UW MetaScience Research Lab

The nexus for research on the Science of Science, Science Policy, and Scientometrics. Founded by Profs. @ChaoqunNi and @HutchinsBI

[B. Ian Hutchins @HutchinsBI]

How cost-effective are NIH Extramural vs Intramural mechanisms? We did internal analysis at NIH but never published. Happy to share some answers: Extramural is better for publications and citations; Intramural is better at basic -> clinical translation https://t.co/S76uJoO4sR

[Misha Teplitskiy | Science of Science @MishaTeplitskiy]

New hires at top-ranked universities are more disciplinary than at lower-ranked places

[Philipp Heimberger @heimbergecon]

Prestige bias in academic research:

Paper submissions from authors affiliated with top-20 ranked institutions receive higher reviewer scores, an effect that vanishes when reviews are blinded. Blinded reviewing narrows disparities in reviewer evaluations and acceptance rates.

[B. Ian Hutchins @HutchinsBI]

Journal prestige overlooks most influential papers. Our analysis shows that top impact factor journals only catch a small fraction of equally influential articles. There's a lot more science deserving of recognition! #AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter https://t.co/X5D7TclNi5

[UW MetaScience Research Lab @research_uw]

Metascience Research Lab @research_uw @UWMadiSchool @ChaoqunNi @HutchinsBI is excited to host Dr. Dakota Murray @dakotasmurray from @NUnetsi for his talk "Towards a data-driven understanding of scientific debate!" Please RSVP https://t.co/H30mI5zSZF if you are interested!

[Chaoqun Ni @ChaoqunNi]

UW-Madison's iSchool is hiring up to two tenured positions this year! Please apply! #nlp #emnlp2023 #NLProc #LLM #AACL2023 #network #computational
https://t.co/ofgr2X2Izz

[UW–Madison iSchool @UWMadiSchool]

Gender inequality is real in the scientific community, and iSchool Assistant Professor Chaoqun Ni (@ChaoqunNi) has illustrated this in her research on the "science of science." Read more about Ni's work: https://t.co/IKmJyMw0xO
#ischool #genderinequality

[UWResearch @UWiscResearch]

Machine learning analysis of research citations highlights importance of federal funding for basic scientific research https://t.co/jIfDWS83YH

[B. Ian Hutchins @HutchinsBI]

Federally funded basic research punches above its weight at informing later clinical studies #NIH

[B. Ian Hutchins @HutchinsBI]

Many scientists suspect that they do not receive enough recognition for their influential studies, and now we have data to back this up #AcademicTwitter #AcademicScience #ScienceOfScience https://t.co/eraizXf4dA

[Cameron Thrash @jcamthrash]

You do not receive enough recognition for your influential science https://t.co/k67kbkhdta

[Cahir O'Kane @OKaneCahir]

“approximately half of researchers never publish in a venue with an impact factor above 15, which may exclude them from opportunities. Many of them publish equally influential work; so journal-level measures may recognize as little as 10-20% of work that warrants recognition”

[Mike Gallagher @GeneticsMike7]

Are 90% of researchers who publish high impact work overlooked simply because of the journals they publish in? 😳 https://t.co/6ouFU3h0KQ

[[email protected] @SchlisioSusanne]

interesting read: You do not receive enough recognition for your influential science

[Daniel Merritt @DanielMMerritt]

This is an interesting analysis of (in a sense) how good journals are at spotting influential papers.

[Melissa Perreault 🇨🇦 @Dr_Perreault]

"Chosen journal-level measures (IF) that are routinely considered under decision-making norms may recognize as little as 10-20% of the work that warrants recognition".

https://t.co/SFt5kIYRqC

[Peter Rodgers @drpeterrodgers]

This work by @ChaoqunNi, @lariviev, @csugimoto and others has just been published as a #ReviewedPreprint in @eLife
https://t.co/pw3uYl1jXv, along with public peer reviews:
https://t.co/BMzZo65REc

[Tim Mosca (he/him) @drosophilosophy]

would it be rude to email this to ... many many administrators?

[Zebrafish Dev. Neurobiology Group @ZebrafishGroup]

"During career advancement and funding allocation decisions in biomedicine, reviewers have traditionally depended on journal-level measures of scientific influence like the impact factor."

[Alejandro Montenegro @aemonten]

It's not that they have "depened" on it. Funding agencies and hiring and P&T committees have actively (and repeatedly) chosen to use that atrocious metric to evaluate individual researchers

https://t.co/BYvE5Y1ExK