The connection between superconducting phase correlations and spin excitations in YBa2_2Cu3_3O6.6_{6.6}: A magnetic field study

One of the most striking universal properties of the high-transition-temperature (high-$T_c$) superconductors is that they are all derived from the hole-doping of their insulating antiferromagnetic (AF) parent compounds. From the outset, the intimate relationship between magnetism and superconductivity in these copper-oxides has intrigued researchers. Evidence for this link comes from neutron scattering experiments that show the unambiguous presence of short-range AF correlations (excitations) in cuprate superconductors. Even so, the role of such excitations in the pairing mechanism and superconductivity is still a subject of controversy. For YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$, where $x$ controls the hole-doping level, the most prominent feature in the magnetic excitations spectra is the ``resonance''. Here we show that for underdoped YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.6}$, where $x$ and $T_c$ are below the optimal values, modest magnetic fields suppress the resonance significantly, much more so for fields approximately perpendicular rather than parallel to the CuO$_2$ planes. Our results indicate that the resonance measures pairing and phase coherence, suggesting that magnetism plays an important role in the superconductivity of cuprates. The persistence of a field effect above $T_c$ favors mechanisms with preformed pairs in the normal state of underdoped cuprates.Comment: 12 pages, 4 figures, Nature (in press

Assessing the impact of biomedical research in academic institutions of disparate sizes

Abstract Background The evaluation of academic research performance is nowadays a priority issue. Bibliometric indicators such as the number of publications, total citation counts and h-index are an indispensable tool in this task but their inherent association with the size of the research output may result in rewarding high production when evaluating institutions of disparate sizes. The aim of this study is to propose an indicator that may facilitate the comparison of institutions of disparate sizes. Methods The Modified Impact Index (MII) was defined as the ratio of the observed h-index (h) of an institution over the h-index anticipated for that institution on average, given the number of publications (N) it produces i.e. (α and β denote the intercept and the slope, respectively, of the line describing the dependence of the h-index on the number of publications in log10 scale). MII values higher than 1 indicate that an institution performs better than the average, in terms of its h-index. Data on scientific papers published during 2002–2006 and within 36 medical fields for 219 Academic Medical Institutions from 16 European countries were used to estimate α and β and to calculate the MII of their total and field-specific production. Results From our biomedical research data, the slope β governing the dependence of h-index on the number of publications in biomedical research was found to be similar to that estimated in other disciplines (≈0.4). The MII was positively associated with the average number of citations/publication (r = 0.653, p Conclusion The MII should complement the use of h-index when comparing the research output of institutions of disparate sizes. It has a conceptual interpretation and, with the data provided here, can be computed for the total research output as well as for field-specific publication sets of institutions in biomedicine.</p

The role of mentorship in protege performance

The role of mentorship on protege performance is a matter of importance to academic, business, and governmental organizations. While the benefits of mentorship for proteges, mentors and their organizations are apparent, the extent to which proteges mimic their mentors' career choices and acquire their mentorship skills is unclear. Here, we investigate one aspect of mentor emulation by studying mentorship fecundity---the number of proteges a mentor trains---with data from the Mathematics Genealogy Project, which tracks the mentorship record of thousands of mathematicians over several centuries. We demonstrate that fecundity among academic mathematicians is correlated with other measures of academic success. We also find that the average fecundity of mentors remains stable over 60 years of recorded mentorship. We further uncover three significant correlations in mentorship fecundity. First, mentors with small mentorship fecundity train proteges that go on to have a 37% larger than expected mentorship fecundity. Second, in the first third of their career, mentors with large fecundity train proteges that go on to have a 29% larger than expected fecundity. Finally, in the last third of their career, mentors with large fecundity train proteges that go on to have a 31% smaller than expected fecundity.Comment: 23 pages double-spaced, 4 figure

A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

In reaction to a previous critique (Opthof and Leydesdorff, J Informetr 4(3):423–430, 2010), the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their old “crown” indicator in citation analysis into a new one. Waltman (Scientometrics 87:467–481, 2011a) argue that this change does not affect rankings at various aggregated levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly available for testing and criticism. Therefore, we comment by using previously published data of Van Raan (Scientometrics 67(3):491–502, 2006) to address the pivotal issue of how the results of citation analysis correlate with the results of peer review. A quality parameter based on peer review was neither significantly correlated with the two parameters developed by the CWTS in the past citations per paper/mean journal citation score (CPP/JCSm) or CPP/FCSm (citations per paper/mean field citation score) nor with the more recently proposed h-index (Hirsch, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569–16572, 2005). Given the high correlations between the old and new “crown” indicators, one can expect that the lack of correlation with the peer-review based quality indicator applies equally to the newly developed ones

How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and Nobel Prizes

Nobel Prizes are commonly seen to be among the most prestigious achievements of our times. Based on mining several million citations, we quantitatively analyze the processes driving paradigm shifts in science. We find that groundbreaking discoveries of Nobel Prize Laureates and other famous scientists are not only acknowledged by many citations of their landmark papers. Surprisingly, they also boost the citation rates of their previous publications. Given that innovations must outcompete the rich-gets-richer effect for scientific citations, it turns out that they can make their way only through citation cascades. A quantitative analysis reveals how and why they happen. Science appears to behave like a self-organized critical system, in which citation cascades of all sizes occur, from continuous scientific progress all the way up to scientific revolutions, which change the way we see our world. Measuring the "boosting effect" of landmark papers, our analysis reveals how new ideas and new players can make their way and finally triumph in a world dominated by established paradigms. The underlying "boost factor" is also useful to discover scientific breakthroughs and talents much earlier than through classical citation analysis, which by now has become a widespread method to measure scientific excellence, influencing scientific careers and the distribution of research funds. Our findings reveal patterns of collective social behavior, which are also interesting from an attention economics perspective. Understanding the origin of scientific authority may therefore ultimately help to explain, how social influence comes about and why the value of goods depends so strongly on the attention they attract.Comment: 6 pages, 6 figure

The nature of NV absorbers at high redshift

We present a study of NV absorption systems at 1.5 < z < 2.5 in the optical spectra of 19 QSOs. Our analysis includes both absorbers arising from the intergalactic medium as well as systems in the vicinity of the background quasar. We construct detailed photoionization models to study the physical conditions and abundances in the absorbers and to constrain the spectral hardness of the ionizing radiation. The rate of incidence for intervening NV components is dN/dz = 3.38 +/- 0.43, corresponding to dN/dX = 1.10 +/- 0.14. The column density distribution function is fitted by the slope beta = 1.89 +/- 0.22, consistent with measurements for CIV and OVI. The narrow line widths (b_NV ~ 6 km/s) imply photoionization rather than collisions as dominating ionization process. The column densities of CIV and NV are correlated but show different slopes for intervening and associated absorbers, which indicates different ionizing spectra. Associated systems are found to be more metal-rich, denser, and more compact than intervening absorbers. This conclusion is independent of the adopted ionizing radiation. For the intervening NV systems we find typical values of [C/H] ~ -0.6 and n_H ~ 10^-3.6 cm^-3, and sizes of a few kpc, while for associated NV absorbers we obtain [C/H] ~ +0.7, n_H ~ 10^-2.8 cm^-3, and sizes of several 10 pc. The abundance of nitrogen relative to carbon [N/C] and alpha-elements like oxygen and silicon [N/alpha] is correlated with [N/H], indicating the enrichment by secondary nitrogen. The larger scatter in [N/alpha] in intervening systems suggests an inhomogeneous enrichment of the IGM. There is an anti-correlation between [N/alpha] and [alpha/C], which could be used to constrain the initial mass function of the carbon- and nitrogen-producing stellar population.Comment: accepted by A&A, revised versio

Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: A critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative

Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) is an attempt by the Australian Research Council to rate Australian universities on a 5-point scale within 180 Fields of Research using metrics and peer evaluation by an evaluation committee. Some of the bibliometric data contributing to this ranking suffer statistical issues associated with skewed distributions. Other data are standardised year-by-year, placing undue emphasis on the most recent publications which may not yet have reliable citation patterns. The bibliometric data offered to the evaluation committees is extensive, but lacks effective syntheses such as the h-index and its variants. The indirect H2 index is objective, can be computed automatically and efficiently, is resistant to manipulation, and a good indicator of impact to assist the ERA evaluation committees and to similar evaluations internationally.Comment: 19 pages, 6 figures, 7 tables, appendice

On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff

Opthof and Leydesdorff (Scientometrics, 2011) reanalyze data reported by Van Raan (Scientometrics 67(3):491–502, 2006) and conclude that there is no significant correlation between on the one hand average citation scores measured using the CPP/FCSm indicator and on the other hand the quality judgment of peers. We point out that Opthof and Leydesdorff draw their conclusions based on a very limited amount of data. We also criticize the statistical methodology used by Opthof and Leydesdorff. Using a larger amount of data and a more appropriate statistical methodology, we do find a significant correlation between the CPP/FCSm indicator and peer judgment

Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research

In this article, a critical analysis is performed on differences in citation frequency of basic and clinical cardiovascular papers. It appears that the latter papers are cited at about 40% higher frequency. The differences between the largest number of citations of the most cited papers are even larger. It is also demonstrated that the groups of clinical and basic cardiovascular papers are also heterogeneous concerning citation frequency. It is concluded that none of the existing citation indicators appreciates these differences. At this moment these indicators should not be used for quality assessment of individual scientists and scientific niches with small numbers of scientists