Benoit Macaluso

Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED Talk presenters

The TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference and associated website of recorded conference presentations (TED Talks) is a highly successful disseminator of science-related videos, claiming over a billion online views. Although hundreds of scientists have presented at TED, little information is available regarding the presenters, their academic credentials, and the impact of TED Talks on the general population. This article uses bibliometric and webometric techniques to gather data on the characteristics of TED presenters and videos and analyze the relationship between these characteristics and the subsequent impact of the videos. The results show that the presenters were predominately male and non-academics. Male-authored videos were more popular and more liked when viewed on YouTube. Videos by academic presenters were more commented on than videos by others and were more liked on YouTube, although there was little difference in how frequently they were viewed. The majority of academic presenters were senior faculty, males, from United States-based institutions, were visible online, and were cited more frequently than average for their field. However, giving a TED presentation appeared to have no impact on the number of citations subsequently received by an academic, suggesting that although TED popularizes research, it may not promote the work of scientists within the academic community.

arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e‐prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers—both published and unpublished—have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.

Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations.

Using the population of all university professors (N = 13,479) in the province of Quebec, Canada, this article analyses the concentration of funding, papers and citations at the level of individual researchers. It shows that each of these distributions is different, citations being the most concentrated followed by funding, papers published and, finally, number of funded projects. Concentration measures also vary between disciplines; social sciences and humanities generally being the most concentrated. The article also shows that the correspondence between the elites defined by each of these measures is limited. In fact, only 3.2% of the researchers are in the top 10% for all indicators, while about 20% are in the top 10% for at least one of the indicators. The article concludes with a discussion of the causes of these observed differences and formulates a few hypotheses. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production

Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors’ seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as ‘technical’ and those that could be considered ‘conceptual’: While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science.

Is Science Built on the Shoulders of Women? A Study of Gender Differences in Contributorship

Purpose Women remain underrepresented in the production of scientific literature, and relatively little is known regarding the labor roles played by women in the production of knowledge. This study examined labor roles by gender using contributorship data from science and medical journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), which require each author to indicate their contribution to one or more of the following tasks: (1) analyzed the data, (2) conceived and designed the experiments, (3) contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, (4) performed the experiments, and (5) wrote the paper. Method The authors analyzed contribution data from more than 85,000 articles published between 2008 and 2013 in PLOS journals with respect to gender using both descriptive and regression analyses. Results Gender was a significant variable in determining the likelihood of performing a certain task associated with authorship. Women were significantly more likely to be associated with performing experiments, and men were more likely to be associated with all other authorship roles. This holds true controlling for academic age: Although experimentation was associated with academically younger scholars, the gap between male and female contribution to this task remained constant across academic age. Inequalities were observed in the distribution of scientific labor roles. Conclusions These disparities have implications for the production of scholarly knowledge, the evaluation of scholars, and the ethical conduct of science. Adopting the practice of identifying contributorship rather than authorship in scientific journals will allow for greater transparency, accountability, and equitable allocation of resources.

Improving the coverage of social science and humanities researchers' output: The case of the Érudit journal platform

In non-English-speaking countries the measurement of research output in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using standard bibliographic databases suffers from a major drawback: the underrepresentation of articles published in local, non-English, journals. Using papers indexed (1) in a local database of periodicals (Erudit) and (2) in the Web of Science, assigned to the population of university professors in the province of Quebec, this paper quantifies, for individual researchers and departments, the importance of papers published in local journals. It also analyzes differences across disciplines and between French-speaking and English-speaking universities. The results show that, while the addition of papers published in local journals to bibliometric measures has little effect when all disciplines are considered and for anglophone universities, it increases the output of researchers from francophone universities in the social sciences and humanities by almost a third. It also shows that there is very little relation, at the level of individual researchers or departments, between the output indexed in the Web of Science and the output retrieved from the Erudit database; a clear demonstration that the Web of Science cannot be used as a proxy for the “overall” production of SSH researchers in Quebec. The paper concludes with a discussion on these disciplinary and language differences, as well as on their implications for rankings of universities.

International comparative performance of mental health research, 1980-2011.

Scientific understanding of mental illness, mental health and their neurobiological and psychosocial underpinnings has greatly increased in the last three decades. Yet, little is known about the landscape of this knowledge and how and where it is evolving. This paper provides a bibliometric assessment of mental health research (MHR) outputs from 1980 to 2011. MHR papers were retrieved using three strategies: from key mental health journals; using US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) keywords; and from additional journals in which mental health topics accounted for over 75% of papers. The number of papers per year increased over time in absolute terms and as a proportion of total medical output. The USs proportion of world publication output dropped from 60% in 1980 to 42% in 2011, while the EU increased its share from 27% to 40%. Countries with greater research intensity in mental health generally had higher citation impact, such as the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands. MHR also became more collaborative: 3% of all MHR papers published in 1980 were the result of international collaboration compared to 22% in 2011. We conclude by noting that the rise in MHR appears to be due to funding and that bibliometrics can help highlight the potential drivers of variation in performance of MHR systems. The paper provides an analytical basis for benchmarking MHR trends in the future.

The KRESCENT Program (2005-2015): An Evaluation of the State of Kidney Research Training in Canada

Background: The Kidney Research Scientist Core Education and National Training (KRESCENT) Program was launched in 2005 to enhance kidney research capacity in Canada and foster knowledge translation across the 4 themes of health research. Objective: To evaluate the impact of KRESCENT on its major objectives and on the careers of trainees after its first 10 years. Methods: An online survey of trainees (n = 53) who had completed or were enrolled in KRESCENT was conducted in 2015. Information was also obtained from curriculum vitae (CVs). A bibliometric analysis assessed scientific productivity, collaboration, and impact in comparison with unsuccessful applicants to KRESCENT over the same period. The analysis included a comparison of Canadian with international kidney research metrics from 2000 to 2014. Results: Thirty-nine KRESCENT trainees completed the survey (74%), and 44 trainees (83%) submitted CVs. KRESCENT trainees had a high success rate at obtaining grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; 79%), and 76% of Post-Doctoral Fellows received academic appointments at the Assistant Professor level within 8 months of completing training. The majority of trainees reported that KRESCENT had contributed significantly to their success in securing CIHR funding (90%), and to the creation of knowledge (93%) and development of new methodologies (50%). Bibliometric analysis revealed a small but steady decline in total international kidney research output from 2000 to 2014, as a percentage of all health research, although overall impact of kidney research in Canada increased from 2000-2005 to 2009-2014 compared with other countries. KRESCENT trainees demonstrated increased productivity, multiauthored papers, impact, and international collaborations after their training, compared with nonfunded applicants. Conclusions: The KRESCENT Program has fostered kidney research career development and contributed to increased capacity, productivity, and collaboration. To further enhance knowledge creation and translation in kidney research in Canada, programs such as KRESCENT should be sustained via long-term funding partnerships.

Stability and Longevity in the Publication Careers of U.S. Doctorate Recipients

Since the 1950s, the number of doctorate recipients has risen dramatically in the United States. In this paper, we investigate whether the longevity of doctorate recipients’ publication careers has changed. This is achieved by matching 1951–2010 doctorate recipients with rare names in astrophysics, chemistry, economics, genetics and psychology in the dissertation database ProQuest to their publications in the publication database Web of Science. Our study shows that pre-PhD publication careers have changed: the median year of first publication has shifted from after the PhD to several years before PhD in most of the studied fields. In contrast, post-PhD publication career spans have not changed much in most fields. The share of doctorate recipients who have published for more than twenty years has remained stable over time; the shares of doctorate recipients publishing for shorter periods also remained almost unchanged. Thus, though there have been changes in pre-PhD publication careers, post-PhD career spans remained quite stable.

Researchers’ Publication Patterns and Their Use for Author Disambiguation

In recent years we have been witnessing an increase in the need for advanced bibliometric indicators for individual researchers and research groups, for which author disambiguation is needed. Using the complete population of university professors and researchers in the Canadian province of Quebec (N = 13,479), their papers as well as the papers authored by their homonyms, this paper provides evidence of regularities in researchers’ publication patterns. It shows how these patterns can be used to automatically assign papers to individuals and remove papers authored by their homonyms. Two types of patterns were found: (1) at the individual researchers’ level and (2) at the level of disciplines. On the whole, these patterns allow the construction of an algorithm that provides assignment information for at least one paper for 11,105 (82.4 %) out of all 13,479 researchers—with a very low percentage of false positives (3.2 %).