To see the titles, authors and abstracts of the 14 articles, go to:
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
Special Issue of DLib on "New Opportunities, Methods and Tools for Mining Scientific Publications"
This special issue contains 14 articles on Mining Scientific Publications and a report on the Research Data Alliance (RDA) 4th Plenary Meeting. This might be of interest to those seeking data for simulating science.
To see the titles, authors and abstracts of the 14 articles, go to:
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/
To see the titles, authors and abstracts of the 14 articles, go to:
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/
Friday, 17 October 2014
Paper: Simulations suggest that social and natural sciences differ in their research strategies adapted to work for different knowledge landscapes
Simulations suggest that social and natural sciences differ in their research strategies adapted to work for different knowledge landscapes
Do different field of knowledge require different research strategies? A numerical model exploring different virtual knowledge landscapes, revealed different optimal search strategies. Trend following is maximized when the popularity of new discoveries determine the number of individuals researching it. This strategy works best when many researchers explore few large areas of knowledge. In contrast, individuals or small groups of researchers are better in discovering small bits of information in dispersed knowledge landscapes. The best technique for all situations simulated, is to adjust the number of researchers needed to explore a knowledge cluster according to the opportunities and the level of crowding in that cluster. Bibliometric data of scientific publications showed a continuous bipolar distribution of these strategies, ranging from natural sciences, with highly cited publications in journals containing a large number of articles, to the social sciences, with rarely cited publications in journals containing a small number of articles. The natural science seem to adapt their research strategies to landscapes with large knowledge clusters, whereas social sciences seem to have adapted to search in landscapes with many small knowledge clusters. The work shows that quantitative measures estimating differences between social and natural sciences are feasible.Coming out in PLoS in the next few weeks.
More details and paper at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5107
Wednesday, 15 October 2014
CfP: special issue of Scientometrics on "Simulating the Social Processes of Science"
A Call for Papers for a special issue of Scientometrics on:
“Simulating the Social Processes of Science”
Deadline: 30th April 2015
(PDF version here)
(PDF version here)
Motivation
Science is the result of complex interactions between
institutions and individuals self-organizing their research. There has been a
tendency to depict/sketch science as an individual, cognitive endeavour marked
by new ideas, breakthroughs and problem solving activities. However, there is
no doubt that science is also substantially a social process. That is, science relies on many
inter-personal processes, including: selection and communication of research
findings, discussion of method, checking and judgement of others’ research,
development of norms of scientific behaviour, organisation of the application
of specialist skills/tools, and the organisation of each field (e.g. allocation
of funding). Furthermore, science is
full of the social phenomena that are observed elsewhere: fashions, concern
with status and reputation, group-identification, collective judgements, social
norms, competitive and defensive actions, to name a few.
Although we sometimes can directly observe scientists
interacting, usually our theorising about this is indirect, via the traces of
their behaviour (individual and social) in terms of the documents they produce,
such as journal articles, patents or grant applications. Empirical observations
of science – in the form of quantitative studies – for a long time remained
focuses primarily on traces of formal communication. The simple reason is, those
are captured in a structured way in bibliographic databases, and available for
analysis. However there are other sources of data about the behaviour of
researchers. These include, for example
altmetrics, but also the more qualitative evidence that can be harvested from
narratives, interviews, and questionnaires or science history accounts. Agent-based
models are particularly suitable for building upon hypotheses derived from such
micro-level data as they encapsulate hypotheses about behaviour and produce
outputs that can be validated against macro-level observable traces and data
(Moss and Edmonds 2005).
This special issue calls for models that explicitly
represent the interactions between individual researchers, capturing aspects of
the social processes of science. They may build upon hypotheses about
individual behaviour from a variety of sources, including: the sociology of
science, cognitive science, or qualitative observations as long as they also
are comparable with some kind of validation data. Their heuristic power unfolds
when the system under study involves substantial interaction between
heterogeneous actors or over within complex networks. Such models hold out the potential as a complementary
tool to the existing range of quantitative and metric approaches. New insights
about science can be gained by comparing and relating different kinds of model,
including data, statistical, observational, psychological and computational.
This special issue aims to present a state of the art in terms such computational
models.
The Topic
We are looking for original articles that use simulation
methods to understand and explore the social (i.e. inter-researcher) processes
that contribute to the phenomena we call science. These could be simple or complex, agent-based
or otherwise, but need to go beyond data analyses and data description approaches
that only deal with the relation of macro-level variables. All models should link individual
interactions between researchers to outcomes that are possible to measure (at
least in principle). All models should
list their conceptual, epistemic or empirical points of departure – being as
clear as possible as to the assumptions on which they are built. Given the
focus of the journal, the models should be presented and assessed in formal or
numerical ways. They should be validated with empirical data where possible. We
are also open to the submission of models that lead to new ideas about
measuring and observations and might accept one survey paper covering the field
up to the present. However, overall we will favour submissions that take some
effort in aligning assumptions and theories with observations and data.
Specific topics could include, but are not limited
to, the following:
- How individual and social behaviour of researchers result in citation networks, such as those we observe?
- When and how researchers choose to co-author papers or write grant applications together?
- How is current production of scientific knowledge by individuals and groups influenced by project-funded science and evaluation schemes?
- How does the individual career path unfolds under the condition of globalization and team science? How the structure and social practices of science impact upon the career of early stage researchers?
- What are the properties of peer review, including the effectiveness and robustness of alternative systems and what are their influences on scholarship?
- How academic topics emerge, are maintained and finally fall out of fashion?
- What are the social and reputational factors behind the success or frustration of interdisciplinary research?
- How can we describe, analyse and model the impact of different social aspects upon the development of scientific knowledge: trust, reference group identification, honesty, methods of measuring reputation, team working, etc.?
History
Broadly this approach goes back to (Gilbert 1997), but
interest in this has recently intensified. There was a workshop, then book on
“Models of Science Dynamics” (Scharnhorst et al. 2012), which did not focus on
models of the social processes of science, but included a review of agent-based
models up to that point (Payette, 2012). Then their followed special issue of position papers on this topic in the
Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, in 2011 (Edmonds et al.
2011), followed by some papers appearing at simulation conferences (ESSA, ECMS,
MABS), leading up to the week-long Lorentz Workshop on this topic in April
2014. http://knowescape.org/simulating-the-social-processes-of-science-a-summary.
Contributors to this special issue are by no means limited to those involved in
the above.
Submission
Although participants of these previous events are
encouraged to submit revised and mature versions of their papers, this is an
open call that will be freshly peer-reviewed according to the normal standards
of Scientometrics, without any prior
preference. However, the editors reserve
the right to reject papers that clearly fall out of the scope of this special
issue, without review. Therefore, potential contributors are asked to submit
their papers prior to the regular reviewing process by email to Bruce Edmonds (bruce@edmonds.name)
for possible selection by the 30th April 2015. Authors will then
receive instructions for submission along with some technical notes.
Special Issue Editors
- Bruce Edmonds, Professor of Social Simulation, Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
- Andrea Scharnhorst, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Data Archiving and Networked Services, Amsterdam, Netherlands
References
Edmonds, B., Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P. & Scharnhorst,
A. (2011) Special Issue of the Journal of
Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
on 'Simulating the Social Processes of Science' 14,(4) (Introduction to
special issue is at: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/4/14.html).
Gilbert, N. (1997). A simulation of the structure of
academic science. Sociological
Research Online, 2(2), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/3.html.
Moss, S. and Edmonds, B. (2005) Sociology and Simulation:
- Statistical and Qualitative Cross-Validation, American Journal of
Sociology, 110(4) 1095-1131.
Payette N.
(2012) Agent-based models of science. In Scharnhorst, Börner, and Scharnhorst A., Börner K. & Van
den Besselaar, P. (eds.) (2012). Models
of Science Dynamics. Springer. Ch 4, pp. 127-157
Friday, 19 September 2014
Website for COST action on Peer Review online at: http://www.peere.org/
It does not seem to have an RSS feed, but has news etc. about this 4 year project.
See http://www.peere.org/
See http://www.peere.org/
NYTimes: "To Get More Out of Science, Show the Rejected Research"
About the importance of publishing (in some way) negative results...
See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/upshot/to-get-more-out-of-science-show-the-rejected-research.html
See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/upshot/to-get-more-out-of-science-show-the-rejected-research.html
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Slides from the Session on the Social Processes of Science @ Social Simulation 2014
Session on: Simulating the Social Processes of Science, At Social Simulation 2014, Barcelona.
Chair: B. Edmonds
Chair: B. Edmonds
- Burton Voorhees: “Models of Information Spread in Structured Populations” #69
- Stefano Balietti, Michael Maes and Dirk Helbing: “On Fragmentation and Scientific Progress” #134
- Juan Batista Cabotà, Lorena Cadavid, Francisco Grimaldo, Giangiacomo Bravo and Flaminio Squazzoni: “A Few Bad Apples Are Enough. An Agent-Based Peer Review Game” #143
The slides are available at: http://cfpm.org/spos/SSC2014_session/
Friday, 13 June 2014
RePost: Andrea's Summary of the workshop
Andrea's summary of the Leiden workshop for the Knowescape blog:
http://knowescape.org/simulating-the-social-processes-of-science-a-summary/
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Collaborators needed to develop a paper on research career structures
Eric Silverman (Southampton) is looking for collaborators who
want to develop a paper on research career structures. The paper will
summarise some of the studies done so far on short-term research
contracts and their effect on young researchers, particularly women.
The goal will be to identify the interacting factors which affect
early-career academics who are trying to develop a career, and use this
as a foundation for a modelling project in future. Anyone who is
interested should contact Eric at e.silverman@soton.ac.uk.
Saturday, 12 April 2014
A list of actions decided at the plenary session on the last day...
...along with those who agreed to (at least initially) coordinate them. If you wish to help organise, contribute or be involved in any particular action, please contact the persons named. News of these will also be posted here.
- A second SSPOS workshop, Valencia, Spain, in 2016 (jointly supported by PEERE and KnowEScape) -- Bulent Ozel, Francisco Grimaldo, Bruce Edmonds
- Peer Review Roadmap -- Francisco Grimaldo
- Relating/mapping models -- Edmund Chattoe-Brown
- Knowledge of available data sets -- Andrea Scharnhorst (via her list which I will post)
- List of Stylised Facts & Generative Mechanisms -- Christopher Watts
- List of Challenge problems -- Bruce Edmonds
- "SimScience" games -- Andre Martins
- Overview/position paper (PlosOne?) -- Stuart Rossiter, Bruce Edmonds
- Publication options in order of preference: JASSS, Frontiers, Scientometrics, Research Policy, Topics in Cognitive Science, Springer book -- Bruce Edmonds
Friday, 11 April 2014
Thursday, 10 April 2014
Diego Garlaschelli's slides on "Reconciling long-term cultural diversity and short-term collective social behavior: an interdisciplinary challenge"
Reference: Valori et al., PNAS vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 1068-1073 (2012)
Slides at: http://cfpm.org/spos/lcw/Garlaschelli_Reconciling_2014_04_10%20Lorentz%20Center.pdf
Slides at: http://cfpm.org/spos/lcw/Garlaschelli_Reconciling_2014_04_10%20Lorentz%20Center.pdf
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Simulating social processes of science mailing list
homepage
https://sympa.ethz.ch/sympa/info/ssps
SUBSCRIBE ssps Your Name
(Example)
SUBSCRIBE ssps Stefano Balietti
SIGNOFF ssps
https://sympa.ethz.ch/sympa/info/ssps
SUBSCRIBE ssps Your Name
(Example)
SUBSCRIBE ssps Stefano Balietti
SIGNOFF ssps
Link to document about data sets and tools
https://hackpad.com/SSPoS-
To be used directly to share models, datasets
To be used directly to share models, datasets
Group photo from workshop...
...Andre Martins, Elena Mas Tur and Ozul Bulent had not arrived by this point.
Slides from Francisco Grimaldo et al on "Mechanisms for science: Leasons learned from modeling peer review"
Mechanisms for science: Leasons learned from modeling peer review
Francisco Grimaldo, Juan Bautista Cabotà (U.València) Mario Paolucci (LABSS- ISTC- CNR)
Flaminio Squazzoni (GECS-U. Brescia)
Available at: http://cfpm.org/spos/lcw/Francisco%20Grimaldo%20Moreno%20et%20al%20P2014-SPOS.pdf
Francisco Grimaldo, Juan Bautista Cabotà (U.València) Mario Paolucci (LABSS- ISTC- CNR)
Flaminio Squazzoni (GECS-U. Brescia)
Available at: http://cfpm.org/spos/lcw/Francisco%20Grimaldo%20Moreno%20et%20al%20P2014-SPOS.pdf
Brainstormed research questions for Interdisciplinarity Group
Brainstormed research questions for Interdisciplinarity Group
- How do disciplines emerge/develop? (Foundational)
- How can interdisciplinarity help/hinder in the search for knowledge?
- Does successful interdisciplinary research lead to a new speciality?
- What patterns of expectations lead to lead to success of interdisciplinary approaches? (management of interdisciplinary teams)
- What constitutes a successful interdisciplinary project? (Foundational)
- What is the impact of participating in interdisciplinary projects on early stage researchers?
- What processes facilitate the appearance of interdisciplinary communications?
- What are the respective roles of people, ideas, and institutions in the emergence of interdisciplinary research?
- What are the challenges involved in doing interdisciplinary projects?
- How do we identify disciplines? (Foundational)
- How do new problems motivate/cause the emergence of new disciplines?
In answer to the question "How do we identify disciplines?" there were the following suggestions:
- Coherency of beliefs
- Similar tools, methods, and reference points
- Same Heroes
- Establishing milestones (a conference series, association, journal, summer school, phds etc)
- Inter-reading
- Specific markers (prizes, awards etc.)
Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Wednesday morning version of the timetable
|
|
Monday
|
Tuesday
|
Wednesday
|
Thursday
|
Friday
|
|
|
Theme
|
Context, Positions and
Approaches
|
Models and Underpinnings
|
Models and Applications
|
Applications, Open Questions,
Directions and Issues
|
What next?
|
|
|
9:00
|
Registration and Coffee
|
Mario Paolucci and Francisco Grimaldo: developing
simulation models of peer review
Alexander Petersen: Quantifying
the role of teamwork and reputation
|
Ingo Scholtes:
lessons from open source and citations
Elena Mas Tur: Diffusion
of scientific knowledge: a percolation model
|
Diego Garlaschelli: long-term
cultural diversity and short-term collective behaviour
Janusz Holyst:
Information slows down hierarchy growth
|
Breakout groups: further
initiatives and funding opportunities
|
|
|
10.00
|
Introduction to the
Lorentz Centre
|
|||||
|
Nicolas Payette: a
survey of previous models
|
||||||
|
10.30
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
||
|
11.00
|
Invited Speaker: Katy Börner
|
Free discussion period around simulations
|
Free discussion period around simulations
|
Free discussion period around simulations
|
Invited Speaker: Paul Thagard
|
|
|
12.30
|
Lunch
|
Lunch
|
Lunch
|
Lunch
|
Farewell Lunch
|
|
|
14.00
|
Brief Introduction to the workshop by organisers
|
Bruce Edmonds: incorporating cognitive dissonance with
social influence
Coffee break
Free discussion period around simulations
|
Free discussion period or relaxation
|
Andre Martins: Theory
Acceptance
Bulent Ozel:
Individual Cognitive
Structures and Collaboration in Science
|
Possible extended
discussions
|
|
|
Poster Presentations of all participants
|
||||||
|
15.30
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
||||
|
16.00 –
17.00
|
Frank Schweitzer: Beyond
simulating science
Loet Leydesdorff: The
exchanges of expectations in scholarly discourse
|
Short presentations on arising issues from the discussions so
far and Open Discussion
|
||||
|
17.00 – 17.30
|
Plenary reports of
discussions / developments
|
|||||
|
Evening
|
Welcome drinks
|
|
Social dinner
|
|
Workshop focus questions in order of judged level of interest....
Key Questions in rough order of interest (as judged by a quick show of hands by workshop participants):
- What data sources are there available to help text/develop simulations of scientific processes?
- How do the cognitive and social processes interact to develop collective knowledge?
- What do simulations suggest about the organisation of research?
- How can we progress our understanding of science using social simulation?
- How do the social processes contribute to the agreement/disagreement between groups of scientists?
- Are there any cognitive "foundations" upon which to base social simulations of science?
- How is division of labour/specialisation self-organised in science?
Monday, 7 April 2014
Katy Borner's Slides on "Mulit Level Science Models"...
...from her invited talk today are available at:
http://cns.iu.edu/docs/presentations/2014-borner-scimodeling-nl.pdf
http://cns.iu.edu/docs/presentations/2014-borner-scimodeling-nl.pdf
Talks of Elena Mas Tur and Alexander Petersen are now swapped...
...since Elena will not be here until Wednesday.
Thus the timetable looks like this:
Thus the timetable looks like this:
|
|
Monday
|
Tuesday
|
Wednesday
|
Thursday
|
Friday
|
|
|
Theme
|
Context, Positions and
Approaches
|
Models and Underpinnings
|
Models and Applications
|
Applications, Open Questions,
Directions and Issues
|
What next?
|
|
|
9:00
|
Registration and Coffee
|
Mario Paolucci and Francisco Grimaldo: developing
simulation models of peer review
Alexander Petersen: Quantifying
the role of teamwork and reputation
|
Ingo Scholtes:
lessons from open source and citations
Elena Mas Tur: Diffusion
of scientific knowledge: a percolation model
|
Diego Garlaschelli: long-term
cultural diversity and short-term collective behaviour
Janusz Holyst:
Information slows down hierarchy growth
|
Breakout groups: further
initiatives and funding opportunities
|
|
|
10.00
|
Introduction to the
Lorentz Centre
|
|||||
|
Nicolas Payette: a
survey of previous models
|
||||||
|
10.30
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
||
|
11.00
|
Invited Speaker: Katy Börner
|
Free discussion period around simulations
|
Free discussion period around simulations
|
Short presentations on arising issues from the discussions so
far
|
Invited Speaker: Paul Thagard
|
|
|
12.30
|
Lunch
|
Lunch
|
Lunch
|
Lunch
|
Farewell Lunch
|
|
|
14.00
|
Brief Introduction to the workshop by organisers
|
Andre Martins: Theory
Acceptance
Bruce Edmonds: incorporating cognitive dissonance with
social influence
|
Free discussion period or relaxation
|
Parallel group discussions on a selection of these issues
|
Possible extended
discussions
|
|
|
Poster Presentations of all participants
|
||||||
|
15.30
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
Coffee break
|
|||
|
16.00 –
17.00
|
Frank Schweitzer: Beyond
simulating science
Loet Leydesdorff: The
exchanges of expectations in scholarly discourse
|
Free discussion period around simulations
|
Plenary Reports from Groups and Open Discussion
|
|||
|
17.00 – 17.30
|
Plenary reports of
discussions / developments
|
|||||
|
Evening
|
Welcome drinks
|
|
Social dinner
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)