-
The increasing fragmentation of global science limits the diffusion of ideas
Authors:
Alexander J. Gates,
Indraneel Mane,
Jianjian Gao
Abstract:
The global scientific landscape emerges from a complex interplay of collaboration and competition, where nations vie for dominance while simultaneously fostering the diffusion of knowledge on a global scale. This raises crucial questions: What underlying patterns govern international scientific recognition and influence? How does this structure impact knowledge dissemination? Traditional models vi…
▽ More
The global scientific landscape emerges from a complex interplay of collaboration and competition, where nations vie for dominance while simultaneously fostering the diffusion of knowledge on a global scale. This raises crucial questions: What underlying patterns govern international scientific recognition and influence? How does this structure impact knowledge dissemination? Traditional models view the global scientific ecosystem through a core-periphery lens, with Western nations dominating knowledge production. Here, we investigate the dynamics of international scientific recognition through the lens of national preferences, introducing a novel signed measure to characterize national citation preferences and enabling a network analysis of international scientific recognition. We find that scientific recognition is related to cultural and political factors in addition to economic strength and scientific quality. Our analysis challenges the conventional core-periphery narrative, uncovering instead several communities of international knowledge production that are rapidly fragmenting the scientific recognition ecosystem. Moreover, we provide compelling evidence that this network significantly constrains the diffusion of ideas across international borders. The resulting network framework for global scientific recognition sheds light on the barriers and opportunities for collaboration, innovation, and the equitable recognition of scientific advancements, with significant consequences for policymakers seeking to foster inclusive and impactful international scientific endeavors.
△ Less
Submitted 8 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Map** Philanthropic Support of Science
Authors:
Louis M. Shekhtman,
Alexander J. Gates,
Albert-László Barabási
Abstract:
While philanthropic support for science has increased in the past decade, there is limited quantitative knowledge about the patterns that characterize it and the mechanisms that drive its distribution. Here, we map philanthropic funding to universities and research institutions based on IRS tax forms from 685,397 non-profit organizations. We identify nearly one million grants supporting institutio…
▽ More
While philanthropic support for science has increased in the past decade, there is limited quantitative knowledge about the patterns that characterize it and the mechanisms that drive its distribution. Here, we map philanthropic funding to universities and research institutions based on IRS tax forms from 685,397 non-profit organizations. We identify nearly one million grants supporting institutions involved in science and higher education, finding that in volume and scope, philanthropic funding has grown to become comparable to federal research funding. Yet, distinct from government support, philanthropic funders tend to focus locally, indicating that criteria beyond research excellence play an important role in funding decisions. We also show evidence of persistence, i.e., once a grant-giving relationship begins, it tends to continue in time. Finally, we leverage the bipartite network of supporters and recipients to help us demonstrate the predictive power of the underlying network in foreseeing future funder-recipient relationships. The developed toolset could offer funding recommendations to organizations and help funders diversify their portfolio. We discuss the policy implications of our findings for philanthropic funders, individual researchers, and quantitative understanding of philanthropy.
△ Less
Submitted 7 December, 2022; v1 submitted 9 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines
Authors:
Junming Huang,
Alexander J. Gates,
Roberta Sinatra,
Albert-Laszlo Barabasi
Abstract:
There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are under-represented in most scientific disciplines, publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender discrepancies in performance through a bibliometric analysis of academic careers by reconstructing…
▽ More
There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are under-represented in most scientific disciplines, publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender discrepancies in performance through a bibliometric analysis of academic careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines. We find that, paradoxically, the increase of participation of women in science over the past 60 years was accompanied by an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact. Most surprisingly though, we uncover two gender invariants, finding that men and women publish at a comparable annual rate and have equivalent career-wise impact for the same size body of work. Finally, we demonstrate that differences in dropout rates and career length explain a large portion of the reported career-wise differences in productivity and impact. This comprehensive picture of gender inequality in academia can help rephrase the conversation around the sustainability of women's careers in academia, with important consequences for institutions and policy makers.
△ Less
Submitted 9 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
-
CANA: A python package for quantifying control and canalization in Boolean Networks
Authors:
Rion Brattig Correia,
Alexander J. Gates,
Xuan Wang,
Luis M. Rocha
Abstract:
Logical models offer a simple but powerful means to understand the complex dynamics of biochemical regulation, without the need to estimate kinetic parameters. However, even simple automata components can lead to collective dynamics that are computationally intractable when aggregated into networks. In previous work we demonstrated that automata network models of biochemical regulation are highly…
▽ More
Logical models offer a simple but powerful means to understand the complex dynamics of biochemical regulation, without the need to estimate kinetic parameters. However, even simple automata components can lead to collective dynamics that are computationally intractable when aggregated into networks. In previous work we demonstrated that automata network models of biochemical regulation are highly canalizing, whereby many variable states and their grou**s are redundant (Marques-Pita and Rocha, 2013). The precise charting and measurement of such canalization simplifies these models, making even very large networks amenable to analysis. Moreover, canalization plays an important role in the control, robustness, modularity and criticality of Boolean network dynamics, especially those used to model biochemical regulation (Gates and Rocha, 2016; Gates et al., 2016; Manicka, 2017). Here we describe a new publicly-available Python package that provides the necessary tools to extract, measure, and visualize canalizing redundancy present in Boolean network models. It extracts the pathways most effective in controlling dynamics in these models, including their effective graph and dynamics canalizing map, as well as other tools to uncover minimum sets of control variables.
△ Less
Submitted 9 May, 2018; v1 submitted 9 March, 2018;
originally announced March 2018.
-
Element-centric clustering comparison unifies overlaps and hierarchy
Authors:
Alexander J. Gates,
Ian B. Wood,
William P. Hetrick,
Yong-Yeol Ahn
Abstract:
Clustering is one of the most universal approaches for understanding complex data. A pivotal aspect of clustering analysis is quantitatively comparing clusterings; clustering comparison is the basis for many tasks such as clustering evaluation, consensus clustering, and tracking the temporal evolution of clusters. In particular, the extrinsic evaluation of clustering methods requires comparing the…
▽ More
Clustering is one of the most universal approaches for understanding complex data. A pivotal aspect of clustering analysis is quantitatively comparing clusterings; clustering comparison is the basis for many tasks such as clustering evaluation, consensus clustering, and tracking the temporal evolution of clusters. In particular, the extrinsic evaluation of clustering methods requires comparing the uncovered clusterings to planted clusterings or known metadata. Yet, as we demonstrate, existing clustering comparison measures have critical biases which undermine their usefulness, and no measure accommodates both overlap** and hierarchical clusterings. Here we unify the comparison of disjoint, overlap**, and hierarchically structured clusterings by proposing a new element-centric framework: elements are compared based on the relationships induced by the cluster structure, as opposed to the traditional cluster-centric philosophy. We demonstrate that, in contrast to standard clustering similarity measures, our framework does not suffer from critical biases and naturally provides unique insights into how the clusterings differ. We illustrate the strengths of our framework by revealing new insights into the organization of clusters in two applications: the improved classification of schizophrenia based on the overlap** and hierarchical community structure of fMRI brain networks, and the disentanglement of various social homophily factors in Facebook social networks. The universality of clustering suggests far-reaching impact of our framework throughout all areas of science.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2019; v1 submitted 19 June, 2017;
originally announced June 2017.
-
Modularity and the spread of perturbations in complex dynamical systems
Authors:
Artemy Kolchinsky,
Alexander J. Gates,
Luis M. Rocha
Abstract:
We propose a method to decompose dynamical systems based on the idea that modules constrain the spread of perturbations. We find partitions of system variables that maximize 'perturbation modularity', defined as the autocovariance of coarse-grained perturbed trajectories. The measure effectively separates the fast intramodular from the slow intermodular dynamics of perturbation spreading (in this…
▽ More
We propose a method to decompose dynamical systems based on the idea that modules constrain the spread of perturbations. We find partitions of system variables that maximize 'perturbation modularity', defined as the autocovariance of coarse-grained perturbed trajectories. The measure effectively separates the fast intramodular from the slow intermodular dynamics of perturbation spreading (in this respect, it is a generalization of the 'Markov stability' method of network community detection). Our approach captures variation of modular organization across different system states, time scales, and in response to different kinds of perturbations: aspects of modularity which are all relevant to real-world dynamical systems. It offers a principled alternative to detecting communities in networks of statistical dependencies between system variables (e.g., 'relevance networks' or 'functional networks'). Using coupled logistic maps, we demonstrate that the method uncovers hierarchical modular organization planted in a system's coupling matrix. Additionally, in homogeneously-coupled map lattices, it identifies the presence of self-organized modularity that depends on the initial state, dynamical parameters, and type of perturbations. Our approach offers a powerful tool for exploring the modular organization of complex dynamical systems.
△ Less
Submitted 23 December, 2015; v1 submitted 14 September, 2015;
originally announced September 2015.
