A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and Innovations

Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1437-1446, 2017.

Cited by: 43|Bibtex|Views61|Links
EI
Keywords:
Science of ScienceDiversity in ScienceFunding PolicyScientific ImpactBig DataMore(1+)
Weibo:
We present an anatomy of science spanning the 20t h century and the first 15 years of the 21st century

Abstract:

Progress in science has advanced the development of human society across history, with dramatic revolutions shaped by information theory, genetic cloning, and artificial intelligence, among the many scientific achievements produced in the 20th century. However, the way that science advances itself is much less well-understood. In this wor...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • Abstraction, and accumulation of knowledge from the universe.
  • It offers the potential to predict, change, and invent the future.
  • Over the course of human history, the advancement of science has been increasingly responsible for technological and societal evolution.
  • Traced back thousands of years, Aristotle’s scientific discoveries and methods profoundly shaped the development of Western civilization.
  • Breakthroughs in information theory led to the successive inventions of the telegraph, telephone, television, and Internet, facilitating today’s global flow of ideas.
  • Unimaginable innovations in aeronautics and astronautics have further enabled the mobilization of people, lifting them across the planet and, even if only at a nascent stage, into the universe itself
Highlights
  • Science is the discovery, abstraction, and accumulation of knowledge from the universe
  • We study the evolution of science over the past century according to three dimensions
  • Given the big scholarly data, our work aims to understand the evolution of science over the past 116 years, with focuses on three dimensions: scientific collaborations, citations, and impact
  • We present an anatomy of science spanning the 20t h century and the first 15 years of the 21st century
  • Our study provides evolutionary and planetary-scale views of scientific development
  • In the 1st quarter of the last century, scientific development was led by the US, the UK, and Germany
Results
  • The authors find that during the first quarter of the 20t h century, more than 99% of the collaborations were forged within the same country, as indicated by the red line.
Conclusion
  • The authors present an anatomy of science spanning the 20t h century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.
  • In the 1st quarter of the last century, scientific development was led by the US, the UK, and Germany.
  • In this period, science tended to rely more on individual scientists’ efforts and talents.
  • The authors' findings unveil the evolutionary patterns of science over years
  • This knowledge—the knowledge of science itself—has the potential to help scientists improve the scientific discipline and, as a result, to forge a better world
Summary
  • Introduction:

    Abstraction, and accumulation of knowledge from the universe.
  • It offers the potential to predict, change, and invent the future.
  • Over the course of human history, the advancement of science has been increasingly responsible for technological and societal evolution.
  • Traced back thousands of years, Aristotle’s scientific discoveries and methods profoundly shaped the development of Western civilization.
  • Breakthroughs in information theory led to the successive inventions of the telegraph, telephone, television, and Internet, facilitating today’s global flow of ideas.
  • Unimaginable innovations in aeronautics and astronautics have further enabled the mobilization of people, lifting them across the planet and, even if only at a nascent stage, into the universe itself
  • Results:

    The authors find that during the first quarter of the 20t h century, more than 99% of the collaborations were forged within the same country, as indicated by the red line.
  • Conclusion:

    The authors present an anatomy of science spanning the 20t h century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.
  • In the 1st quarter of the last century, scientific development was led by the US, the UK, and Germany.
  • In this period, science tended to rely more on individual scientists’ efforts and talents.
  • The authors' findings unveil the evolutionary patterns of science over years
  • This knowledge—the knowledge of science itself—has the potential to help scientists improve the scientific discipline and, as a result, to forge a better world
Tables
  • Table1: Summary of estions Answered from the Data
  • Table2: e rate between #citations of the top 1 institution and #citations of the 200th one over the past 116 years
Download tables as Excel
Related work
  • Science of science has been an emerging discipline wherein science is used to study the development of itself—science [6, 12, 24, 31].

    Traditionally, a significant body of work has been focused on designing fair and effective scientific metrics to quantify the impact of publications, individuals, venues, and institutions, such as impact factor [12], h-index [15], and others [9, 16, 28]. Given a practical measurement of scientific impact, scientists started to look at the potential to predict the future of science. In particular, the prediction of citation count and h-index has attracted various of attention from diverse communities, including information science [6], computer science [13, 19, 36], Physics [34] and so on. In addition to the prediction of impact, tremendous effort has been devoted to the characterization of scientific impact, such as its universal citation distributions [22], author credit allocation [23, 24], and hindex’s growth pattern [10]. Further, network science has brought a network perspective to the analysis of scientific collaboration and citation, including the anatomy of collaboration [20, 29] and citation [21] networks, team organization [17], and heterogeneous entity and structure [27, 33]. Besides the study of science, noticeable
Reference
  • 0 1900 year (a) #references
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 2015 proportion of self-references
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 1900 year (b) %self-citations
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 2015 year of its reference average age of references (#years)
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 2000 1975 1950 1925
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 1925 1950 1975 2000 2015 year (c) Reference distribution
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 2015 year (d) Average reference age
    Google ScholarFindings
  • [1] 2016. All Prizes in Economic Sciences. h p://h ps://www.nobelprize.org/nobel prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/. (2016).
    Findings
  • [2] 2016. Chronological Listing of A.M. Turing Award Winners. h p://amturing. acm.org/byyear.cfm. (2016).
    Google ScholarFindings
  • [3] 2016. Fields Medal Details. h p://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/ elds/ details/. (2016).
    Findings
  • [4] 2016. Journal self-citation in the journal citation reports. h p://wokinfo.com/ essays/journal-self-citation-jcr/. (2016).
    Google ScholarFindings
  • [5] 2016. Nobel Prizes and Laureates. h ps://www.nobelprize.org/nobel prizes/. (2016).
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • [6] Daniel E. Acuna, Stefano Allesina, and Konrad P. Kording. 2012. Future impact: Predicting scienti c success. Nature 489, 7415 (Sept. 2012), 201–202.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [7] Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, Chaoming Song, and Dashun Wang. 2012. Publishing: Handful of papers dominates citation. Nature 491, 7422 (2012), 40–40.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [8] Giulio Cimini, Andrea Zaccaria, and Andrea Gabrielli. 2016. Investigating the interplay between fundamentals of national research systems: performance, investments and international collaborations. Journal of Informetrics 10, 1 (2016), 200–211.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • [9] Ying Ding, Ronald Rousseau, and Dietmar Wolfram. 2014. Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice. Springer.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [10] Yuxiao Dong, Reid A. Johnson, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2015. Will is Paper Increase Your h-index?: Scienti c Impact Prediction. In WSDM ’15. ACM, 149– 158.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [11] Yuxiao Dong, Reid A. Johnson, Yang Yang, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2015. Collaboration Signatures Reveal Scienti c Impact. In ASONAM ’15. IEEE, 480–487.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [12] Eugene Gar eld. 1955. Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas. Science 122, 3159 (1955), 108–111.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [13] Johannes Gehrke, Paul Ginsparg, and Jon M. Kleinberg. 2003. Overview of the 2003 KDD Cup. SIGKDD Explorations 5, 2 (2003), 149–151.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [14] C Lee Giles, Kurt D Bollacker, and Steve Lawrence. 1998. CiteSeer: An automatic citation indexing system. In Digital libraries. ACM, 89–98.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [15] Jorge E. Hirsch. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scienti c research output. PNAS 102, 46 (2005), 16569–16572.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [16] Won-Seok Hwang, Soo-Min Chae, Sang-Wook Kim, and Gyun Woo. 2010. Yet Another Paper Ranking Algorithm Advocating Recent Publications. In WWW ’10. ACM, 1117–1118.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [17] Benjamin F Jones, Stefan Wuchty, and Brian Uzzi. 2008. Multi-university research teams: Shi ing impact, geography, and strati cation in science. Science 322, 5905 (2008), 1259–1262.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [18] Nicola Jones. 2016. AI science search engines expand their reach. Nature News (2016).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [19] Liangyue Li and Hanghang Tong. 2015. e child is father of the man: Foresee the success at the early stage. In KDD ’15. ACM, 655–664.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [20] Mark EJ Newman. 2001. e structure of scienti c collaboration networks. PNAS 98, 2 (2001), 404–409.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • [21] Raj Kumar Pan, Kimmo Kaski, and Santo Fortunato. 2012. World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science. Scienti c Reports 2 (Nov. 2012).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [22] Filippo Radicchi, Santo Fortunato, and Claudio Castellano. 2008. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scienti c impact. PNAS 105, 45 (2008), 17268–17272.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [23] Cagan H. Sekercioglu. 2008. antifying Coauthor Contributions. Science 322, 5900 (2008), 371.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [24] Hua-Wei Shen and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. 2014. Collective credit allocation in science. PNAS (2014).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [25] Roberta Sinatra, Pierre Deville, Michael Szell, Dashun Wang, and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. 2015. A century of physics. Nature Physics 11, 10 (2015), 791–796.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [26] Arnab Sinha, Zhihong Shen, Yang Song, Hao Ma, Darrin Eide, Bo-June (Paul) Hsu, and Kuansan Wang. 2015. An Overview of Microso Academic Service (MAS) and Applications. In WWW ’15 Companion. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 243–246.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • [27] Yizhou Sun and Jiawei Han. 2012. Mining Heterogeneous Information Networks: Principles and Methodologies. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [28] Douglass F. Taber. 2005. antifying Publication Impact. Science 309, 5744 (2005), 2166.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [29] Jie Tang, Sen Wu, Jimeng Sun, and Hang Su. 2012. Cross-domain Collaboration Recommendation. In KDD ’12. 1285–1293.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [30] Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Limin Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su. 2008. ArnetMiner: Extraction and Mining of Academic Social Networks. In KDD ’08. 990–998.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [31] Brian Uzzi, Satyam Mukherjee, Michael Stringer, and Ben Jones. 2013. Atypical combinations and scienti c impact. Science 342, 6157 (2013), 468–472.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [32] Richard Van Noorden. 2014. Google Scholar pioneer on search engine’s future. Nature News (2014).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [33] Alex D Wade, Kuansan Wang, Yizhou Sun, and Antonio Gulli. 2016. WSDM Cup 2016: Entity Ranking Challenge. In WSDM ’16. ACM, 593–594.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [34] Dashun Wang, Chaoming Song, and Albert-Lszl Barabasi. 2013. antifying Long-Term Scienti c Impact. Science 342, 6154 (2013), 127–132.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • [35] Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. e increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 5827 (2007), 1036–1039.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Tags
Comments