tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41653989187138548002024-02-18T19:26:41.791-08:00Simulating the Social Processes of ScienceA blog to report papers, events, research etc. concerning the computer simulation of the inter-scientist processes of scienceBruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-31056281485668578552018-03-09T21:35:00.000-08:002018-03-09T21:35:28.652-08:00A presenation about an ABM of the peer review system and the Impact Factor<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.peere.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Secchi.pdf">Improbable fairness: reviewing under the lenses of Impact Factor</a> (Davide Secchi)</li>
</ul>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-74767888373727664532017-02-17T07:42:00.002-08:002017-02-17T07:42:19.705-08:00Nature article:The mathematics of science's broken reward systemOnly just noticed this one, a review piece on the importance of understanding science scientifically, but science journalist, Phillip Ball.<br />
<br />
At <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/the-mathematics-of-science-s-broken-reward-system-1.20987">http://www.nature.com/news/the-mathematics-of-science-s-broken-reward-system-1.20987</a>Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-33921820030404138582017-01-29T12:20:00.002-08:002017-01-29T12:20:53.695-08:00A special issue of Scientometrics on "Simulating the processes of science, technology, and innovation"<div>
<div>
The special issue edited by Katy Börner, Bruce Edmonds, Staša Milojević &amp; Andrea Scharnhorst of <i>Scientometrics</i> on "Simulating the processes of science, technology, and innovation" is now out.</div>
It is in Volume 110, Issue 1, January 2017 at: <a href="http://link.springer.com/journal/11192/110/1?wt_mc=">http://link.springer.com/journal/11192/110/1?wt_mc=</a> and includes:</div>
<ul>
<li>An <i>Editorial</i> by Katy Börner, Bruce Edmonds, Staša Milojević &amp; Andrea Scharnhorst </li>
<li>"<i>Agent-based simulation for science, technology, and innovation policy</i>" by Petra Ahrweiler</li>
<li><span class="gmail-">"</span><i>Creating
impact in the digital space: digital practice dependency in communities
of digital scientific innovations</i>" by Sabine Brunswicker,
Sorin Adam Matei, Michael Zentner, Lynn Zentner &amp; Gerhard Klimeck</li>
<li>"<i>Mapping technology space by normalizing patent networks</i>" by Jeff Alstott, Giorgio Triulzi, Bowen Yan &amp; Jianxi Luo</li>
<li><span class="gmail-">"</span><i>What’s wrong with Science?</i>" by David Chavalarias</li>
<li><span class="gmail-">"</span><span class="gmail-"><i>Towards the discovery of scientific revolutions in scientometric data</i>" by </span>Rogier De Langhe</li>
<li>"<i>An
efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer
distributions</i>" by Johan Bollen, David Crandall, Damion Junk, Ying Ding
&amp; Katy Börner</li>
</ul>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-75630849152966298342016-12-05T14:09:00.001-08:002016-12-05T14:09:04.292-08:00If you are near Chicago... A Science of Science meeting, today!See http://www.science-of-science-chicago.org/Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-85661899688354767192016-12-05T05:09:00.001-08:002016-12-05T05:09:16.694-08:00More evidence for the class divide in UK universities...from an article in the Guardian.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Researchers found that as much as half of the gap in admissions to highly selective Russell Group universities between children on free school meals (FSM) and their better-off peers could be a result of factors beyond academic ability.</i></blockquote>
From an analysis published by the Social Mobility Commission, headed by former Labour minister Alan Milburn.<br />
<br />
See Guardian article at: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/05/poorer-white-pupils-underperform-in-later-academic-choices-study">https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/05/poorer-white-pupils-underperform-in-later-academic-choices-study</a><br />
<br />
This is some more evidence that the role of the top universities is substantially about class and not just academic achievement. The top universities have simply not taken effective measures to address this lack of access. Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-37295524867943112832016-12-01T06:25:00.004-08:002016-12-01T06:25:56.428-08:00Economist article about Fads and Fashions in EconomicsSee article at: <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21710800-big-data-have-led-latest-craze-economic-research-economists-are-prone?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/">http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21710800-big-data-have-led-latest-craze-economic-research-economists-are-prone?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/</a><br />
<img alt="" height="335" itemprop="contentUrl" src="https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20161126_FNC301.png" title="" width="640" />Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-57671445543448028582016-11-11T11:21:00.003-08:002016-11-11T11:21:26.043-08:00Understanding peer review and the social processes of science mentioned in EuroScience article<h1 class="entry-title" style="text-align: center;">
Self-organised scientific crowds to remedy research bureaucracy</h1>
<div class="entry-title" style="text-align: center;">
by <span class="byline"><span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" href="http://www.euroscientist.com/author/mcatanzaro/" rel="author">Michele Catanzaro</a></span></span></div>
<div class="entry-title">
<span class="byline"><span class="author vcard">Read it at: </span></span></div>
<div class="entry-title">
<span class="byline"><span class="author vcard"> <a href="http://www.euroscientist.com/self-organised-scientific-crowds-remedy-research-bureaucracy/">http://www.euroscientist.com/self-organised-scientific-crowds-remedy-research-bureaucracy/ </a></span></span> </div>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-86152596208824231382016-09-24T06:19:00.001-07:002016-09-24T06:19:41.796-07:00Papers on Peer Review and other aspects of Simulating Science @ Social Simulation 2016, RomeFive papers on simulating Peer Review! <br />
<ul>
<li><i><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=122">Simulating Peer-review processes as social practices</a> </i>by Dignum Virginia, Dignum Frank<br /><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=116"><i>Indirect Reciprocity and the Miracle of Peer Review</i></a> by Righi Simone, Takacs Karoly<i> </i></li>
<li><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=113"><i>Quality versus Sexiness: The rival qualities of papers in the competition for academics’ attention</i></a> by Watts Christopher, Payette Nicolas<i> </i></li>
<li><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=96"><i>The shadow of reciprocity on confidential vs. open peer review: An agent-based model</i></a> by Bianchi Federico, Squazzoni Flaminio<i> </i></li>
<li><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=73"><i>Peer review as a reputation system</i></a> by Sabater-mir Jordi, Grimaldo Francisco, Paolucci Mario<i> </i></li>
<li><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=69"><i>Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data</i></a> by Kovanis Michail, Porcher Raphael, Ravaud Philippe, Trinquart Ludovic</li>
</ul>
Plus 2 other relevant papers: <br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=103"><i>Simulating German Extra-University Research Institutes Using Ego Network Samples</i></a> by Schilperoord Michel, Schrempf Benjamin, Dirlam Arno,
Ahrweiler Petra</li>
<li><a href="http://194.116.73.185/it.cnr.istc.conf.ssc2016/serv/cms/get?tab=SCHEDULES&ID=99"><i>Towards the Discovery of Scientific Revolutions in Scientometric Data</i></a> by De Langhe Rogier</li>
</ul>
(I do not know for how long the abstracts and full papers will be available, so go read them fast)Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-2790498870981982192016-07-24T01:38:00.001-07:002016-08-03T12:53:53.255-07:00Citation Cartels and Parocialism in ScienceThere is hard evidence that academics and journals are manipulating citations to (unfairly) improve their reputation. There is a summary of this and a call for more evidence in the post "What do we know about journal citation cartels? A call for information" at <a href="https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-q2w2b4">https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-q2w2b4</a><br />
<br />
However, these deliberately fraudulent cases are simply the extreme end of a spectrum of practices which need examination, understanding and (of course) simulation modelling. It is well known that many referees demand that papers cite certain papers (e.g. their own) as a condition of publication. It is well known that in some fields, there is a strong social norm that one should spend the first 2-5 slides of any presentation citing previous work (whether relevant or not). This demand that outsiders should learn the 'key' references <i>before</i> being allowed to present their research has advantages in terms of not repeating past debates/research and to aid the coherence of the field, but it is also an effective means of excluding outsiders and ensuring insiders are well cited.<br />
<br />
There have now been a stream of simulations that touch on the processes of peer review, but a wider set of simulations and analysis of science are needed that focus upon the tendencies of fields to become inward-looking to the extent that some look more like cartels than academic discussions.Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-86350123623812684002016-07-10T02:57:00.002-07:002016-07-10T02:57:58.173-07:00A 1982 paper: " Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles"I have just come across this. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Petersa, DP & Cecia, SJ (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Science, 5(2):187- 195. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183">http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183</a> </blockquote>
<h3 class="section-title">
Abstract</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A growing interest in and
concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices
in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of
scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability,
accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there
has been very little direct research on these variables.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The
present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process
directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations
of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already
published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly
productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12
highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high
rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With
fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones
(e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts
were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed
and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors
and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result
allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process
to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected.
Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the
editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases
described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible
interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.</blockquote>
This is followed by an extensive and interesting open-commentary, making a very interesting issue, available at: <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=BBS&volumeId=5&seriesId=0&issueId=02">http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=BBS&volumeId=5&seriesId=0&issueId=02</a> <br />
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-89593101734093727212016-07-10T02:25:00.002-07:002016-07-10T02:25:20.313-07:00KNOWeSCAPE Workshop on "Identification, location and temporal evolution of topics – data and algorithm – comparison of approaches", Budapest 29&30 AugustSee <a href="http://knowescape.org/event/identification-location-temporal-evolution-topics-data-algorithm-comparison-approaches/">http://knowescape.org/event/identification-location-temporal-evolution-topics-data-algorithm-comparison-approaches/</a> for details.Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-84022648495238063162016-07-10T02:22:00.000-07:002016-07-10T02:22:13.108-07:00Coherency Models of Review JudgementsI am at a nice interdisciplinary workshop in Berlin on "Coherency-Based Approaches to Decision Making, Cognition and Communication.<br />
<br />
The basic ideas come from Thagard (<a href="http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~pthagard/Articles/1989.explanatory.pdf">1989</a>), that human 'reasoning' happens in a way to ensure coherency between beliefs rather than the classical logicist picture of reasoning from evidence to conclusions. For example, as well as forward inference, backward inference from conclusions to the evaluation of evidence is common. This theory has now a reasonable amount of evidence to support it and has been extended to include emotions and goals (<a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/hot-thought">Thagard 2006</a>)<br />
<br />
As well as Thagard there was a nice talk by Dan Simon of University of South Carolina, explaining many identified 'biases' in human reasoning using the coherency framework. If you want details see his paper on SSRN at <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=439984">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=439984</a>. One of the biases he talked about was confirmation bias and cited a nice paper that I did not know about about Peer Review. This is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mahoney, M (1977) Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2):161–175. <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01173636">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01173636</a>. </blockquote>
In this the author sent papers to a selection of reviewers where it was known whether the reviewer agreed or disagreed with the conclusion of the paper (on a controversial issue). The results were that the judgement of the reviewers on the quality of the paper were substantially affected by whether the reviewer agreed with the conclusion.<br />
<br />
The coherency model of thought seems to be a good basis for modelling the judgement of reviewers within simulations of the peer review system.<br />
<br />
<br />Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-44368075733019232032016-07-08T02:44:00.003-07:002016-07-08T02:44:32.791-07:00CfP special issue on "Academic Misconduct & Misrepresentation: From Fraud and Plagiarism to Fake Peer Reviews, Citation Rings, Gaming Rankings, Dodgy Journals, “Vacation” Conferences, and Beyond"in the journal: <strong><a href="http://journals.elsevier.com/research-policy/"><i>Research Policy</i></a> </strong><br />
<br />
<strong>Edited by: </strong><i>Mario Biagioli</i> and <i>Martin Kenney</i><br />
<br />
This Special Issue solicits social scientific articles examining not
only traditional forms of misconduct, but also modalities of misconduct
that are meant to “game” the modern metrics-based regimes of academic
evaluation. If traditional misconduct – fabrication, falsification, and
plagiarism – concerned fraudulent ways to produce scholarly
publications, much of the new misconduct targets the publication system
itself, for example by producing fake peer reviews, citation rings among
authors and journals, or by publishing articles in dubious journals. <br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
See <a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-policy/call-for-papers/academic-misconduct-misrepresentation-from-fraud-and-plagiar">http://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-policy/call-for-papers/academic-misconduct-misrepresentation-from-fraud-and-plagiar</a> for more details. Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-1135406872058283852016-06-30T05:32:00.001-07:002016-06-30T05:32:14.495-07:00Nature paper: Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success See <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7609/full/nature18315.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7609/full/nature18315.html</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>...we show that the greater the degree of interdisciplinarity, the lower
the probability of being funded. The negative impact of
interdisciplinarity is significant even when number of collaborators,
primary research field and type of institution are taken into account.</i>"</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha_ZB7twxZY9RRaCB-zZx9vXrqN-MMMa_dn33uJTXa1tL0zYvU7QviJXyUCCHiutbf-9erkGT-ITCvi_xrrbpGvsWtFk9f1WbgNmRq08Xy0vzJ6i_pWTGxUxChv8ObG9EI76vWEkIeDe8/s1600/nature18315-f2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="377" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha_ZB7twxZY9RRaCB-zZx9vXrqN-MMMa_dn33uJTXa1tL0zYvU7QviJXyUCCHiutbf-9erkGT-ITCvi_xrrbpGvsWtFk9f1WbgNmRq08Xy0vzJ6i_pWTGxUxChv8ObG9EI76vWEkIeDe8/s400/nature18315-f2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
x
axis is the proportion of applications funded (Australian research
council) and the y-axis is the estimated bias towards interdisciplinary
proposals (estimated using a logit regression model).<br />
<br />
Environmental, physical, social science and economics were (unsurprisingly) most averse to interdisciplinary proposals.Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-39490347519159712072016-03-03T06:05:00.002-08:002016-03-03T06:05:59.754-08:00Repost: Why publishing negative findings is hardFrom retraction watch, the story of a professor who tried to submit his reanalysis of two papers to journals and the obstacles he faced.<br />
<br />
At: <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/17/why-publishing-negative-findings-is-hard/">http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/17/why-publishing-negative-findings-is-hard/</a>Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-37969401687798427312016-03-03T05:08:00.002-08:002016-03-03T05:09:21.446-08:00Abstract of Paper: Job Insecurity in Academic Research Employment: An Agent-Based Model<h3>
Abstract:</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This paper presents an agent-based model of fixed-term academic
employment in a competitive research funding environment. The goal of
the model is to investigate the effects of job insecurity on research
productivity. Agents may be either established academics who may apply
for grants, or postdoctoral researchers who are unable to apply for
grants and experience hardship when reaching the end of their fixed-term
contracts. Results show that in general adding fixed-term postdocs to
the system produces less total research output than adding half as many
permanent academics. An in-depth sensitivity analysis is performed
across postdoc scenarios, and indicates that promoting more postdocs
into permanent positions produces significant increases in research
output.</blockquote>
More details at: <a href="https://drericsilverman.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/paper-submitted-to-alife-xv/">https://drericsilverman.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/paper-submitted-to-alife-xv/</a>Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-47141028376647853292016-02-15T07:23:00.002-08:002016-02-15T07:23:10.234-08:00Network analysis paper: Weaving the fabric of science: Dynamic network models of science's unfolding structure<h1 class="svTitle" id="tit0005">
Weaving the fabric of science: Dynamic network models of science's unfolding structure</h1>
By Feng Shi, Jacob G. Foster, and James A. Evans<br /><span class="articleOAstatus"></span><div class="OAlabel">
<hr class="artHeader" id="abs_author-highlightsabs00051" />
</div>
<div class="abstract svAbstract
abstractHighlights
" data-etype="ab">
<h2 id="absSec_1">
Highlights</h2>
<dl class="listitem" id="list_list0005">
<dt class="label">• Our hypergraph framework captures the multi-mode, higher-order complexity of science.</dt>
<dt class="label">• Our random walk model powerfully predicts how science evolves.</dt>
<dt class="label">• Our approach reveals intriguing modal dispositions behind the advance of science.</dt>
<dt class="label">• We find that entities of one type typically connect through entities of another type.</dt>
<dt class="label">• We find a special bridging role for methods and chemicals in the fabric of science.</dt>
<dt class="label">• We find that adding more node types leads to superlinear improvements in prediction.</dt>
</dl>
</div>
<hr class="artHeader" id="abs_authorabs00101" />
<div class="abstract svAbstract " data-etype="ab">
<h2 class="secHeading" id="authorabs00101">
Abstract</h2>
<div id="spar0010">
Science
is a complex system. Building on Latour's actor network theory, we
model published science as a dynamic hypergraph and explore how this
fabric provides a substrate for future scientific discovery. Using
millions of abstracts from MEDLINE, we show that the network distance
between biomedical things (i.e., people, methods, diseases, chemicals)
is surprisingly small. We then show how science moves from questions
answered in one year to problems investigated in the next through a
weighted random walk model. Our analysis reveals intriguing modal
dispositions in the way biomedical science evolves: methods play a
bridging role and things of one type connect through things of another.
This has the methodological implication that adding more node types to
network models of science and other creative domains will likely lead to
a superlinear increase in prediction and understanding.</div>
</div>
<h2 class="svKeywords" id="kwd_1">
Keywords</h2>
<span id="">Link prediction</span>;<span id=""> Hypergraphs</span>;<span id=""> Random walks</span>;<span id=""> Multi-mode networks</span>;<span id=""> Science studies</span>;<span id=""> Metaknowledge</span><br />
<br />
<span id="">Paper (open access) available at: <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873315000118">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873315000118</a> </span>Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-56817402442086878302016-01-08T05:59:00.001-08:002016-03-03T05:06:51.936-08:00Modelling academic research funding as a resource allocation problem OK this is 5 years old but I have only just come accross it. From 2010 but modified 2014.<br />
<br />
<span class="citation"><span class="creators">
<span class="person_name">Geard, Nicholas</span> and <span class="person_name">Noble, Jason</span></span>
<span class="date"> (2010) </span>
<span class="title">Modelling academic research funding as a resource allocation problem.</span>
In, <span class="event_title"><i> 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation</i></span><i>, <span class="event_location">University of Kassel, Germany</span>, </i>
<i><span class="date_range">06 - 09 Sep 2010.</span></i>
(<span class="ispublished">Submitted</span>). </span><br />
<br />
<span class="citation"><b>Abstract</b>: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Academic
research funding is allocated through a competitive bidding process that
may lead to inefficiency as excessive time is spent on proposal
writing. We develop a simple agent-based model of the process and find
that current systems are indeed likely to be inefficient. Alternative
allocation schemes involving either a cap on individual effort or
appraisal from the centre are indicated as improvements.</blockquote>
<br />
For code and paper see: <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/271374/">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/271374/</a>Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-56099030030803788052015-11-09T09:04:00.000-08:002016-03-03T05:08:34.936-08:00New publications on peer reivewCasnici N., Grimaldo F., Gilbert N. and Squazzoni F. (2015) Attitudes of
referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis, <i>JASIST</i> (<i>Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology</i>), forthcoming<br />
<br />
Bianchi F. and Squazzoni F. (2015) Is Three Better Than One? Simulating
the Effect of Multiple Reviewer Selection on the Quality and Efficiency
of Peer Review, Ylmaz et al. (Eds), <i>Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference</i><br />
<br />
Cowley S. (2015) How peer review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector, <i>Frontiers in Psychology </i><a href="http://peere.us9.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=12d7bd7531d062a25b981d6e9&id=837aa6ce55&e=5bab9d7211" style="color: #6dc6dd; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; word-wrap: break-word;" target="_blank">http://www.peere.org/wp-<wbr></wbr>content/uploads/2015/11/<wbr></wbr>Cowley2015Frontiers.pdf)</a><br />
<br />
Nedić O. and Dekanski A. (2015) A survey on publishing policies of the
Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society – On the occasion of the 80th
volume, <i>The Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society</i>, 959-969, 2015<br />
<br />
Caram L.F., Caiafa C. F., Ausloos,M. and Proto A. N. (2015) Cooperative peer-to-peer multiagent-based systems,<i> Physical Review E</i>, E <b>92</b>, 022805 <a href="http://peere.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=12d7bd7531d062a25b981d6e9&id=6eb5c9e3dd&e=5bab9d7211" style="color: #6dc6dd; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; word-wrap: break-word;" target="_blank">http://journals.aps.org/pre/<wbr></wbr>abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.<wbr></wbr>022805</a><br />
<br />
Huutoniemi K. (2015) Interdisciplinarity as Academic Accountability:
Prospects for Quality Control Across Disciplinary Boundaries, <i>Social Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy</i> (DOI:10.1080/02691728.2015.<br />
<div>
<wbr></wbr>1015061)<i> </i><a href="http://peere.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=12d7bd7531d062a25b981d6e9&id=d2700ec75c&e=5bab9d7211" style="color: #6dc6dd; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; word-wrap: break-word;" target="_blank">http://www.tandfonline.com/<wbr></wbr>doi/full/10.1080/02691728.<wbr></wbr>2015.1015061</a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
As collected by the <a href="http://peere.org/">PEERE COST action</a>. </div>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-21185209827528017782015-11-05T03:33:00.003-08:002015-11-05T03:33:56.521-08:00Paper: Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ WorkThis paper reports the results of a survey of academics about their attitudes and experiences of peer review.<br />
<h3>
<a href="https://draft.blogger.com/null">Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ Work</a></h3>
<h3 class="author">
<span style="font-size: small;">Marijke Breuning<sup>a1</sup>, Jeremy Backstrom<sup>a2</sup>, Jeremy Brannon<sup>a1</sup>, Benjamin Isaak Gross<sup>a1</sup> and Michael Widmeier<sup>a1</sup></span></h3>
<sup name="aff1">a1 </sup>
University of North Texas
<br />
<sup name="aff2">a2 </sup>
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Responses to Terrorism (START)
<br />
<h4 class="section-title">
ABSTRACT</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As
new academic journals have emerged in political science and existing
journals experience increasing submission rates, editors are concerned
that scholars experience “reviewer fatigue.” Editors often assume that
an overload of requests to review makes scholars less willing to perform
the anonymous yet time-consuming tasks associated with reviewing
manuscripts. To date, there has not been a systematic investigation of
the reasons why scholars decline to review. We empirically investigated
the rate at which scholars accept or decline to review, as well as the
reasons they gave for declining. We found that reviewer fatigue is only
one of several reasons why scholars decline to review. The evidence
suggests that scholars are willing to review but that they also lead
busy professional and personal lives.</blockquote>
<br />
The paper is at: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000827">http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000827 </a>Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-63920609950883776922015-11-04T04:40:00.002-08:002015-11-04T04:40:44.236-08:00Paper modelling the impact of possible EU research funding policiesAhrweiler, Petra, Schilperoord, Michel, Pyka, Andreas and Gilbert, Nigel (2015) 'Modelling Research Policy: Ex-Ante Evaluation of Complex Policy Instruments' <i>Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation</i> <b>18</b> (4) 5 <<a href="http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/4/5.html">http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/4/5.html</a>>. doi: 10.18564/jasss.2927<br />
<h3>
Abstract</h3>
<dl><dd>This paper presents the agent-based model INFSO-SKIN, which
provides ex-ante evaluation of possible funding policies in Horizon
2020 for the European Commission’s DG Information Society and Media (DG
INFSO). Informed by a large dataset recording the details of funded
projects, the simulation model is set up to reproduce and assess the
funding strategies, the funded organisations and projects, and the
resulting network structures of the Commission’s Framework 7 (FP7)
programme. To address the evaluative questions of DG INFSO, this model,
extrapolated into the future without any policy changes, is taken as an
evidence-based benchmark for further experiments. Against this baseline
scenario the following example policy changes are tested: (i) What if
there were changes to the thematic scope of the programme? (ii) What if
there were changes to the instruments of funding? (iii) What if there
were changes to the overall amount of programme funding? (iv) What if
there were changes to increase Small and Medium Enterprise (SME)
participation? The results of these simulation experiments reveal some
likely scenarios as policy options for Horizon 2020. The paper thus
demonstrates that realistic modelling with a close data-to-model link
can directly provide policy advice.
</dd></dl>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-20108886714414335082015-09-07T12:50:00.003-07:002015-09-07T12:50:31.741-07:00Session of 3 papers on Simulating the Social Processes of Science @SocSim 2015
<br />
<div class="column">
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 10.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 11.000000pt; font-weight: 700;">
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 16.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><a href="http://www.essa2015.org/">Social Simulation 2015 </a></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 10.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 11.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 16.000000pt; font-weight: 700;">Tuesday September 15</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #280364; font-family: "Verdana";"><span style="color: #280364; font-family: "Verdana";"><span style="color: #280364; font-family: "Verdana";">location: <i>Het Kasteel, Melkweg 1, Groningen</i></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 10.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 11.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 16.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 10.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 11.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 16.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"></span><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 10.000000pt; font-weight: 700;"><span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 11.000000pt; font-weight: 700;">14:00 – 15:30
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 10.000000pt; font-weight: 700;">Simulating the Social Processes of
Science
</span><br />
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 8.000000pt;">116: Flaminio Squazzoni and Federico Bianchi. Is
three better than one? An agent-based model of
the reviewer selection in peer review<br />
121: Matthias Meyer, Iris Lorscheid and Jonas
Hauke. The Recent Development of Social
Simulation as Reflected in JASSS from 2008-2014:
A Citation and Co-Citation Analysis.
</span><br />
<span style="color: rgb(15.686280%, 1.176471%, 39.215690%); font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 8.000000pt;">7: Georg Mueller. Simulating Thomas Kuhn‘s
Scientific Revolutions: The Example of the
Paradigm Change from System Dynamics to Agent
Based Modelling </span><br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-16691164167112858902015-06-24T04:44:00.003-07:002015-06-24T04:44:53.180-07:00New paper by Loet Leydesdorff "Can intellectual processes in the sciences also be simulated? The anticipation and visualization of possible future states"<h1 id="title" itemprop="headline">
Can intellectual processes in the sciences also be
simulated? The anticipation and visualization of possible future states
</h1>
<div class="author-list">
<ul class="authors">
<li class="author" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<a href="http://link.springer.com/search?facet-creator=%22Loet+Leydesdorff%22" itemprop="name">Loet Leydesdorff</a> </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<h2 class="abstract-heading">
Abstract</h2>
<div class="abstract-content formatted" itemprop="description">
<div class="Para" id="Par1">
Socio-cognitive
action reproduces and changes both social and cognitive structures. The
analytical distinction between these dimensions of structure provides
us with richer models of scientific development. In this study, I assume
that (1) social structures organize expectations into belief structures
that can be attributed to individuals and communities; (2) expectations
are specified in scholarly literature; and (3) intellectually the
sciences (disciplines, specialties) tend to self-organize as systems of
rationalized expectations. Whereas social organizations remain
localized, academic writings can circulate, and expectations can be
stabilized and globalized using symbolically generalized codes of
communication. The intellectual restructuring, however, remains latent
as a second-order dynamics that can be accessed by participants only
reflexively. Yet, the emerging “horizons of meaning” provide feedback to
the historically developing organizations by constraining the possible
future states as boundary conditions. I propose to model these possible
future states using incursive and hyper-incursive equations from the
computation of anticipatory systems. Simulations of these equations
enable us to visualize the couplings among the historical—i.e.,
recursive—progression of social structures along trajectories, the
evolutionary—i.e., hyper-incursive—development of systems of
expectations at the regime level, and the incursive instantiations of
expectations in actions, organizations, and texts.</div>
<div class="Para" id="Par1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Para" id="Par1">
In <b><i>Scientometrics</i></b>, online first, open access:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="Para" id="Par1">
<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-015-1630-6">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-015-1630-6</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-79065888825923073362015-04-12T06:52:00.001-07:002015-04-12T06:52:54.512-07:00Submission dealing for special session extended to 27th AprilThe deadline for all Social Simulation submissions, including for those
for the special session on simulating the social processes of science,
have the deadline extended to 27th April.Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4165398918713854800.post-11869914649747577522015-04-09T05:51:00.001-07:002015-04-09T05:51:31.889-07:00Paper: "Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation"A review article in <a href="http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience"><i>Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience</i></a>, describing experiments in a project on opening peer review (see <a href="http://peerevaluation.org/">http://peerevaluation.org/</a>) coming out of the <a href="http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/project/liquidpub"><b><i>LiquidPub</i></b></a> project.<br />
<br />
Aliaksandr Birukou, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, Claudio Bartolin3, Fabio Casati1, Maurizio Marchese, Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Nardine Osman, Azzurra Ragone, Carles Sierra and Aalam Wassef (2011) Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. <i>Front. Comput. Neurosci.</i>, 14 December 2011. doi: <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056/full#h5">10.3389/fncom.2011.00056</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In this paper we review several novel approaches for research
evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its
controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality
of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including
reputation-based ones, that come out of the research carried out by the
LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those
approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review.
We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a
vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no
single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities.</blockquote>
Bruce Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527239324614461479noreply@blogger.com0