Computer Science

The scientific papers dealing with the novel betacoronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by this virus, published in 2020 and recorded in the database PUBMED, were retrieved on April 27, 2020. About 20\% of the records contain Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), keywords assigned to records in the course of the indexing process in order to summarise the articles' contents. The temporal sequence of the first occurrences of the keywords was determined, thus giving insight into the growth of the knowledge base of the pandemic.

This paper investigates the impact of institutes and papers over time based on the heterogeneous institution-citation network. A new model, IPRank, is introduced to measure the impact of institution and paper simultaneously. This model utilises the heterogeneous structural measure method to unveil the impact of institution and paper, reflecting the effects of citation, institution, and structural measure. To evaluate the performance, the model first constructs a heterogeneous institution-citation network based on the American Physical Society (APS) dataset. Subsequently, PageRank is used to quantify the impact of institution and paper. Finally, impacts of same institution are merged, and the ranking of institutions and papers is calculated. Experimental results show that the IPRank model better identifies universities that host Nobel Prize laureates, demonstrating that the proposed technique well reflects impactful research.

The lack of diversity of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) field is nowadays a concern, and several initiatives such as funding schemes and mentoring programs have been designed to overcome it. However, there is no indication on how these initiatives actually impact AI diversity in the short and long term. This work studies the concept of diversity in this particular context and proposes a small set of diversity indicators (i.e. indexes) of AI scientific events. These indicators are designed to quantify the diversity of the AI field and monitor its evolution. We consider diversity in terms of gender, geographical location and business (understood as the presence of academia versus industry). We compute these indicators for the different communities of a conference: authors, keynote speakers and organizing committee. From these components we compute a summarized diversity indicator for each AI event. We evaluate the proposed indexes for a set of recent major AI conferences and we discuss their values and limitations.

In the era of big science, countries allocate big research and development budgets to large scientific facilities that boost collaboration and research capability. A nuclear fusion device called the "tokamak" is a source of great interest for many countries because it ideally generates sustainable energy expected to solve the energy crisis in the future. Here, to explore the scientific effects of tokamaks, we map a country's research capability in nuclear fusion research with normalized revealed comparative advantage on five topical clusters -- material, plasma, device, diagnostics, and simulation -- detected through a dynamic topic model. Our approach captures not only the growth of China, India, and the Republic of Korea but also the decline of Canada, Japan, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Time points of their rise and fall are related to tokamak operation, highlighting the importance of large facilities in big science. The gravity model points out that two countries collaborate less in device, diagnostics, and plasma research if they have comparative advantages in different topics. This relation is a unique feature of nuclear fusion compared to other science fields. Our results can be used and extended when building national policies for big science.

For traditional library collections, archivists can select a representative sample from a collection and display it in a featured physical or digital library space. Web archive collections may consist of thousands of archived pages, or mementos. How should an archivist display this sample to drive visitors to their collection? Search engines and social media platforms often represent web pages as cards consisting of text snippets, titles, and images. Web storytelling is a popular method for grouping these cards in order to summarize a topic. Unfortunately, social media platforms are not archive-aware and fail to consistently create a good experience for mementos. They also allow no UI alterations for their cards. Thus, we created MementoEmbed to generate cards for individual mementos and Raintale for creating entire stories that archivists can export to a variety of formats.

In this work we propose MementoMap, a flexible and adaptive framework to efficiently summarize holdings of a web archive. We described a simple, yet extensible, file format suitable for MementoMap. We used the complete index of the this http URL comprising 5B mementos (archived web pages/files) to understand the nature and shape of its holdings. We generated MementoMaps with varying amount of detail from its HTML pages that have an HTTP status code of 200 OK. Additionally, we designed a single-pass, memory-efficient, and parallelization-friendly algorithm to compact a large MementoMap into a small one and an in-file binary search method for efficient lookup. We analyzed more than three years of MemGator (a Memento aggregator) logs to understand the response behavior of 14 public web archives. We evaluated MementoMaps by measuring their Accuracy using 3.3M unique URIs from MemGator logs. We found that a MementoMap of less than 1.5% Relative Cost (as compared to the comprehensive listing of all the unique original URIs) can correctly identify the presence or absence of 60% of the lookup URIs in the corresponding archive while maintaining 100% Recall (i.e., zero false negatives).

Although bibliometrics are normally applied to journal articles when used to support research evaluations, conference papers are at least as important in fast-moving computing-related fields. It is therefore important to assess the relative advantages of citations and altmetrics for computing conference papers to make an informed decision about which, if any, to use. This paper compares Scopus citations with Mendeley reader counts for conference papers and journal articles that were published between 1996 and 2018 in 11 computing fields and had at least one US author. The data showed high correlations between Scopus citation counts and Mendeley reader counts in all fields and most years, but with few Mendeley readers for older conference papers and few Scopus citations for new conference papers and journal articles. The results therefore suggest that Mendeley reader counts have a substantial advantage over citation counts for recently-published conference papers due to their greater speed, but are unsuitable for older conference papers.

Identifying and monitoring Open Access (OA) publications might seem a trivial task while practical efforts prove otherwise. Contradictory information arise often depending on metadata employed. We strive to assign OA status to publications in Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus while complementing it with different sources of OA information to resolve contradicting cases. We linked publications from WOS and Scopus via DOIs and ISSNs to Unpaywall, Crossref, DOAJ and ROAD. Only about 50% of articles and reviews from WOS and Scopus could be matched via a DOI to Unpaywall. Matching with Crossref brought 56 distinct licences, which define in many cases the legally binding access status of publications. But only 44% of publications hold only a single licence on Crossref, while more than 50% have no licence information submitted to Crossref. Contrasting OA information from Crossref licences with Unpaywall we found contradictory cases overall amounting to more than 25%, which might be partially explained by (ex-)including green OA. A further manual check found about 17% of OA publications that are not accessible and 15% non-OA publications that are accessible through publishers' websites. These preliminary results suggest that identification of OA state of publications denotes a difficult and currently unfulfilled task.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1,893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.

Lifecycle models for research data are often abstract and simple. This comes at the danger of oversimplifying the complex concepts of research data management. The analysis of 90 different lifecycle models lead to two approaches to assess the quality of these models. While terminological issues make direct comparisons of models hard, an empirical evaluation seems possible.