Categorical and Geographical Separation in Science

We study scientific collaboration at the level of universities. The scope of this study is to answer two fundamental questions: (i) can one indicate a category (i.e., a scientific discipline) that has the greatest impact on the rank of the university and (ii) do the best universities collaborate with the best ones only? Restricting ourselves to the 100 best universities from year 2009 we show how the number of publications in certain categories correlates with the university rank. Strikingly, the expected negative trend is not observed in all cases – for some categories even positive values are obtained. After applying Principal Component Analysis we observe clear categorical separation of scientific disciplines, dividing the papers into almost separate clusters connected to natural sciences, medicine and arts and humanities. Moreover, using complex networks analysis, we give hints that the scientific collaboration is still embedded in the physical space and the number of common papers decays with the geographical distance between them.

[1]  T. Kuhn.  The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[2]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995) , 2006, Scientometrics.

[3]  Agata Fronczak,et al.  International trade network: fractal properties and globalization puzzle. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[4]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[5]  Johan Bollen,et al.  A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures , 2009, PloS one.

[6]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[7]  F. Calabrese,et al.  Urban gravity: a model for inter-city telecommunication flows , 2009, 0905.0692.

[8]  Karl R. Popper,et al.  THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS AND THEIR ROOTS IN SCIENCE* , 1952, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[9]  Peter Dalgaard,et al.  R Development Core Team (2010): R: A language and environment for statistical computing , 2010 .

[10]  Marc Barthelemy,et al.  Spatial Networks , 2010, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[11]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Gábor Csárdi,et al.  The igraph software package for complex network research , 2006 .

[13]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes , 1978 .

[14]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Rescaling citations of publications in Physics , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  H. Stanley,et al.  Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  How Citation Boosts Promote Scientific Paradigm Shifts and Nobel Prizes , 2011, PloS one.

[17]  Eduardo G. Altmann,et al.  Generalized entropies and the similarity of texts , 2016, ArXiv.

[18]  Bruno Blais,et al.  Citation analysis of scientific categories , 2017, Heliyon.

[19]  Rex H.-G. Chen,et al.  Visualizing the world's scientific publications , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  V. Traag,et al.  Modelling the distance impedance of protest attendance , 2017 .

[21]  Grzegorz Siudem,et al.  Analytical approach to model of scientific revolutions , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[22]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[23]  S Bornholdt,et al.  Emergence and decline of scientific paradigms. , 2011, Physical review letters.

[24]  Diego Rybski,et al.  The myth of global science collaboration - Collaboration patterns in epistemic communities , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[25]  C. Cagnon,et al.  Impact of Oil on Bacterial Community Structure in Bioturbated Sediments , 2013, PloS one.

[26]  Krzysztof Suchecki,et al.  Networks of companies and branches in Poland , 2007 .

[27]  D. King.  The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.

[28]  Francis Narin,et al.  Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers , 1991, Scientometrics.

[29]  Michael T. Gastner,et al.  The complex network of global cargo ship movements , 2010, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[30]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science , 2008, Science.

[31]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in very large networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[32]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[33]  Eduardo G. Altmann,et al.  Impact of lexical and sentiment factors on the popularity of scientific papers , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

[34]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Self-organization of progress across the century of physics , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[35]  Eduardo G. Altmann,et al.  On the similarity of symbol frequency distributions with heavy tails , 2015, ArXiv.

[36]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings , 2016, Scientometrics.

[37]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[38]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Jasmine Novak,et al.  Geographic routing in social networks , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[40]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact , 2016, Science.

[41]  Diego Garlaschelli,et al.  Jan Tinbergen's legacy for economic networks: from the gravity model to quantum statistics , 2013, 1304.3252.

[42]  Jean-Philippe Cointet,et al.  Phylomemetic Patterns in Science Evolution—The Rise and Fall of Scientific Fields , 2013, PloS one.

[43]  Jan Paul Medema,et al.  Betulin Is a Potent Anti-Tumor Agent that Is Enhanced by Cholesterol , 2009, PloS one.

[44]  M. Heinemann.  The Matthew Effect , 2016, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon.

[45]  R. Jackson,et al.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1988, International journal of dermatology.

[46]  Weimao Ke,et al.  Mapping the diffusion of scholarly knowledge among major U.S. research institutions , 2006, Scientometrics.

[47]  Agata Fronczak,et al.  Analysis of scientific productivity using maximum entropy principle and fluctuation-dissipation theorem. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[48]  Mahesan Niranjan,et al.  Genomic Analysis of the Function of the Transcription Factor gata3 during Development of the Mammalian Inner Ear , 2009, PloS one.

[49]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Inheritance patterns in citation networks reveal scientific memes , 2014, ArXiv.

[50]  Eduardo G. Altmann,et al.  Using text analysis to quantify the similarity and evolution of scientific disciplines , 2017, Royal Society Open Science.