Search

How does scientific research affect the world around us? Being able to answer this question is of great importance in order to appropriately channel efforts and resources in science. The impact by scientists in academia is currently measured by citation based metrics such as h-index, i-index and citation counts. These academic metrics aim to represent the dissemination of knowledge among scientists rather than the impact of the research on the wider world. In this work we are interested in measuring scientific impact beyond academia, on the economy, society, health and legislation (comprehensive impact). Indeed scientists are asked to demonstrate evidence of such comprehensive impact by authoring case studies in the context of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). We first investigate the extent to which existing citation based metrics can be indicative of comprehensive impact. We have collected all recent REF impact case studies from 2014 and we have linked these to papers in citation networks that we constructed and derived from CiteSeerX, arXiv and PubMed Central using a number of text processing and information retrieval techniques. We have demonstrated that existing citation-based metrics for impact measurement do not correlate well with REF impact results. We also consider metrics of online attention surrounding scientific works, such as those provided by the Altmetric API. We argue that in order to be able to evaluate wider non-academic impact we need to mine information from a much wider set of resources, including social media posts, press releases, news articles and political debates stemming from academic work. We also provide our data as a free and reusable collection for further analysis, including the PubMed citation network and the correspondence between REF case studies, grant applications and the academic literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We wished to quantify the state-of-the-art of our understanding of clusters in microarray data. To do this we systematically compared the clusters produced on sets of microarray data using a representative set of clustering algorithms (hierarchical, k-means, and a modified version of QTCLUST) with the annotation schemes MIPS, GeneOntology and GenProtEC. We assumed that if a cluster reflected known biology its members would share related ontological annotations. This assumption is the basis of "guilt-by-association" and is commonly used to assign the putative function of proteins. To statistically measure the relationship between cluster and annotation we developed a new predictive discriminatory measure. We found that the clusters found in microarray data do not in general agree with functional annotation classes. Although many statistically significant relationships can be found, the majority of clusters are not related to known biology (as described in annotation ontologies). This implies that use of guilt-by-association is not supported by annotation ontologies. Depending on the estimate of the amount of noise in the data, our results suggest that bioinformatics has only codified a small proportion of the biological knowledge required to understand microarray data. The annotated clusters can be found at http://www.aber.ac.uk/compsci/Research/bio/dss/gba/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]