>> SO GOOD MORNING. I'M KEITH COGDILL THE DIRECTOR AT THE NIH LIBRARY AND IT IS MY HONOR TO WELCOME YOU TO THIS SYMPOSIUM ON BIBLIOMETRICS AND RESEARCH. SOME OF OUR ATTENDEES AND SPEAKERS HAVE COME FROM FROM VERY FAR AWAY. THIS SYMPOSIUM EMERGES FROM THE NIH LIBRARY BIBLIOMETRICSES SERVICE WHEN WE WERE JOINED AND SINCE THEN THEY COMPLETED OVER 675 BIBLIOMETRICS ANALYSES FOR OUR CUSTOMERS IN NIH AND MORE THAN 1200 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS ALONE. I SHOULD MENTION OVER THE PAST YEAR THEY TRAINED AN ASSOCIATE FELLOW FROM THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, CANDACE NORTON. SUCH AS THEY DEVOTED TIME AND ATTENTION TO MENTORING THEY'RE DEDICATED TO SHARING THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES AROUND THE WORLD AND THAT'S WHAT IS MOST CLEARLY EVIDENT AS WE BEGIN OUR 2018 BIBLIOMETRICS SYMPOSIUM. I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THIS IS NOW OUR SECOND BIBLIOMETRICS SYMPOSIUM. THE PREVIOUS ONE BEING HELD TWO YEARS AGO. I THINK SOME OF US WERE HERE TWO YEARS AGO SO IF YOU WERE HERE THEN, WELCOME BACK. I WANT TO THANK OUR SPONSORS AND PARTNERS WHO HAVE HELPED MAKE TODAY POSSIBLE IT'S A PLEASURE TO COLLABORATE ESPECIALLY WITH THE MARYLAND CHAPTER OF THE SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION. FNALLY, I HAVE TO RECOGNIZE CHRIS AND YALING FOR ALL THE WORK THEY DID IN PREPARING FOR THIS EVENT. SO CHRIS AND YA-LING AND CANDACE NORTON. WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND. [APPLAUSE] THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER COLLEAGUES FROM THE NIN LIBRARY HELPING THINGS GO SMOOTHLY MANY IN THE BACK OF THE REGISTRATION TABLE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTION THE DAY OR NIH, ASK ANY OF US AND AT THIS POINT I'LL STEP ASIDE AND INVITE CHRIS TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR COMING. I'M CHRIS BELTER I HELP RUN THE PERHAP WITH YA INFORM -- YA-LING BUT. I WANT TO ECHO KEITH'S THANKS AND EVERYONE FOR PULLING TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR SPONSORS, DIGITAL SCIENCE FOR HELPING MAKE THIS EVENT POSSIBLE. WE DO APPRECIATE IT. FEEL FREE TO STOP BY THEIR TABLES AND TALK TO THEM A LITTLE BIT. WE HAVE INDUSTRY THEATRE PRESENTATIONS THIS AFTERNOON. PLEASE MAKE IT A POINT TO SEE THEM. THAT WILL BE HAPPENING ACROSS THE HALLWAY IN ROOMS E-1 AND E-2. COINCIDENTALLY THAT'S WHERE LUNCH WILL HAPPEN. THE WAY THAT WILL WORK IS THOSE OF YOU WITH A STICKER ON THE BACK OF YOUR NAME BADGE, IF YOU HAVE ONE IT MEANS YOU RESPONDED TO THE LUNCH SURVEY THAT WENT OUT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO SO YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START PICKING UP YOUR LUNCHES AT NOON AGAIN AT ROOM E-1 AND E-2. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A STICKER, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. IT JUST MEANS YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT TO GET IN LINE AND YOU CAN START GETTING YOUR LUNCHES AT 12:10. THAT WILL HAPPEN ACROSS THE HALLWAY THERE'S A BUILDING MAP IN THE PROGRAM SO ALL OF THE ROOMS ARE VERY CLEARLY MARKED. GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THAT FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THERE IS FREE WI-FI THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING IT'S THE NIH GUEST NETWORK. GO AHEAD AND JOIN THAT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, ASK US. WE'LL HAVE FOLKS AT THE REGISTRATION TABLE SO IF HAVE YOU ANY QUESTIONS ASK THERE. WITHOUT FURTHER ADO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE DWAYNE WILLIAMS FROM DIGITAL SILENCE TO INTRODUCE THIS MORNING'S KEYNOTE. >> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE BIBLIOMETRICS AND RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM. I'M FROM DIGITAL SCIENCE. I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT. A CORE PART OF OUR MISSION AT DIGITAL SCIENCE IT TO PROVIDE THE DATA TOOLS AND ANALYTICALS THAT BROUGHT US TO THIS CONFERENCE. IT'S MY PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE DR. IS A -- DR. SASHA MILOVISC AT INDIANA BLOOMINGTON WHERE ONE HER PRIMARY RESEARCH AREAS IS THE SCIENCES OF SCIENCE. THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCE IS THE TITLE OF HER TALK AND PAPER RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE WHICH WAS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT SUPPORT NIH AND NSF FUNDING WHICH WERE ALL ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE GRANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SEGMENT. TODAY IT WILL SERVE AS A TERRIFIC SPRINGBOARD FOR THIS SYMPOSIUM AND WILL PRESENT STATISTICS AND THEMES FOR THE SYMPOSIUM THAT WILL BE GREAT CONTEXT FOR THE DISCUSSION THE REMAINDER OF THE DAYS. JOIN ME IN WELCOMING HER TO THE STAGE. >> THANK YOU, DWAYNE FOR THE NICE INTRODUCTION. THANKS TO THE ORGANIZERS AND ALL OF YOU COMING HERE TODAY. IT'S A GREAT PLEASURE TO BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH ALL OF YOU SOME OF THE MORE RESEARCH OR NOT SO RECENT RESEARCH I DID IN THIS AREA OF SCIENCE OF SCIENCE. SOME MAY BE THINKING WHAT IS SCIENCE OF SCIENCE. IT'S ABOUT BIBLIOMETRICS AND SOME WILL SAY DO WE WANT TO REINVENT THE TERMS AND SCIENCE OF SCIENCE WAS THE ORIGINAL TERM FOR THE METRICS IS WHAT THEY CALLED IT BACK IN THE 1960s. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE OF SCIENCE AND THE METRICS IS THAT THE WAY IT'S DONE TODAY FOCUSES MOSTLY ON INDICATORS WHICH IS GOOD. SCIENCE OF SCIENCE IS FOCUSSING MORE ON TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES DRIVING SCIENCE AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. I SEE THESE TWO AS YOU NEED UNDERSTANDING BEFORE YOU CAN MEASURE SOMETHING. YOU NEED TO MEASURE SOMETHING TO IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT. I SEE THEM AS THE SAME THING BUT I DECIDED TO USE THE TERM BECAUSE WHAT I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON MOSTLY TODAY IS THE LARGER CONTEXT WHAT IT IS WE ARE TRYING TO MEASURE AND HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE USING THE SAME THINGS THAT YOU USE TO MEASURE IT WHICH IS DOCUMENT AND SIMILAR METHODS WHICH IS QUANT QUANTIFYING METHOD. AND DOCUMENTS IS SOMETHING YOU'LL USE TO MEASURE STUFF AND THIS IS NOTHING PROBLEMATIC. FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IT IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THE IDEA IS WELL, SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS DO NOT CAPTURE EVERYTHING ABOUT SCIENCE. THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING NOT MAKING ITS WAY TO THE DOCUMENTS ITSELF. AND WHILE THAT IS DEFINITELY TRUE I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULDN'T -- THIS CAN ACTUALLY FOR SOME OF YOU ENCOUNTER THIS SAY SOMETHING'S MISSING YOU CAN SAY WELL, YOU'RE MISSING CERTAIN THINGS BUT ACTUALLY WE ARE CAPTURING A LOT OF THINGS IN DOCUMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, TODAY YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH TO BE CONSIDERED AND WE CAN DEM DISSEMINATE IN CONFERENCES AND WRITE BOOKS AND YOU CAN HAVE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS BUT PRIMARILY WE'RE STILL DISSEMINATING BY JOURNAL ARTICLES AND SOME OTHER DOCUMENTS. THERE ARE INTERESTING DOCUMENTS THE SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THEY NOT ONLY SERVE TO DISSEMINATE YOUR FINDINGS OR ESTABLISH PRIORITY, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR WHAT YOU DID BUT ALSO THE WAY WE NEED TO WRITE THEM THEY ALSO NEED TO PERSUADE YOU TO READ THEM FIRST. THIS WILL COME MORE OBVIOUS. THERE'S SO MUCH STUFF TODAY THAT WE ARE MORE SELECTIVE IN WHAT WE READ AND THE GOAL AS A WRITER IS TO PERSUADE SOMEBODY TO READ YOU. BEFORE THAT YOU HAVE TO PERSUADE PUBLISHERS. YOU NEED TO SEND IT TO THE REVIEWER AND SEND REVIEWERS TO PUBLISH IT AND PERSUADE READERS TO READ IT AND THEN PERSUADE READERS TO USE IT, RIGHT? THIS IS A VERY LONG CHAIN OF APPRECIATION AND THE LANGUAGE YOU USE BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT OFTEN USED IN THE BIBLIOMETRICS MEANING THE MESSAGE FROM THE ARTICLES IS NOT SOMETHING WE OFTEN USE IN INDICATORS. WE USE CITATIONS WHERE WE USE REFERENCES AS CONCEPT SYMBOLS, WE USE THEM AS PLACE HOLDERS FOR WHAT IT IS WE ARE TRYING TO SAY BUT I'M GOING TO TRY AND PERSUADE YOU IN THE FIRST PART OF THE ARTICLE THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD USE LANGUAGE MORE BECAUSE THE WAY WE USE LANGUAGE WHEN WE WRITE IS REALLY NOT INDIVIDUAL DECISION BUT COLLECTIVE. THE TRAINING REALLY IS ORDERED AND ORDERED BY A DISCIPLINE OR FIELD. HAVING THAT IN MIND PEOPLE STILL ARG THAT THE LANGUAGE WE USE IS SYNCRATIC AND FUN AND PLAYFUL AND THEREFORE YOU DON'T HAVE INFORMATION. WELL, THE RESEARCH HAS FOUND THE TITLES THOUGH THEY WERE MORE PLAYFUL BEFORE ARE MORE TOWARDS BEING MORE INFORMATIVE AND THEY CONTAIN A LARGER NUMBER OF WORDS. HOW MANY OF YOU -- THE MORE YOU READ TITLES NOW IT'S ALMOST IN ABSTRACT YOU WOULD LIST THE FINDINGS. I SAW MORE AND MORE PEOPLE WOULD PUT THEIR FINDINGS IN THE TITLE. SO TITLES -- IT'S ALMOST LIKE A NANO PUBLICATION. WE HAVE THE TIME SPAN OR ATTENTION SPAN OF LIKE A TITLE LENGTH. WE ARE TRYING THEN TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING IN A TITLE. THAT'S AN ATTENTION GRABBER BECAUSE I MAY LOOK AT SOMETHING BUT DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK OVER IT SO I WANT SOME INFORMATION IN THE TITLE TO TRIGGER ME READING FURTHER. SOMETIMES I DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ FURTHER. IF I KNOW IT'S THE FINDING I NEED I MAY USE IT LATER ON. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND. THE TITLES ARE ALSO BEING USED DIFFERENTLY WHERE WE ARE REALLY LIKE DROWNING IN PUBLICATIONS BUT ALSO OTHER COMMUNICATION THAT WE'RE USING IS GETTING SHORTER. PEOPLE ARE GETTING USED TO MUCH SHORTER ATTENTION SPAN PIECES. HAVING SAID THAT, TITLES HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST BUT AGAIN THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THE RESISTANCE OF WHY IT'S USEFUL. HERE ARE SOME TYPES OF ANALYSIS THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED SO FAR ON TITLES. AND SOME TYPES OF REPRESENTATIONS AND VISUALIZATIONS BUT FOR EXAMPLE FOR THE ANALYSIS YOU CAN USE THE RELATIVE TERM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS. SO YOU CAN SEE, HOW OFTEN DOES THIS WORD OCCUR ANYWHERE? YOU CAN FOLLOW THAT THROUGH TIME OR FOLLOW THAT ACROSS FIELDS. YOU CAN ALSO DO COVERT ANALYSIS. YOU CAN SAY OKAY, I SEE THE TOPIC BUT I WANT DO SEE THE CONTEXT BUT WHAT IS USED FOR THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE AND YOU CAN GET THE COVERT ANALYSIS BECAUSE OTHER WORDS IT CAN PROVIDE THE CONTEXT FOR WHAT THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY MEAN. YOU CAN DO MUSIC SIMILARITY AND ALL THE ANALYSIS ARE MORE TRADITIONAL STATISTICS INFORMATION. YOU CAN DO A LOT OF TOPIC MODELLING. I DIDN'T LIST TOPIC MODELS HERE BUT TOPIC MODELLING IS A GOOD WAY FOR IDENTIFYING COMMUNITIES FOR EXAMPLE. SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN COMMUNITYING ACTION COMMUNITYING -- COMMUNICATING AND TOPIC MODELLING WOULD BE SOMETHING TO GO FOR. I PERSONALLY HAVEN'T BEEN A HUGE FAN AND FOR ME -- I AM TRYING TO GET PAST THAT BUT THERE WERE TOO MANY PARAMETERS FOR ME AND I GOT THE RESULTS AND I THOUGHT WHY IS 20 HERE AND IT'S LIKE AGAIN, THESE WERE THE PRIMARY RESULTS. I THOUGHT OKAY, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO INTERPRET THAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE MEAN OF ALL THE PARAMETERS. IN GENERAL IT'S GETTING BETTER AND I THINK WE ARE CLEAR ON WHAT'S HAPPENING AND THE TOPIC MODELLING WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU COULD USE IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND COMMUNITIES. YOU CAN VISUALIZE THIS IN DIFFERENT WAYS. YOU CAN USE HEAT MAPS AND MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SCALING AND THERE'S A NICE MAP AS WELL AS AND OTHER WAYS TO VISUALIZE THIS. I'M NOW GOING TO SHARE SOME OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDIES THEY DID OVER THE YEARS THAT WERE ALL BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF TITLES TO JUST CONVINCE YOU IF YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED YET OF THE POWER OF USING WORDS FOR DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF SCIENCE. THIS IS FROM 2012 AND MY EARLIER WORK WAS -- I'M NOW TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FIELDS AND THE INTERDISCIPLINARY AND HOW DOES NEW SCIENCE DEVELOP. HOW DO NEW FIELDS EMERGE? LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE? YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO AUTHORS AND I DID A LOT OF COLLABORATION ANALYSIS BUT THAT WAS IN THE COGNITIVE STRUCTURE AND HOW DID THIS FIELD DEVELOP AND IF YOU ANALYZE THE WORDS FROM THE TITLE WHAT YOU GET IS VERY INTERESTING. YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS THIS BIG SHIFT IN HOW LANGUAGE WAS USED PRIOR TO '91 AND AFTER '91. IF YOU LOOK AT THE OFFICIAL AGAIN THE DAY ANALYSIS STARTED IT'S KIND OF DIFFERENT BUT '91 IS USUALLY GIVEN AS A DATE WHEN IT WAS MORE ESTABLISHED. THERE WERE MORE PROGRAMS. THERE WAS THE FIRST JOURNAL THAT OCCURRED THEN AND THERE WAS THIS BIG CALL FOR FUNDING SO '91 WAS A PIVOTAL YEAR AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING AS ADULT LANGUAGE USAGE SHIFTED IN THAT YEAR. SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE SHIFT THAT OCCURS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIELDS YOU CAN TRACE THEM BY LOOKING AT TITLES. YOU CAN GO MORE FINE GRAIN. AGAIN, THIS WAS MORE FOR THE WHOLE FIELD BUT SOME MAY BE INTERESTED IN OKAY, IF I HAVE A CONCEPT, HOW DID THAT CONCEPT DIFFUSE? AGAIN, YOU CAN LOOK AT HOW IT DIFFUSED OVER TIME AND HOW DID IT DIFFUSE OVER SCIENCE IN GENERAL. AND HERE I'M SHOWING YOU FOUR TERMS AND TWO TERMS ARE ACTUALLY FOR THE INSTRUMENTS THAT MADE TECHNICAL POSSIBLE. THESE ARE TWO MICRO SCOPES WHERE NANO TECHNOLOGY COULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE AND WHAT'S REALLY INTERESTING, WHEN YOU FOLLOW THE USAGE OF THE TERMS OVER TIME AND SUBFIELDS OF SCIENCE YOU SEE ALL OF THEM ACTUALLY STARTED DEEP IN DISCIPLINE. SO THEY DID ORIGINATE WITHIN A SINGLE DISCIPLINE. THAT'S WHERE THEY SHOW UP BUT IT TOOK FOR ALL FOUR OF THESE AND TOOK 10 YEARS TO SPREAD OVER THE SUBFIELDS I LOOKED AT AND THAT IS ALSO INTERESTING IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE INFORMATIONAL FIELD FOR EXAMPLE. THIS CAN TELL YOU, OKAY, IS NANO SCIENCE AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE EARLY ON, NOT ANYMORE, THAT NANO SCIENCE DOES NOT EXIST. PEOPLE ARE DOING WHATEVER THEY DID, CHEMISTRY OF PHYSICS AND BECAUSE THERE WAS FUNDING THEY CALLED THEMSELVES NANO SCIENTIST TO GET FUNDING AND DO WHAT THEY WERE DOING BEFORE. WELL, IF THAT IS IS THE CASE, THEY WOULDN'T REALLY BE USING SIMIL SIMILAR TERMINOLOGY OR TECHNIQUES OR TOOLS OVER. THEY MAY STILL HAVE SAME APPROACHES FOR THIS BUT THIS CAN BE SOME SORT OF INDICATOR OF MAYBE THE FIELD COALESCING MORE AND I'M NOT SAYING IT BECAME COMPLETELY UNIFIED BUT MORE OF A DISCIPLINARY FIELD AND WE KNOW WHETHER THE KNOWLEDGE GOT COMBINED BUT THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN FOLLOW. IN BIBLIOMETRICSES AND -- BIBLIOMETRICS AND THERE'S STILL A DISCUSSION OF TOOLS AND THE TOOLS THEY HAVE MEANING THE DATABASES THEY HAVE ARE GETTING BETTER IN TERMS OF THE COVERAGE. SO DO YOU HAVE MORE AND OTHER SOURCES BUT NOT COMPLETE. BUT EVEN WHEN HAVE YOU OTHER SOURCES YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS BETWEEN GENRES AND HOW DIFFERENT GENRES ARE USED AND WHAT ROLE THIEY PLAY. THIS SAY SMALL CASE STUDY WHERE I WAS INTERESTED IN FIELD OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES OR SCIENCE STUDIES BROADLY. SO I WAS INTERESTED IN BBLIOMETRICS AND SDS AND THE IDEA WAS IF YOU READ IN SCIENCE STUDIES AND THERE'S FIVE HANDBOOKS FROM '77 TO 2008, AND WHEN YOU READ THE INTRODUCTION TO ALL THE HANDBOOKS THE GOAL IS TO FORM THE FIELD TO SET THE TONE FOR WHAT THE FIELD WOULD DO. THEY HAVE CLAIMED THAT IN THE INTRODUCTION. AND THAT'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD THING TO TRANSLATE AND I AND ANALYZED THE TEXT AND FOLLOWED THE TERMINOLOGY IN JOURNAL ARTICLES TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DIFFERENCE AND YOU CAN IMAGINE SEEING TWO THINGS. HANDBOOK CLOSES THE TOPIC. MEANING IT'S THE SUMMARY OF WHAT'S DONE AND MAYBE OR OPENING UP NEW VENUES AND YOU CAN SEE A SPIKE. LIKE THIS IS VERY PROMISING WE NEED TO STUDY THIS MORE. AND THE DOTS ARE WHEN THE HANDBOOK PUBLISH. THERE'S NO CORRELATION. THERE'S NO SPIKE OR DROP IN INTEREST. IT'S NOT AFFECTING WHAT PEOPLE ARE PUBLISHING IN JOURNAL LITERATURE AND NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN JOURNAL ALL RIGHT GETS TRANSLATED -- JOURNAL GETS TRANSLATED AND IN GENERAL ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO EVALUATE IN CERTAIN FIELDS WE NEED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ON THE ROLE THAT DIFFERENT GENRES PLAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE. AND I KNOW FOR BIBLIOMETRICS WE DON'T NEED THE PLACE BUT IN OTHER FIELDS WE NEED A BETTER UNDERSTAND. A PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TITLES THEY CAN BE INFORMATIVE BUT THEY CAN BE AT THE LEVEL OF SINGLE RESEARCHER. THIS IS AT THE END OF WHEN IT WAS OVER. SOME PUBLISHED A LOT. IN HIS CAREER THIS IS JOHN McCARTHY ONE OF THE PIONEERS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WHO HAS HAD A LONG AND SUCCESSFUL CAREER AND IF YOU LOOK AT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE A LOT OF IT IS PUBLISH END PROCEEDINGS. I DID NOT USE THOSE I ONLY USED JOURNAL ARTICLES AND I GOT HIS WHOLE INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTE USES AND WHEN YOU READ ABOUT JOHN McCARTHY THEY LIST THESE FIVE AREAS AS HIS MAJOR CONTRIBUTION. IT'S VERY INTERESTING. I DID NOT EXPECT IT TO MAP THAT WELL BUT AGAIN THIS MAY BE USEFUL FOR A SEASONED RESEARCHER AND I CAN SEE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ASSESS WHETHER SOMEBODY WOULD BE A GOOD FIT FOR SOMETHING OR THE ANALYSIS YOU CAN SEE WHAT TYPES OF EXPERTISE, FOR EXAMPLE, AN INDIVIDUAL HAD. WHAT TYPES OF AREAS THEY WORK IN AND NOT JUST THE TITLE AREA BUT IT CAN GIVE YOU MORE BECAUSE IT CAN GIVE YOU MAYBE WHAT AN APPROACH IS AND IF I DID ANOTHER I CAN GET A DIFFERENT VIEW. AND THERE IS A LEVEL HERE TELLING ANYONE -- WE USE A LOT OF COLLABORATION OR COLLABORATIVE INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND WHO THE COLLABORATORS ARE AND I'M GUILTY OF THAT TOO. I DID THAT A LOT AS WELL. BUT DURING THE ANALYSIS ON ROBOTICS I GOT TO THE PART OF THE PROJECT CALLED NARRATIVES AND METRICS WE INTERVIEWED AND WE LOOKED AT LOOKED AT THE INTERVIEWS AND THE NETWORK PART. THE METRIC ANALYSIS AND TRIED TO COMPARE THEM. AND JOHN McCARTHY WAS INTERESTING THERE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT HIS COLLABORATORS HE'S MADE FROM THE CONTRIBUTOR AND HIS MAJOR COLLABORATOR WAS MARVIN MINSKI IN HOW MANY THINGS THEY CO-AUTHORED AND HOW LONG THEY KEPT PUBLISHING TOGETHER. IT'S NOT IN ONE YEAR THEY DID FIVE PAPERS OR OVER A LONG PERIOD. THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED. JOHN McCARTHY WAS ASKED HOW WAS IT COLLABORATING WITH MARVIN MINSKI AND HE SAID WE NEVER COLLABORATED. WE WORKED TOGETHER BUT WE NEVER COLLABORATED. I THINK WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT -- BECAUSE THEY HAD A VERY DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WAS. THEY MAY NOT HAVE WRITTEN WHAT HE CONSIDERED A SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION BUT THEY BOTH WANTED TO GATHER ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THEY ASKED FOR LOTS OF FUNDING TO HAVE LOTS OF EVENTS TOGETHER. I THINK THEY WERE DOING A LOT OF WHAT WAS DISCIPLINE BUILDING AND POSITION PIECES, HEY, WE NEED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IT'S INTERESTING WHAT YOU GET FROM COLLABORATION AND WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE IT IS AND WE GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT PEOPLE EVEN MEAN AS COLLABORATION. EVEN DISCIPLINE BUILDING IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. HE HAD A VERY DIFFERENT MENTAL MODEL WHATEVER A COLLABORATOR IS WHICH DID NOT ACTUALLY UNPACK IT AT THAT TIME. NOW I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A VERY SIMPLE INDICATOR THAT AND IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN USE TO MEASURE SCIENCE AGAIN BASED ON TITLES. ABSTRACTS ARE AVAILABLE BUT INCOMPLETE BUT MOST THE PAPER HAVE TITLES. EVEN VERY OLD ONES. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN LONG TIME PERIODS AND YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S AVAILABLE, WELL, TITLES IS PRETTY MUCH YOUR ONLY CHOICE AT THIS POINT. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A LOT OF THAT. AND ANY INDIVIDUAL ARTICLE DOESN'T CAPTURE EVERYTHING IF YOU TAPE THEM TOGETHER YOU DO HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION. THE IDEA IS THEN TO TRY TO GET CONCEPT. I KNOW WE CAN GO INTO WHAT CONCEPT MEANS AND HERE IT MEANS YOU IDENTIFY PHRASES AND IT CAN BE A SINGLE WORD PHRASE AND UP TO THREE WORD PHRASES. YOU'D BE SURPRISED BUT TODAY, IN THE TITLES YOU CAN GET UP TO EIGHT WORD PHRASES. MEANING YOU HAVE A SINGLE NOUN AND LIKE SEVEN OTHER WORDS ATTACHED TO THE ONE NOUN. YOU CAN INTERPRET WHAT IT MEANS FOR SCIENCE BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY I FOCUSSED ON THE LAST THREE WORDS BECAUSE IT WAS THE NOUN AND TWO OTHERS WHEN I SFRAZ -- WHEN I HAVE A PHRASE NOT A CONCEPT I LOOKED AT THE WORD PHRASES AND IF HAVE YOU A LOT OF YOU HAVE A LOT OF THINGS WHERE THEY MAY NOT BE DIFFERENT AND THE IDEA IS CAN WE THEN COUNT THE NUMBER OF UNIQUE PHRASES AND YOU HAVE TO BE AND ONE IS WE STARTED PUBLISHING MORE. AND IF I HAVE WORDS I'M LIKELY TO HAVE SOME WORDS I HAVE A CONTROL FOR THAT. I TOLD YOU THE TITLES ARE GETTING LONGER. THE TITLE TITLES MEAN MORE WORDS WHICH MEANS I HAVE SIMPLY A HIGHER CHANCE SO WHAT I HAD TO HAVE A QUOTA SO IT WAS 3,000 ARTICLES WHICH WAS 10,000 WORDS AND INITIALLY I WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE WORDS AND THEN MULTIPLE QUOTAS AND IT WAS INTERESTING THOUGH I WAS TAKING THINGS RANDOMLY YOU CAN SEE HOW WELL THEY FIT TOGETHER. THE IDEA HERE IS TO MEASURE THE TERRITORY IF YOU THINK OF A FIELD AS A TERRITORY IT COVERS LOTS OF TOPICS OR CAN COVER A VERY NARROW SET OF TOPICS. THERE WAS AN INTERESTING BOOK FROM THE 1990s CALLED ACADEMIC TRIBES AND TERRITORIES AND THE IDEA WAS YOU CAN THINK OF SCIENCE OF TERRITORIES LIKE LARGE CITIES OR VILLAGES AND WHAT HAPPENS IS SOCIAL SCIENCE CITIES WHERE VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN THE CITIES. THE IDEA IS YOU HAVE A FEW PEOPLE OR A LARGE NUMBER OF TOPICS THEY NEVER DROP AND SOME OF THE INTERPRETATION IS THAT'S WHY SOCIAL SCIENCE IS NOT ADVANCE AGENCIES QUICKLY AS NATIONAL SCIENCES WHERE THEY COALESCE ON A FEW TOPICS AND WORK TOGETHER AND KIND OF RESULT IN THE WAY THEY AGREE AND THEN THEY MOVE ON AND HERE THEY'LL MOVE ON. THEY MOVE FROM ONE TO ANOTHER THE IDEA IS CAN WE CAPTURE HOW MUCH TERRITORY THESE FIELDS COVER. YOU IDENTIFIED GENERAL WORDS AND ASSOCIATION AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN IS A SINGLE PHRASE AND IT'S INTERESTING IF YOU HAVE MASS ENERGY AND MASS ENERGY [INDISCERNIBLE] YOU CAN STILL HAVE ALL THREE PHRASES TOGETHER BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE STILL WRITING ABOUT MASS AND PEOPLE WHO STILL WRITE ABOUT ENERGY BUT IN RELATIVE THEORY THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WRITE ABOUT MASS ENERGY EQUIVALENCE SO YOU WOULD CAPTURE ALL THREE IN THIS METHOD. WHEN YOU DO THIS METHOD, THIS IS WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE FIELDS. ASTRONOMY, PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICINE LOOKS LIKE AND YOU WOULD SAY IT LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE NORMALLY THINK IN TERMS OF THE GROSS IS MORE LINEAR. IT'S MORE STEADY. I TOLD YOU I WAS RANDOMLY TAKING ARTICLES BUT THE SPREAD IS TINY. THAT MEANS IF YOU GIVE ME A BATCH OF 10,000 WORDS I CAN TELL YOU WHAT PERIOD. I CAN TELL YOU WHETHER IT'S FROM THE '50s OR 2000s BASED ON HOW LARGE OF A TERRITORY IT COVERS. IF YOU LOOK AT PHYSICS, THERE IS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT FROM OUR NORMAL VIEWS OF HOW PHYSICS DEVELOP. FOR THOSE WHO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF PUBLICATION, PHYSICS HAS A HUGE DROP IN THE WORLD WAR II YEARS. THERE WAS A PUBLICATION SPIKE AND HERE THERE IS NOT REALLY A DROP IN THE WAR YEARS. HOW YOU INTERPRET THAT IS WHILE FEAR PHYSICISTS PUBLISHED THEY STILL COVERED ALL AREAS. IT'S NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T MAINTAIN THE HOLDING SO IT HIT CAN GIVE YOU -- SO THIS CAN GIVE YOU A RICHER PICTURE OF WHAT'S IS HAPPENING IN SCIENCE. SO THIS IS HOW ASTRONOMY GROWTH WOULD LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PUBLICATION AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONCEPT GROWTH. AGAIN, IT'S DIFFERENT. THIS IS VERY INTERESTING. IN 1960 THERE WAS ONE PAPER PER DAY IN ASTRONOMY AND NOW WE GET 80. IF WE GO TO ARCHIVE I THINK WE'RE AT 80 PAPERS A DAY IN ASTRONOMY. AGAIN, WE HAVE IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT WE KEEP SAYING SCIENCE KEEPS GROWING EXPONENTIALLY AND IF THAT'S TRUE, WHAT WILL TEXTBOOKS LOOK LIKE, WILL PEOPLE STAY IN SCHOOL MORE AND WHAT IS IN THE PAPERS? I THINK AGAIN THIS MAY NOT GIVE YOU ALL THE ANSWERS BUT IT'S A MEASURE THAT RAISES A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS. THIS IS THE PRODUCTION OF LITERATURE AND THE DOUBLING TIME IS NOW 13 YEARS. NOW YOU CAN SEE IT GROWS LINEAR. YES, WE ARE COVERING MORE TOPICS AND ADVANCING THE SCIENCE BUT IT'S NOT A REALLY SCARY EXPONENTIAL RATE. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS WORTH EXPLORING. YOU CAN USE THE SAME MEASURE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTRIBUTION DIFFERENT COUNTRIES MAKE AND WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS. WE'RE ALL WELL, I'M DOING WELL COMPARED TO OTHERS AND MOST THE TIME WE'RE FOCUSSED ON PRODUCTIVITY AND ARE WE GETTING MORE CITATIONS AND LET'S SEE HOW WE'RE DOING IN TERMS OF THE EXTENT. ARE WE PUBLISHING IN A LOT AREAS OR SPECIAL IVESING -- SPECIALIZING AND U.S. IS NUMBER FOUR SO IT'S COVERING THE MAJORITY OF TOPICS AND CHINA WHICH IS GETTING HIGH ON THE PRODUCTION SIDE OF THINGS IS ONLY 15 WHEN IT COMES TO THE COGNITIVE EXTENT. IT SEEMS THE CHINESE HAVE MORE OF A STRATEGY WHERE THEY'RE NOT PUBLISHING IN ALL THE SUBAREAS. THEY MAY BE FOCUSSING ON CERTAIN SUBFIELDS AND ONE CAN LOOK IN MORE DETAIL IN WHAT SUBFIELDS THEY PUBLISH MORE BUT THIS IS TELLING US AND THEIR STRATEGY IS TO COVER FEWER TOPICS AND YOU CAN PUT THAT IN A MAP AND SHOWING THE PRODUCTIVITY AND IT'S SIMILAR TO THE FEWER NUMBER OF PAPERS BUT IT GIVES A DIFFERENT PICTURE. THIS IS THE PRODUCTIVITY ON THE BAR CHART AND THE COGNITIVE EXTENT. IT'S INTERESTING THAT JAPAN IS ONLY FOURTH IN PRODUCTIVITY AND IT PRODUCES FEWER PAPERS THAN USA BUT COVERING MORE TOPICS. AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE THESE TWO PIECES IT'S A QUESTION, IT'S PROBABLY THE U.S. HAS MORE PEOPLE WORKING ON THE TOPICS AND IT STILL HAS THE HIGHEST IN TERMS OF CITATIONS SO MAYBE THEY CAN HAVE MORE BREAKTHROUGHS BECAUSE THEY CAN HAVE MORE PEOPLE BUT I DO THINK LIKE THE MORE PIECES YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT YOU CAN MAYBE GET A BETTER PICTURE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN ONE COUNTRY WHEN IT COMES TO KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION. THEN THERE IS COLLABORATION THEY MENTIONED MORE IN THAT ANECDOTE. AND AGAIN WE HAVE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IN THE NUMBER OF PUBLICATION AND WE ALL KNOW SCIENCE IS BECOMING MORE COLLABORATIVE. THERE WAS A SINGLE AUTHOR THAT WAS THE DOMINANT FORM. TODAY IT'S ALMOST DISAPPEARED. IN THE 2000s THERE ARE ALMOST NO SINGLE AUTHORS ANYMORE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION AND IF YOU COMBINE THAT COGNITIVE EXTENT MEASURE I MENTIONED AND THE NUMBER OF CAROLINA -- COLLABORATORS AND WHO IS WORKING ON NEW CONCEPTS AND YOU GET SOMETHING INTERESTING IN PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY, SINGLE AUTHORS AND UP TO THREE AUTHOR THEMES ARE COVERING THE BRIGHTEST VARIETY OF TOPICS. VERY LARGE THEMES WORKING ON A SMALL SUBSET OF TOPICS. THIS CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR FUNDING BECAUSE IF YOU FUND ONLY LARGE THINGS YOU ARE REALLY SHRINKING WHAT IT IS YOU ARE ADVANCING IN TERMS OF SCIENCE. ALSO, OTHER STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT LARGE THEMES DON'T INTRODUCE. THEY ONLY WORK ON THE TOPICS THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS COVERING SO THEY'RE NOT WORKING ON SOMETHING NOBODY ELSE IS WORKING ON. AND THEY'RE USUALLY PICKING WELL DEVELOPED TOPICS TO RESOLVE AND NOT INTRODUCING NEW ONES WHICH HAS VERY IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING. IF THE NEW IDEAS ARE COMING FROM SMALL THEMES BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO IT BE WORKING THEY MAY BE IN TROUBLE SO WE MAY RECONSIDER HOW THEY ALLOCATE RESOURCES SO WE HAVE HEALTH CARE ECOLOGY OF FUNDING PORTFOLIOS. BIOMEDICINE IS INTERESTING BECAUSE SMALL RESEARCHERS AND UP TO THREE PEOPLE THEMES COVER THE LARGEST FIELDS AND IN BIOMEDICINE IT'S THREE TO FIVE AUTHORS AND HAS TO DO WITH MAYBE THE NATURE OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO SOMETHING AS A SINGLE RESEARCHER AS A BIOMEDICAL FIELD. YOU NEED LABS. THE SMALLER LABS ARE THE FOUNDATION. YOU NEED SMALL LABS FOR PARTICULAR PROJECT AND IT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE IN KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION AND IN ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS THERE ARE STILL RESEARCHERS WHO CAN AUTHOR A PAPER WITH A HIGH IMPACT AND THE NATURE IS IT STILL ALLOWS FOR BIOMEDICINE WHERE IN OTHER FIELDS IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE HOLDING MORE. NOW I'LL SWITCH GEARS TO SOMETHING WHICH HAS TO DO WITH ANOTHER THEME WHICH HAS BEEN ON OUR MINDS AND THAT'S THE SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE AND WE HAVE ALL HEARD ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF OVER PRODUCTION AND THE IDEA IS WE'VE SEEN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OR THE WAY WE PRODUCE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE HAS CHANGED AND WE PUBLISH MORE WITH TEAMS AND THE IDEA IS WELL HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE WORKFORCE AND HOW. THERE ARE TWO THINGS I WANTED TO USE FROM THE LITERATURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES AND THE FIRST IS WE STILL ASSUME THAT CREATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS IS THIS CRAFT MODE AND CRAFT MODE MEANS WELL, YOU HAVE AN APPRENTICE AND HAVE YOU MASTER AND MASTER APPRENTICE AND YOU NURTURE THE APPRENTICE AND BECOMES A NEW MASTER. DO WE HAVE THAT WHEN WE HAVE LARGE THEMES ARE ARE WE MORE IN THE INDUSTRIAL BUREAUCRATIC PRODUCTION YOU HAVE A LARGE TEAM AND HIERARCHICAL AND YOU OVERSEEING UNDERGRADS AND GRADS AND THIS IDEA IS SOMEWHAT LOST IN THAT MODE OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION. AND ANOTHER THING THAT IS ESPECIALLY PREVALENT IN THE U.S. IS A STRONG COUPLING BETWEEN RESEARCH PRODUCTION AND TEACHING FUNCTION BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME AS A RESEARCHER, WELL, YOU ARE UNDER PRESSURE TO PUBLISH. YOU WON'T GET GRANTS IF YOU DON'T PUBLISH. YOU WANT TO NURTURE NEW STUDENTS BUT THAT'S YOUR TEACHING FUNCTION, SORT OF, BUT WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU AS A RESEARCHER IS NOT BEST FOR THEM TO DEVELOP. IF I HAVE A LARGE TEAM I WANT TO YOU SPECIALIZE. YOU'RE REALLY GOOD AT ONE THING. I WANT THAT QUICKLY. I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE DOING THAT ONE THING BUT THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR YOU AS A RESEARCHER. DON'T DEVELOP ALL THE SKILLS. YOU CAN PRESSURE THAT IN A WAY OR HAVE A PROXY FOR THAT AND THE IDEA IS IF WHAT WE THINK ABOUT SUCCESS WHEN WE THINK ABOUT CAREERS SUCCESS MOST THE TIME YOU'LL SAY WELL, YOU HAVE A SUCCESSFUL CAREER IF YOU ARE CITED A LOT, WELL, YES, BUT LET'S GO MORE BASIC. YOU NEED TO SURVIVE. SO THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO IS CONTINUE CONTRIBUTING BUT THE IDEA AND IT'S HOW LONG YOU CONTRIBUTE VERSUS HOW MANY CITATIONS YOU HAVE AND THEN THE GROUP NOW YOU ARE NOT FOCUSSING ON INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHERS BUT FOLLOWING COHORT. -- COHORTS. YOUR FOLLOWING PEOPLE WHO START AT THE SAME TIME. I HAVE AN IDEA THE TEAMS HAVE LEAD AUTHORS AND SUPPORTING AUTHORS AND IF THE FIELDS THEY EXAMINE IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO IDENTIFY THE AUTHORS. IT'S USUALLY THE FIRST OR THE LAST. IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. SO NOT IN ALL THE FIELDS YOU CAN DO THIS AUTOMATICALLY BUT IN FIELDS I DID, I COULD. THE IDEA IS WELL, YOU SHOULD BE A LEAD AUTHOR AT LEAST ONCE IN YOUR LIFE TIME. IF YOU'RE A Ph.D. YOU SHOULD CONTRIBUTE AT LEAST ONCE AS A LEAD AUTHOR. AND I THOUGHT LET'S SEE HOW PROACTIVE PEOPLE ARE EFFECTING THEIR CAREER LONGEVITY OR IS THERE ANY CORRELATION. AS I TOLD YOU, I DID THAT IN ASTRONOMY, ONCOLOGY AND ROBOTICS AND THERE I PRESENTED MORE PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND ECOLOGY IS MORE FOR BIO AND ROBOTICS IS MORE ENGINEERING AND THIS SURPRISED ME. WHAT I FOUND WAS IN 1960s, 80% OF THE PEOPLE WERE LEAD AUTHORS ANYTIME IN THEIR CAREER. IF YOU HAD A CAREER OF 30 YEARS, YOU WERE A LEAD AUTHOR AT LEAST ONCE SO IT'S A LOOSE CRITERIA OF WHAT IT MEANS. TODAY, ONLY 30% OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AUTHORS ON PAPERS WERE EVER IN THEIR CAREERS LEAD AUTHORS. 70% OF ALL THE CAREER AUTHORS NEVER EVER IN THEIR LIFE EVEN ON A 20-YEAR LONG CAREER LED ANYTHING. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I EXPECT. HOW TO INTERPRET THAT, I DON'T KNOW? WE HAVE PERMANENT TEAM MEMBERS. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT -- I'M NOT SAYING WHAT THEY DO IS LESS VALUABLE. ACTUALLY, I THINK WHAT THEY DO IS CRUCIAL BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM SCIENCE WOULD COLLAPSE. LIKE 70% OF EVERYTHING WE DID IS DONE WITH THESE PEOPLE SO WE DEFINITELY NEED THEM BUT THE PROBLEM IS I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE HAVE 70% SUPPORTING RESEARCH SCIENTISTS AT THE MOMENT. I THINK WE'RE IMAGINING THE APPRENTICESHIP MODELS AND THEY'RE ALL REPLICATING. MAYBE YOU THINK, WELL, IT'S TRANSIENT BUT IT'S A LOW TERM. LIKE PRICE DID IT IN '77 BUT PEOPLE HAVE A SINGLE PAPER AND THEY LEAVE. NOW THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING THE NUMBERS. THE PERCENTAGE OF TRAN TRANSIENTS YOU SEE HOW MANY THEY STAY IN THE FIELDS. NOW IT'S DOWN TO FIVE. AND ROBOTICS IS THE WORSE. AGAIN, IT'S NOT SURPRISING BECAUSE IF YOU THINK OF ROBOTICS YOU CAN GO TO INDUSTRY AND BE A ROBOTICISTS. YOU DONT HAVE TO PUBLISH BUT YOU'RE STILL A ROBOTICISTS. I CANNOT SAY THAT FOR AN ASTRONOMER. YOU CAN HAVE A RICH CAREER, YOU CAN DO OTHER STUFF BUT YOU CANNOT BE AN ASTRONOMER IF YOU'RE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN INSTITUTION WITH A TELESCOPE WHICH IS A SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION SO THEY STAY LONGER. WHAT HAPPENS I THINK IS PEOPLE DO ONE POST-OP TO PROLONG THAT BECAUSE WHEN THEY LEAVE THE LEAVE THE CAREER CHOICE THEY MAY HAVE THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE AND IN ROBOTICS THEY LEAVE MUCH QUICKER THEN ANYBODY ELSE. IF YOU TRANSLATE THAT TO THE HALF LIFE LIKE WHAT IS THE HALF LIFE OF SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE IN 1960 IT TOOK AROUND 35 YEARS FOR HALF THE PEOPLE TO LEAVE THE FIELD. TODAY IT'S LESS THAN FIVE. TODAY HALF THE PEOPLE ARE GONE IN WITHIN FIVE YEARS. THIS IS AGAIN NOT AN ANSWER BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY VERY INTERESTING. IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN I TALKED ABOUT LEAD AND SUPPORT AUTHORS I WAS LIKE OKAY, THE LEAD OR SUPPORT AUTHOR IT DIDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR YOUR CAREER LONGEVITY AND ACTUALLY IT DOES. WHILE SUPPORTING AUTHORS, SOME CAN STILL HAVE LONG CAREERS. SOME CAN REALLY CONTRIBUTE FOR 20 YEARS BUT THEY'RE A HIGHER HAZARD OF LEAVING THE FIELD QUICKER. IF YOU ARE IN A SUPPORTING AUTHOR ROLE, YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO LEAVE THE FIELD EVERY SINGLE YEAR. YOU ARE STILL AT HAZARD AS A LEAD AUTHOR. MORE PEOPLE ARE LEAVING BUT YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A SOMEWHAT LONGER CAREER THAN SOMEBODY WHO NEVER LED A PAPER. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND MAYBE WE SHOULD RECONSIDER CAREER OPTION AND CAREER CHOICES BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE SUPPORTING ROLES ARE MUCH MORE VULNERABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CLEAR LONG-TERM CAREER PATHS FOR THEM. THEY'RE NOT JOBS LIBE A RESEARCH SCIENTIST WHICH IS MORE STABLE. THERE ARE NO CLEAR PATHS. AND ACTUALLY IT CAN BE INSTRUMENTAL FOR KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION. THE TEAM FOR THE MEMBERS JOIN CROSS-POLLINIZATION OF THE IDEAS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF THE LAB IS A RESOLVING DOOR, BY THE TIME YOU LEARN HOW TO COMMUNICATE TO EVERYBODY AND COMMUNICATE THE TACIT KNOWLEDGE -- IF YOU HAVE THIS RESOLVING DOOR IT'S REALLY SLOWING THE PROGRESSION OF SCIENCE IN GENERAL. AGAIN, NOT SOLUTIONS BUT SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND. I KNOW ALL OF US ARE CURIOUS SAYING CAN YOU PREDICT WHO WILL BE SUCCESSFUL -- ACTUAL, NO. NOT FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL AND IN EVEN IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU CAN DO. THE ONLY SOMEWHAT PREDICTOR AND HERE I LOOKED AT THE IDEA OF CAN YOU PREDICT WHEN SOMEONE IS EARLY ON IN THEIR CAREER LIKE IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. THIS SHOWS THE ONLY THING THAT MIGHT BE A SLIGHT ER IS INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY IF HAVE YOU A HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY AS A LEAD AUTHOR YOU'RE SLIGHTLY MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A LONGER CAREER. WHAT IS VERY INTERESTING IS THE IMPACT. IF YOU WERE NOT PRODUCTIVE BUT WERE IN A REALLY INFLUENTIAL PAPER YOU WILL STILL DROP. SO YES, WHILE HAVING A HIGH IMPACT PAPER WILL HELP, PRODUCTIVITY ALSO SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT. EARLY COLLABORATION SEEMS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT BUT I WOULD BE I WOULD BE REDUCTION TANT TO CONTRIBUTE THAT TO REAL COLLABORATION. IT STANDS FOR MORE THAN TO THE TYPES OF THE PROJECT. I MEASURE CAROLINA -- COLLABORATION AS THE NUMBER OF CO-AUTHORS THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE RESEARCH THAT'S CURRENTLY PROBABLY MORE FUNDS BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WORKING ON THAT SO I THINK IT'S MORE THE COLLABORATION, I THINK IT'S MORE PROXY FOR RESEARCH AND TYPES OF PROJECTS THEY DID NOT AND ACTUALLY NECESSARILY THE LARGE METRIC OF PEOPLE. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO TEASE THAT OUT BUT I THINK FOR THAT WE WOULD NEED OTHER TYPES OF STUDIES. YOU CANNOT DO IT JUST BY QUANTITATIVE BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WORTH EXPLORING BUT OVERALL NO REAL PREDICTORS WHICH IS FOR ME NOT SURPRISING BECAUSE A LOT OF US WOULD REALLY LIKE TO PREDICT AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. IT'S NOT THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE IT. SO MAYBE WE CAN PREDICT IF YOU'RE A RESEARCHER WITH THESE TYPES OF CHARACTERISTICS YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL THAN SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T HAVE THIS CHARACTERISTIC BUT THEY'RE NOT THE TYPE OF PREDICTIONS MORE PEOPLE WANT. LIKE, CAN YOU PREDICT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THIS. IT DOESN'T REALLY WORK THIS WAY. THERE WAS AN INTERESTING RESEARCH A WHILE AGO THAT WAS TRYING TO PREDICT CITATIONS AND WE CAN PREDICT THE BEST IF YOU HAVE LIKE 15 YEARS OF CITATION, YES, BECAUSE THE PEAK IS SEVEN YEARS. IF I KNEW SOMETHING WOULD BE VERY HIGHLY CITED IT WILL PROBABLY FOLLOW THE PARTICULAR PRA -- PTRAJECTORY AND WHEN IT'S pEXAMPLE, A NEW TOPIC, I CAN PREDICT THAT THERE IS NO WORD FOR IT YET SO OFTEN TIMES IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THE PREDICTIONS THAT A LOT OF THE FUNDERS, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE OR EVALUATORS FOR THAT MATTER. OKAY. I'M GOING FINISH ON THE LAST THING WHICH IS KIND OF A BUZZ WORD THERE'S COLLABORATION AND INTERDISCIPLINARY THEMES. WE HEARD IT'S THE ONLY WAY THE SCIENCE IS MOVING FORWARD AND THE NEXT BEST THING IT HAS BEEN INCREASING IN AND TEAM SCIENCE IT INCLUDES THEMES. IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU CANNOT HAVE INTERDISCIPLINARY IF YOU DON'T HAVE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS. CAN AN INDIVIDUAL HAVE INTERDISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE BUT SOME DEFINITIONS DON'T ALLOW FOR THAT THEY PRESUPPOSE YOU HAVE TEAMS THAT COME TOGETHER AND THE LAST ONE WE HEARD IS THIS RESEARCH HAS A HIGHER IMPACT. SO WHAT I WORKED ON WITH COLLEAGUES IS WHEN WE MOVE AWAY WHY INTERDISCIPLINARY BEING CARRIED BY INDIVIDUALS FOR KNOWLEDGE ITSELF AND THE IDEA BEHIND THAT IS HAVE YOU ALL THE PAPERS AND REFERENCES AND YOU KNOW WHAT FIELDS THEY COME FROM AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE COMPOSITION OF THE FIELDS IN EACH OF THE PAPER AND YOU SEE WHETHER THE COMPOSITION IS BECOMING MORE OR LESS INTERDISCIPLINARY. IF THEY'RE KNOWLEDGE BASE IS IT'S MORE LIKE AND IS WHAT'S COMING INTO THE PAPER DRAWING FROM MORE FIELDS OR NOT. WE GOT SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING WHICH IS NOT WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY GET IN THE STORY WHEN ALL THE FIELDS HAD BEEN MORE INTERDISCIPLINARY. SOME ARE AND SOME ARE GETTING LESS. AND WHAT WE FOUND INTERESTING IS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS THE FIELDS THAT WERE LESS INTERDISCIPLINARY ARE INCREASING AND THE FIELDS MORE INTERDISCIPLINARY ARE CONVERGING AROUND 40%. SO THERE'S NO GENERAL TREND. CANNOT SAY IT'S GETTING MORE INTERDISCIPLINARY AND THE 40% AND IF YOU WANT TO BE OF DISCIPLINE MAYBE YOU NEED TO MAINTAIN OR SHARE OWNERSHIP MAY BE 51/49 BUT MAYBE 50%. MAYBE YOU WANT A DISCIPLINE, I HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 60% OF THE KNOWLEDGE COMING FROM MY FIELD AND THEN 40% CAN COME FROM OTHER STUFF. I CANNOT PROVE THAT BUT IT SEEMS INTERESTING THE FIELD RELUCTANT TO DROP BELOW THE 60%. I DID NOT SHOW IT HERE BUT EVEN THE IMPACT IS FIELD DEPENDENT IN SOME FIELDS MORE INTER INTERDISCIPLINARY FIELD CITE AND OTHERS IT'S A MIXED BAG. SO AGAIN, LIKE THE THING SHOWED YOU IT'S NOT IN WHOLE SCIENCE IT'S BECOMING MORE I'M GOING TO CLOSE.ND WITH THIS - I KNOW MAYBE THIS NOT THE INDICATOR YOU EXPECTED BUT WHAT WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND WHEN WE ANALYZE THESE THINGS AND CREATE INDICATORS AND RECORD THEM BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT TOGETHER WITH THE NUMBERS THAT WE GIVE AND SAY OKAY, THESE ARE THE NUMBERS BUT YOU SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE. THIS IS WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE COMING FROM. SO THANK YOU. SO HOW DOES IT WORK? ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR NO? WE'RE OUT OF TIME. SO IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS I WILL BE AROUND TODAY AND I'LL BE AT THE POSTER SESSION SO COME AND I'D BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH ALL OF YOU OR ANY OF YOU. THANK YOU.