Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact

The lack of predictability of citation-based measures frequently used to gauge impact, from impact factors to short-term citations, raises a fundamental question: Is there long-term predictability in citation patterns? Here, we derive a mechanistic model for the citation dynamics of individual papers, allowing us to collapse the citation histories of papers from different journals and disciplines into a single curve, indicating that all papers tend to follow the same universal temporal pattern. The observed patterns not only help us uncover basic mechanisms that govern scientific impact but also offer reliable measures of influence that may have potential policy implications

Scientific elite revisited: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact

Throughout history, a relatively small number of individuals have made a profound and lasting impact on science and society. Despite long-standing, multi-disciplinary interests in understanding careers of elite scientists, there have been limited attempts for a quantitative, career-level analysis. Here, we leverage a comprehensive dataset we assembled, allowing us to trace the entire career histories of nearly all Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine over the past century. We find that, although Nobel laureates were energetic producers from the outset, producing works that garner unusually high impact, their careers before winning the prize follow relatively similar patterns as ordinary scientists, being characterized by hot streaks and increasing reliance on collaborations. We also uncovered notable variations along their careers, often associated with the Nobel prize, including shifting coauthorship structure in the prize-winning work, and a significant but temporary dip in the impact of work they produce after winning the Nobel. Together, these results document quantitative patterns governing the careers of scientific elites, offering an empirical basis for a deeper understanding of the hallmarks of exceptional careers in science

Modeling and Predicting Popularity Dynamics via Reinforced Poisson Processes

An ability to predict the popularity dynamics of individual items within a complex evolving system has important implications in an array of areas. Here we propose a generative probabilistic framework using a reinforced Poisson process to model explicitly the process through which individual items gain their popularity. This model distinguishes itself from existing models via its capability of modeling the arrival process of popularity and its remarkable power at predicting the popularity of individual items. It possesses the flexibility of applying Bayesian treatment to further improve the predictive power using a conjugate prior. Extensive experiments on a longitudinal citation dataset demonstrate that this model consistently outperforms existing popularity prediction methods.Comment: 8 pages, 5 figure; 3 table

Quantifying the Benefit of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research

The ongoing artificial intelligence (AI) revolution has the potential to change almost every line of work. As AI capabilities continue to improve in accuracy, robustness, and reach, AI may outperform and even replace human experts across many valuable tasks. Despite enormous efforts devoted to understanding AI's impact on labor and the economy and its recent success in accelerating scientific discovery and progress, we lack a systematic understanding of how advances in AI may benefit scientific research across disciplines and fields. Here we develop a measurement framework to estimate both the direct use of AI and the potential benefit of AI in scientific research by applying natural language processing techniques to 87.6 million publications and 7.1 million patents. We find that the use of AI in research appears widespread throughout the sciences, growing especially rapidly since 2015, and papers that use AI exhibit an impact premium, more likely to be highly cited both within and outside their disciplines. While almost every discipline contains some subfields that benefit substantially from AI, analyzing 4.6 million course syllabi across various educational disciplines, we find a systematic misalignment between the education of AI and its impact on research, suggesting the supply of AI talents in scientific disciplines is not commensurate with AI research demands. Lastly, examining who benefits from AI within the scientific workforce, we find that disciplines with a higher proportion of women or black scientists tend to be associated with less benefit, suggesting that AI's growing impact on research may further exacerbate existing inequalities in science. As the connection between AI and scientific research deepens, our findings may have an increasing value, with important implications for the equity and sustainability of the research enterprise.Comment: 23 pages, 4 figure

Expertise diversity of teams predicts originality and long-term impact in science and technology

Despite the growing importance of teams in producing innovative and high-impact science and technology, it remains unclear how expertise diversity among team members relates to the originality and impact of the work they produce. Here, we develop a new method to quantify the expertise distance of researchers based on their prior career histories and apply it to 23 million scientific publications and 4 million patents. We find that across science and technology, expertise-diverse teams tend to produce work with greater originality. Teams with more diverse expertise have no significant impact advantage in the short- (2 years) or mid-term (5 years). Instead, they exhibit substantially higher long-term impact (10 years), increasingly attracting larger cross-disciplinary influence. This impact premium of expertise diversity among team members becomes especially pronounced when other dimensions of team diversity are missing, as teams within the same institution or country appear to disproportionately reap the benefits of expertise diversity. While gender-diverse teams have relatively higher impact on average, teams with varied levels of gender diversity all seem to benefit from increased expertise diversity. Given the growing knowledge demands on individual researchers, implementation of incentives for original research, and the tradeoffs between short-term and long-term impacts, these results may have implications for funding, assembling, and retaining teams with originality and long-lasting impacts.Comment: 31 pages, 5 figure