the CorText platform to proxy the HBMS research agenda of a prestigious research institution from Latin America: Argentina’s National Research Council (CONICET). We conducted a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 16,309 HBMS academic articles whereby CONICET was among the authors' affiliations. The content of CONICET’s agenda was represented through co-occurrence network maps of the most frequent concatenation of terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. We compared our findings with previous reports on the international HBMS research agenda. Results In line with the results previously reported for the prevailing international agenda, we found that terms linked to molecular biology and cancer research hegemonize CONICET’s HBMS research agenda, whereas terms connecting HBMS research with socio-environmental cues are marginal. However, we also found differences with the international agenda: CONICET's HBMS agenda shows a marginal presence of terms linked to translational medicine, while terms associated with categories such as pathogens, plant research, agrobiotechnology, and food industry are more represented than in the prevailing agenda. Conclusions CONICET’s HBMS research agenda shares topics, priorities, and methodologies with the prevailing HBMS international research agenda. However, CONICET's HBMS research agenda is internally heterogeneous, appearing to be mostly driven by a combination of elements that not only reflect academic dependency (the adoption of the prevailing research agenda by non-core research institutions) but also local economic determinants associated with Argentina’s place in the international division of labor as an exporter of primary goods

Determining cognitive distance between publication portfolios of evaluators and evaluees in research evaluation: an exploration of informetric methods

This doctoral thesis develops informetric methods for determining cognitive distance between publication portfolios of evaluators and evaluees in research evaluation. In a discipline specific research evaluation, when an expert panel evaluates research groups, it is an open question how one can determine the extent to which the panel members are in a position to evaluate the research groups. This thesis contributes to the literature by proposing six different informetric approaches to measure the match between evaluators and evaluees using their publications as a representation of their expertise. An expert panel is specifically appointed for the research evaluation. Experts are typically selected in one of two ways: (1) straightforward selection: the person(s) in charge of the research evaluation has access to a list of acknowledged experts in specific fields, and limits its selection process to ensuring the experts’ independence regarding the program under evaluation; and (2) gradual selections: preferred profiles of experts are developed with respect to the specialization under scrutiny in the evaluation. Both ways leave some freedom for an “old boys’ network” to appoint someone without properly evaluating their qualifications. There are also other ways for expert selection, for example, inviting open application or the research groups that will be evaluated can propose their choice of experts. In research evaluation, an expert panel usually comprises independent specialists, each of which is recognized in at least one of the fields addressed by the unit under evaluation. The expertise of the panel members should be congruent with the research groups to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the evaluation. All things being equal, panel members who are credible experts in the field are also most likely to provide valuable, relevant recommendations and suggestions that should lead to improved research quality. However, there was an absence of methods to determine the cognitive distance between evaluators and evaluees in research evaluation when we started working in July 2013. In this thesis, we develop and test informetric methods to identify the cognitive distances between the (members of) an expert panel on the one hand, and the (whole of the) units of assessment (typically research groups) on the other. More generally, we introduce a number of methods that allow measuring cognitive distances based on publication portfolios. In academia, publications are considered key indicators of expertise that help to identify qualified or similar experts to assign papers for review, and to form an expert panel. Our main objective is to propose informetric methods to identify panel members who have closely related expertise in the research domain of the research groups based on their publications profile. The main factor that we have taken into account is the cognitive distance between an expert panel and research groups. We consider the publication portfolio of the involved researchers to reflect the position of the unit in cognitive space and, hence, to determine cognitive distance. Expressed in general terms we measure cognitive distance between units based on how often they have published in the same or similar journals. Our investigations lead to the development of new methods of expert panel composition for the research evaluation exercises. We explore different ways of quantifying the cognitive distance between panel members and research group's publication profiles. We consider all the publications of the research groups (during the eight years preceding their evaluation) and panel members indexed in Web of Science (WoS). We pursue the investigation at two levels of aggregation: WoS subject categories (SCs) and journals. The aggregated citation relations among SCs or journals provide a matrix. From the matrix, one can construct a similarity matrix. From the similarity matrix, one can construct a global SCs or journal map in which similar SCs or journals are located more closely together. The maps can be visualized using a visualization program. During the visualization process, a multi-dimensional space is reduced to a projection in two dimensions. In this process, similar SCs or journals are positioned closer to each other. We propose three methods, namely the use of barycenters, of similarity-adapted publication vector (SAPV) and of weighted cosine similarity (WCS). We take into account the similarity between WoS SCs and between journals, either by incorporating a similarity matrix (in the case of SAPV and WCS) or a 2-dimensional base map derived from it (in the case of barycenters). We determine the coordinates of barycenters using a 2-dimensional base map based on the publication profiles of research groups and panel members, and calculate the Euclidean distances between the barycenters. We also identify SAPV using the similarity matrix and calculated the Euclidean distances between the SAPVs. Finally, we calculate WCS using the similarity matrix. The SAPV and WCS methods use a square N-dimensional similarity matrix. Here N is equivalent to 224 WoS SCs and 10,675 journals. We used the distance/similarity between panel members and research groups as an indicator of cognitive distance. Small differences in Euclidean distances (both between barycenters and SAPVs) or in cosine similarity values bear little meaning. For this reason, we employ a bootstrapping approach in order to determine a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each distance or similarity value. If two CIs do not overlap, difference between the values is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Although it is possible for two values to have a statistically significant difference while having overlapping CIs, the difference is less likely to have practical meaning. Two levels of aggregation and three methods lead to six informetric approaches to quantify the cognitive distance. Our proposed approaches hold advantages over a simple comparison of publication portfolios. Our approaches quantify the cognitive distance between a research group and panel members. We also compare our proposed approaches. We examine which of the approaches best reflects the prior assignment of main assessor to each research group, how much influence the level of aggregation (journals and WoS SCs) plays, and how much the dimensionality matters. The results show that, regardless of the method used, the level of aggregation has only a minor influence, whereas the influence of the number of dimensions is substantial. The results also show that the number of dimensions plays a major role in the case of identifying shortest cognitive distance. While the SAPV and WCS methods agree at most of cases at both the levels of aggregation the barycenter approaches yield different results. We find that the barycenter approaches score highest at both levels of aggregation to identify the previously assigned main assessor. When it comes to uniquely identifying the main assessor, all methods score better at the journal level than at the WoS SC level. Our approaches, but of course not the numerical result, are independent of the similarity matrix or map used. All six approaches give the opportunity to assess the composition of the panel in terms of cognitive distance if one or more panel members are replaced and compare the relative contribution of each potential panel member to the panel fit as a whole, by observing the changes to the distance between the panel’s and the groups’. In addition, our approaches allow the panel composition authority to see in advance about the panel’s fit to the research groups that are going to be evaluated. Therefore, the concerned authority will have the opportunity to replace outliers among the panel members to make the panel fit well with the research groups to be evaluated. For example, the authority can find a best-fitting expert panel by replacing a more distant panel member with a potential panel member located closer to the groups

Millennium Development Goal 5 Maternal Health Publications: An Open Bibliometric Mapping and Analysi

In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as frameworks to guide the reduction of global poverty and inequality including maternal mortality (MDG 5). After the adoption, there is a substantial increase in maternal health publications. The following was a bibliometric mapping and analysis using an open data source (MEDLINE via PubMed) and open source software (VOSViewer) to identify the characteristics of those publications through visualization of terms, keywords, and author countries. Findings suggest maternal health publications associated with MDG 5 emphasized addressing maternal mortality and infant health but an increasing focus on integration of social barriers to biomedical interventions. Further, the findings in this research supported previous research illustrating the inequity of high income and low-middle income collaborations. These findings will be valuable in informing the research for interventions associated with the current Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) relating to maternal health.Master of Science in Library Scienc