The state of One Health research across disciplines and sectors:a bibliometric analysis

There is a growing interest in One Health, reflected by the rising number of publications relating to One Health literature, but also through zoonotic disease outbreaks becoming more frequent, such as Ebola, Zika virus and COVID-19. This paper uses bibliometric analysis to explore the state of One Health in academic literature, to visualise the characteristics and trends within the field through a network analysis of citation patterns and bibliographic links. The analysis focuses on publication trends, co-citation network of scientific journals, co-citation network of authors, and co-occurrence of keywords. The bibliometric analysis showed an increasing interest for One Health in academic research. However, it revealed some thematic and disciplinary shortcomings, in particular with respect to the inclusion of environmental themes and social science insights pertaining to the implementation of One Health policies. The analysis indicated that there is a need for more applicable approaches to strengthen intersectoral collaboration and knowledge sharing. Silos between the disciplines of human medicine, veterinary medicine and environment still persist. Engaging researchers with different expertise and disciplinary backgrounds will facilitate a more comprehensive perspective where the human-animal-environment interface is not researched as separate entities but as a coherent whole. Further, journals dedicated to One Health or interdisciplinary research provide scholars the possibility to publish multifaceted research. These journals are uniquely positioned to bridge between fields, strengthen interdisciplinary research and create room for social science approaches alongside of medical and natural sciences. OHEJP PhD project: SUSTAI

Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks

We thank Altmetric.com for the transfer of the data that has allowed us to conduct this studyThis study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers. The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia. In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at Altmetric.com have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier's CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus. As highlighted results we found a significative presence of “Medicine” and “Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology” papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals

Study on open science: The general state of the play in Open Science principles and practices at European life sciences institutes

Nowadays, open science is a hot topic on all levels and also is one of the priorities of the European Research Area. Components that are commonly associated with open science are open access, open data, open methodology, open source, open peer review, open science policies and citizen science. Open science may a great potential to connect and influence the practices of researchers, funding institutions and the public. In this paper, we evaluate the level of openness based on public surveys at four European life sciences institute

International Evaluation of the VATT Institute for Economic Research : Report of the Evaluation Panel

In 2019, the Ministry of Finance invited an international group of experts to evaluate the work of the VATT Institute for Economic Research. The evaluation task is divided into four sub-areas: the quality and amount of scientific research; effectiveness at society level; initiative-taking and success of VATT in acquiring external research funding; and international comparisons. As to social impact, the focus is on evaluating how successfully research and expert knowledge is disseminated. Visibility in public discussion is determined on the basis of a stakeholder survey where other Finnish financial research institutes provide the frames of reference. VATT’s ability to produce both high-level scientific research and expert information for the government’s political decision-making are studied by comparing VATT and the Swedish IFAU (Institutet för arbetsmarknads- och utbildningspolitisk utvärdering). According to the evaluation, the research carried out by VATT is of high academic standards, reliable and, from the perspective of decision-making, focuses on significant phenomena. However, as to providing support to political decision-making such as preparing reforms and ex ante evaluation, VATT’s role and impact are weaker

The Intellectual Organisation of History

A tradition of scholarship discusses the characteristics of different areas of knowledge, in particular after modern academia compartmentalized them into disciplines. The academic approach is often put to question: are there two or more cultures? Is an ever-increasing specialization the only way to cope with information abundance or are holistic approaches helpful too? What is happening with the digital turn? If these questions are well studied for the sciences, our understanding of how the humanities might differ in their own respect is far less advanced. In particular, modern academia might foster specific patterns of specialization in the humanities. Eventually, the recent rise in the application of digital methods to research, known as the digital humanities, might be introducing structural adaptations through the development of shared research technologies and the advent of organizational practices such as the laboratory. It therefore seems timely and urgent to map the intellectual organization of the humanities. This investigation depends on few traits such as the level of codification, the degree of agreement among scholars, the level of coordination of their efforts. These characteristics can be studied by measuring their influence on the outcomes of scientific communication. In particular, this thesis focuses on history as a discipline using bibliometric methods. In order to explore history in its complexity, an approach to create collaborative citation indexes in the humanities is proposed, resulting in a new dataset comprising monographs, journal articles and citations to primary sources. Historians' publications were found to organize thematically and chronologically, sharing a limited set of core sources across small communities. Core sources act in two ways with respect to the intellectual organization: locally, by adding connectivity within communities, or globally as weak ties across communities. Over recent decades, fragmentation is on the rise in the intellectual networks of historians, and a comparison across a variety of specialisms from the human, natural and mathematical sciences revealed the fragility of such networks across the axes of citation and textual similarities. Humanists organize into more, smaller and scattered topical communities than scientists. A characterisation of history is eventually proposed. Historians produce new historiographical knowledge with a focus on evidence or interpretation. The former aims at providing the community with an agreed-upon factual resource. Interpretive work is instead mainly focused on creating novel perspectives. A second axe refers to two modes of exploration of new ideas: in-breadth, where novelty relates to adding new, previously unknown pieces to the mosaic, or in-depth, if novelty then happens by improving on previous results. All combinations possible, historians tend to focus on in-breadth interpretations, with the immediate consequence that growth accentuates intellectual fragmentation in the absence of further consolidating factors such as theory or technologies. Research on evidence might have a different impact by potentially scaling-up in the digital space, and in so doing influence the modes of interpretation in turn. This process is not dissimilar to the gradual rise in importance of research technologies and collaborative competition in the mathematical and natural sciences. This is perhaps the promise of the digital humanities

Visualising the intellectual and social structures of digital humanities using an invisible college model

This thesis explores the intellectual and social structures of an emerging field, Digital Humanities (DH). After around 70 years of development, DH claims to differentiate itself from the traditional Humanities for its inclusiveness, diversity, and collaboration. However, the ‘big tent’ concept not only limits our understandings of its research structure, but also results in a lack of empirical review and sustainable support. Under this umbrella, whether there are merely fragmented topics, or a consolidated knowledge system is still unknown. This study seeks to answer three research questions: a) Subject: What research topics is the DH subject composed of? b) Scholar: Who has contributed to the development of DH? c) Environment: How diverse are the backgrounds of DH scholars? The Invisible College research model is refined and applied as the methodological framework that produces four visualised networks. As the results show, DH currently contributes more towards the general historical literacy and information science, while longitudinally, it was heavily involved in computational linguistics. Humanistic topics are more popular and central, while technical topics are relatively peripheral and have stronger connections with non-Anglophone communities. DH social networks are at the early stages of development, and the formation is heavily influenced by non-academic and non-intellectual factors, e.g., language, working country, and informal relationships. Although male scholars have dominated the field, female scholars have encouraged more communication and built more collaborations. Despite the growing appeals for more diversity, the level of international collaboration in DH is more extensive than in many other disciplines. These findings can help us gain new understandings on the central and critical questions about DH. To the best of the candidate’s knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the formal and informal structures in DH with a well-grounded research model