Search

This paper analyzes the influence key scientists have in the development of a science and technology system. In particular, this work appraises the influence that star scientists have on the productivity and impact of young faculty, as well as on the likelihood that these young researchers become a leading personality in science. Our analysis confirms previous results that eminent scientist have a prime role in the development of a scientific system, especially within the context of an emerging economy like Mexico. In particular, in terms of productivity and visibility, this work shows that between 1984 and 2001 the elite group of physicists in Mexico (approximate 10% of all scientists working in physics and its related fields) published 42% of all publications, received 50% of all citations and bred 18% to 26% of new entrants. In addition our work shows that scientists that enter the system by the hand of a highly productive researcher increased their productivity on average by 28% and the ones that did it by the hand of a highly visible scientist received on average 141% more citations, vis-à-vis scholars that did not published their first manuscripts with an eminent scientist. Furthermore, scholars that enter the system by the hand of a highly productive researcher were on average 2.5 more likely to also become a star.

This paper describes how Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) has evolved over time using a combination of bibliometric, social network, and text analysis. We examined the rate of knowledge production as well as changes in authors, journals, and collaborators, showing a steady growth of ALD research. The study of the collaboration network of ALD scientists over time points out that the ALD research community is becoming larger and more interconnected, with a largest connected component that spans 90% of the authors in 2015. In addition, the evolution of network centrality measures (degree and betweenness centrality) and author productivity revealed the central figures in ALD over time, including new "stars" appearing in the last decade. Finally, the study of the title words in our dataset is consistent with a shift in focus on research topics towards energy applications and nanotechnology.

Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists with superfluous citations. How prevalent are these types of manipulation, why do scholars stoop to such practices, and who among us is most susceptible to such ethical lapses? This study builds a framework around how intense competition for limited journal space and research funding can encourage manipulation and then uses that framework to develop hypotheses about who manipulates and why they do so. We test those hypotheses using data from over 12,000 responses to a series of surveys sent to more than 110,000 scholars from eighteen different disciplines spread across science, engineering, social science, business, and health care. We find widespread misattribution in publications and in research proposals with significant variation by academic rank, discipline, sex, publication history, co-authors, etc. Even though the majority of scholars disapprove of such tactics, many feel pressured to make such additions while others suggest that it is just the way the game is played. The findings suggest that certain changes in the review process might help to stem this ethical decline, but progress could be slow.

Background Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) at the point of care have the potential to increase access and acceptability of EVD testing and the speed of patient isolation and secure burials for suspect cases. A pilot program for EVD RDTs in high risk areas of Guinea was introduced in October 2015. This paper presents concordance data between EVD RDTs and PCR testing in the field as well as an assessment of the acceptability, feasibility, and quality assurance of the RDT program. Methods and findings Concordance data were compiled from laboratory surveillance databases. The operational measures of the laboratory-based EVD RDT program were evaluated at all 34 sentinel sites in Guinea through: (1) a technical questionnaire filled by the lab technicians who performed the RDTs, (2) a checklist filled by the evaluator during the site visits, and (3) direct observation of the lab technicians performing the quality control test. Acceptability of the EVD RDT was good for technicians, patients, and families although many technicians (69.8%) expressed concern for their safety while performing the test. The feasibility of the program was good based on average technician knowledge scores (6.6 out of 8) but basic infrastructure, equipment, and supplies were lacking. There was much room for improvement in quality assurance of the program. Conclusions The implementation of new diagnostics in weak laboratory systems requires general training in quality assurance, biosafety and communication with patients in addition to specific training for the new test. Corresponding capacity building in terms of basic equipment and a long-term commitment to transfer supervision and quality improvement to national public health staff are necessary for successful implementation.

The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences, first formulated in the 19(th) century, predicts that, moving from simple and general phenomena (e.g. particle dynamics) to complex and particular (e.g. human behaviour), researchers lose ability to reach theoretical and methodological consensus. This hypothesis places each field of research along a continuum of complexity and "softness", with profound implications for our understanding of scientific knowledge. Today, however, the idea is still unproven and philosophically overlooked, too often confused with simplistic dichotomies that contrast natural and social sciences, or science and the humanities. Empirical tests of the hypothesis have usually compared few fields and this, combined with other limitations, makes their results contradictory and inconclusive. We verified whether discipline characteristics reflect a hierarchy, a dichotomy or neither, by sampling nearly 29,000 papers published contemporaneously in 12 disciplines and measuring a set of parameters hypothesised to reflect theoretical and methodological consensus. The biological sciences had in most cases intermediate values between the physical and the social, with bio-molecular disciplines appearing harder than zoology, botany or ecology. In multivariable analyses, most of these parameters were independent predictors of the hierarchy, even when mathematics and the humanities were included. These results support a "gradualist" view of scientific knowledge, suggesting that the Hierarchy of the Sciences provides the best rational framework to understand disciplines' diversity. A deeper grasp of the relationship between subject matter's complexity and consensus could have profound implications for how we interpret, publish, popularize and administer scientific research. ispartof: PLoS One vol:8 issue:6 ispartof: location:United States status: published

How do viruses cause cancer? As a naive graduate student in the years before kits and personal computers, I found myself fascinated by viral “immortalization,” the process by which a virus induces a cell to live forever. The immortalizing virus of interest was named Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV) after its co-discoverers and was isolated from tumors commonly found in African children. EBV was also known to be a major cause of infectious mononucleosis, commonly referred to as the “kissing disease,” and a potential agent in chronic fatigue syndromes. For these reasons, I suspect, EBV was slow to get the respect it deserved. We now know that EBV is found in diverse tumors and is responsible for almost ~200,000 cancer cases each year. At the time, my interests were to understand the viral mechanisms that transform a resting mortal cell to replicate uncontrollably. It was also tempting to speculate over a beer whether viral immortalization could reveal fresh insights into human mortality and life span. On more sober occasions, the question of how a virus could cause cancer seemed a big enough challenge. Over the years, my interest in viral immortalization morphed into an investigation of viral gene regulation and latency. How does EBV establish long-term latent infection and express only a few essential viral genes necessary to keep the host cell dividing and alive? To get at these questions, we needed to combine many different methods ranging from functional genomics to structural biology, requiring expertise in diverse disciplines far beyond my capabilities. Building a team of collaborators with the appropriate expertise and identifying the most appropriate technologies is essential. Selecting the right tools and team to answer the bigger questions is not always straightforward, but establishing multi-disciplinary collaborations can open many otherwise closed doors. Among the most important and challenging steps in a research career is identifying a significant long-term research problem. This sounds easy, but it has many snags. Highly ambitious long-term goals, like curing EBV cancers, may not be achievable without more mundane short-term groundwork. And short-term goals, like the need to get the next paper published or grant funded, can sometimes distract from the long-term plan. Working on tangential problems is necessary to overcome obstacles and can lead to new and unanticipated discoveries. But keeping sight of the long-term goal can be a great strength for a research program. If all goes well, the research focus will be aligned with reviewers and funding agencies. Fortunately for EBV research, foundations like Cancer Research UK have recently recognized the eradication of EBV-associated cancers as one of the decade’s grand challenges. So how best to respond to this grand challenge? From my perspective, studying the basic mechanisms of EBV latency is the best path to identify viral-specific targets for therapeutic intervention. At least half of my group is committed to developing small molecules to either inhibit EBV latency or stimulate viral reactivation, two possible strategies to treat latent viruses in cancer cells. Viral reactivation from latency is attractive because it is likely to trigger the host immune system to eliminate EBV-infected cancer cells. Inhibiting latency should lead to the loss of viral DNA from cancer cells that depend on EBV for growth and survival. In principle, inhibitors of EBV latency or activators of viral lytic antigens should be valuable therapies to treat EBV-associated cancer and related disease. Of course these more ambitious projects are risky and require vast sums of funding. The pharmaceutical industry and venture capitalists have no tolerance for financing the early stages of long-term, high-risk projects, so public funding of academic investigators will be the only possible path forward. Although there are many academics who consider translational research a corruption of academic freedom, the urgency of real-world unmet medical needs becomes very apparent if one only takes a look at the economic and human cost of disease. It will be essential for academic investigators to fulfill these obligations to society. Ironically, an editorial opposing the funding of basic academic research was recently written by Matt Ridley in The Wall Street Journal arguing that public sponsorship of basic research blocks private investment and derails innovation. In fact, the only chance for innovative solutions to long-term challenges will be through public funding of basic academic research. Encouraging scientists to focus on unmet medical needs as well as conceptual advances in basic science should be a high priority for public and private investment in a healthy future. Image 1 Paul M. Lieberman, Hilary Koprowski Professor, The Wistar Institute.