On the uncertainty of interdisciplinarity measurements due to incomplete bibliographic data

The accuracy of interdisciplinarity measurements is directly related to the quality of the underlying bibliographic data. Existing indicators of interdisciplinarity are not capable of reflecting the inaccuracies introduced by incorrect and incomplete records because correct and complete bibliographic data can rarely be obtained. This is the case for the Rao–Stirling index, which cannot handle references that are not categorized into disciplinary fields. We introduce a method that addresses this problem. It extends the Rao–Stirling index to acknowledge missing data by calculating its interval of uncertainty using computational optimization. The evaluation of our method indicates that the uncertainty interval is not only useful for estimating the inaccuracy of interdisciplinarity measurements, but it also delivers slightly more accurate aggregated interdisciplinarity measurements than the Rao–Stirling index

Doctoral interdisciplinarity : a multi-method analysis based on bibliometrics and empirical approaches

Zusammenfassung in deutscher SpracheInterdisciplinary research is a mode of research that integrates two or more bodies of specialized knowledge, to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline. This form of research has become an important issue in doctoral education to prepare new generations of scientists to address complex real-world problems. European doctoral education has been subject to policy reforms resulting in new forms of doctoral education. This thesis provides a comprehensive analysis of the doctoral interdisciplinarity in three different kinds of programs in computer science: a traditional doctoral program and two structured programs. This is achieved with three interconnected approaches that aim to measure, understand and assess doctoral interdisciplinarity. Firstly, a bibliometric method is used to measure the interdisciplinarity of publications. The Rao-Stirling diversity index quantifies the interdisciplinarity of a publication based on the disciplines that are integrated into it through its references. Therefore, this approach necessitates the categorization of all references into disciplinary fields, which is a prerequisite rarely fulfilled. As a methodological contribution, this thesis proposes an extension of the index, based on discrete and continuous optimization as well as graph-based pruning, in order to acknowledge the inaccuracies introduced in the measurement by missing bibliographic data. This bibliometric method is subsequently utilized for measuring the interdisciplinarity of doctoral researchers in the three doctoral programs where this investigation is conducted. The second approach aims to understand how and why doctoral researchers conduct interdisciplinary research. Doctoral researchers identified as interdisciplinary through the bibliometric analysis participated in semi-structured interviews. The analysis of their accounts reveals that doctoral interdisciplinarity depends on far more than on explicit strategies implemented to facilitate interdisciplinarity. Personal attributes that emerge prior to the start of doctoral studies influence doctoral researchers' inclination to conduct research in one or multiple disciplines. Additionally, policy and structural factors as well as collaboration processes also influence the degree of disciplines integration conducted by doctoral researchers. These findings lead to the identification of patterns of doctoral interdisciplinarity which contribute to the theory of interdisciplinary education. The third approach assesses how the fulfillment and importance of doctoral interdisciplinarity is perceived by different academic stakeholders. This approach utilizes the 360-degree feedback survey methodology to gather their assessment of factors and processes relevant for interdisciplinarity, which are selected based on a literature review and interviews with interdisciplinary doctoral researchers and professors. Their answers are analyzed using statistical methods in order to investigate the alignment of opinions between groups of stakeholders as well as single-disciplinary and interdisciplinary doctoral researchers. The findings provide useful insights for identifying discrepancies between stakeholders, revealing problematic issues and suggesting actions for improvement. The three approaches (and their respective substantial amounts of information) are mutually complementary and validatory, and therefore strongly corroborating the findings of the investigation. This thesis also contributes to raising the awareness on facilitators and obstacles to doctoral interdisciplinarity and offers recommendations for supporting young interdisciplinary scientists.20

Research Assessment Processes: Gathering evidence for a Science Europe initiative for mutual learning

In diesem Beitrag wird ein kollektiver Ansatz bei der Konzeption, Durchführung und Validierung einer von Science Europe in Auftrag gegebenen Studie über Forschungsbewertungsprozesse von Forschungsförderungs- und Forschungseinrichtungen diskutiert. Der kollektive Ansatz basiert auf der Beteiligung seiner Mitgliedsorganisationen und von Science Europe selbst in den verschiedenen Phasen der Studie zum gegenseitigen Lernen aller Beteiligten und der Gemeinschaft im Allgemeinen. Dieses Papier beschreibt die Studie, einschließlich des Zwecks, der Methodik und der Ergebnisse, und erörtert die Bedeutung ihrer Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen für die Forschungsfinanzierung und die durchführenden Institutionen sowie die Einzigartigkeit ihres Ansatzes aus der Perspektive der Evaluationspraktiken

Evaluierung des COMET-Programms

Technopolis wurde im Mai 2020 vom Bundesministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie, Mobilität, Innovation und Technologie (BMK) und dem Bundesministerium für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaftsstandort (BMDW) mit der Evaluierung des COMET-Programms beauftragt. Die vorliegende Evaluierung bezieht sich auf die 25 aktuell existierenden Zentren. Der Fokus der Evaluierung liegt auf der Charakterisierung der COMET-Zentren und auf dem Monitoring- und Kennzahlensystem von COMET. Im Jahr der Corona-Pandemie wurden die Methoden angepasst, Interviews mit Stakeholdern und den Zentren wurden meist per Videocalls oder telefonisch geführt, geplante on-site Visits sowie internationale Workshops konnten nicht durchgeführt werden. Zentrale Quellen der Evaluierung sind eine Befragung der Zentren und der Unternehmens- und Wissenschaftspartner sowie die Datenbasis der FFG, die wir durch diverse Harmonisierungsschritte für neuwertige Auswertungen nutzbar machten. Dies umfasst insbesondere einen historischen Rückblick sowie eine Cluster- und Netzwerkanalyse. Die Auswartungen sind in zwei Dashboards angelegt, das Dashboard zur COMET-Befragung ist anonymisiert und daher öffentlich zugänglich

Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with life-threatening COVID-19

International audienceInterindividual clinical variability in the course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is vast. We report that at least 101 of 987 patients with life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia had neutralizing immunoglobulin G (IgG) autoantibodies (auto-Abs) against interferon-ω (IFN-ω) (13 patients), against the 13 types of IFN-α (36), or against both (52) at the onset of critical disease; a few also had auto-Abs against the other three type I IFNs. The auto-Abs neutralize the ability of the corresponding type I IFNs to block SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. These auto-Abs were not found in 663 individuals with asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and were present in only 4 of 1227 healthy individuals. Patients with auto-Abs were aged 25 to 87 years and 95 of the 101 were men. A B cell autoimmune phenocopy of inborn errors of type I IFN immunity accounts for life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia in at least 2.6% of women and 12.5% of men