×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Citation Map Shows Top Science Cities

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-well-correlated-with-good-beaches dept.

Google 167

mikejuk writes "Which cities around the world produce not just the most but the best scientific papers? Using a database and Google Maps the answer is obvious. A paper at Physics arXiv describes how two researchers combined citation data with Google maps to create a plot showing how important cities around the world were in terms of their contribution to physics, chemistry or psychology."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

167 comments

Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl i 1990? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551346)

I'm just asking if he did or not. If he didn't, then why doesn't he provide us proof?

Re:Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl i 19 (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551370)

I'm just asking if he did or not. If he didn't, then why doesn't he provide us proof?

Did you happen to check the story on Scientific Papers? Perhaps you'll find your proof there?

Re:Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl i 19 (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551600)

Because everybody is innocent until proven guilty

Re:Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl i 19 (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551852)

if you repeat a BS thousand times, someone may quote you in a scientific paper, then it gets requoted and it becomes "verifable fact" for Wikipedia ... or court

Twin Cities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551364)

The points are close to being correct. The University of Minnesota is now apparently in one of the suburbs.

Re:Twin Cities (1)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552318)

Perhaps they used the author's home address for the map location when available? The data for southern Germany seems a bit strange, too. And the interactive map is rather crappy: no legend, no proper zooming, no apparent way to access the raw data associated with the points.

Horrible accuracy (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35553090)

One of the red hotspots is.... "St. Petersburg, Ohio".

If you zoom in, you will find out that's a road/cemetery by that name. Nothing else is there.

A typical symptom (4, Funny)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551366)

This is a typical symptom of scientists/researchers having way too much free time on their hands. They need to find a way to spend it properly, or they will kill us all one day.

Re:A typical symptom (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551770)

I'm sure your God won't allow that to happen.

Re:A typical symptom (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552116)

We really need a glyph to indicate humor or sarcasm, since apparently some people wouldn't know it if it hit them in the face with a sledgehammer...

Re:A typical symptom (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552294)

Yeah, if only there was punctuation symbol widely acknowledged to indicate sarcasm!

Or, failing that, perhaps even a widely used convention would be nice. Or not. ;)

Re:A typical symptom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35553268)

Gosh, and here I thought I was perpetuating the line of humour you started. I guess using the "g" word eliminates the possibility of sarcasm, for you? Pretend I find myself as witty as you, and reread the post while I go grab my sledge.

Re:A typical symptom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552898)

Maybe Prof. Tufte will use this as an example of a bad graphic. Besides being a cluttered mess, it reminds me of something Bill James said about baseball statistics: unless you can persuasively argue why dividing one quantity by another makes sense, it shouldn't be presented as a way of measuring the performance of ballplayers.

Psychology? (0, Troll)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551428)

Since when is psychology a science?

Re:Psychology? (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551470)

Since when is psychology a science?

Hmm, someone seems to have issues with psychology. Would you like to talk about it? ;-)

Re:Psychology? (1)

mikejuk (1801200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551508)

Since when has chemistry been a science? :-)

Re:Psychology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551948)

Chemistry isn't a science, it is a field of study. The only true science out there is Political Science,
you stupid Liberal Marxist!

Re:Psychology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552210)

Since quantum physics ate it.

Re:Psychology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551736)

Psychology: The science of control?
Anyway, it looks like wherever there is people, money, development, and education spending, there are good papers.
It's no surprise, but not bad though. No biology/biotech map? There's been big spending in that area over the last decade, that's for sure!

Re:Psychology? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552658)

Hmm, someone seems to have issues with psychology. Would you like to talk about it? ;-)

And when he's done, he'll offer you a free personality test.

Re:Psychology? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552768)

You are right, Psychology is just applied Biology.
Biology is applied Chemistry.
Chemistry is applied Physics.

And Physics is applied Mathematics.

So, anything outside of math is just derivative work.

From XKCD [xkcd.com] , of course.

Re:Psychology? (2)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35553368)

Without physics, mathematics is only a game of picking some axioms to see what they do, or worse, just a language.

Re:Psychology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35553142)

Only as long as the mind has been a product of the brain.

Re:Psychology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551482)

I am assuming your channeling of Tom Cruise was done in sarcasm...

Re:Psychology? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551504)

Perhaps you should make some attempt to correct your limited view of the world, apparently constructed from an arm-chair. I'll give you a bit of advice, start by reading (seek information), and stop being a believer.

Re:Psychology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551858)

Following-up on the above. It is this believer mentality, as opposed to information driven in combination with critical thinking, that plagues society. Sure this example is an irrelevant instance to most however it does provide general insight into the typical modern voter in the "information age" - uninformed willing to argue without data. They are the majority, an anchor on science and progress. Much of US politics in recent history has taught us that fact-free science is the objective for those unwilling to seek clarification on issues that matter.

Re:Psychology? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551528)

It's more of a science than Political Science

And yes, I'm a Political Science graduate student(and have also dabbled in psychology in undergrad)

Re:Psychology? (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551644)

Ironically, I'd say that qualitative poli sci and the philosophy of poli sci is a lot more robust than the quantitative approaches that seem to be in vogue these days.

When it comes to psychology, it is often the opposite -- but only for small, niche areas.

That said, there are seminal works in either category that are quite amazing, but those are few and far between.

Re:Psychology? (4, Insightful)

19061969 (939279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551754)

Since it used the scientific method? Don't take my word for it - try reading some papers on working memory, psychophysics or the statistics of psychometrics to realise that psychs have to have a stronger understanding of the scientific method than most other scientists. FYI, read the real papers not the type of nonsense that comes from critical analysis.

misleading metrics (5, Interesting)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551434)

"Number of links" has always struck me as an odd metric (see also PageRank). The greatest work from the PoV of scientific advancement isn't necessarily the most cited. The greatest determinant will be how fashionable a particular field is - a few leading researchers in a particular field are likely to have a huge number of cites, especially if they constitently reach the well-known publications [plosone.org] , but it doesn't necessarily mean the field is very scientifically interesting.

Then, even if great progress has been made, you get the effect that people don't necessarily cite the seminal investigations so much as the pioneering refiners.

Another interesting effect, of course, is the difference between provenance of researcher [fas.org] and location of publication [thomsonreuters.com] . The US and the UK are particularly good at draining other countries of already well-educated people, but this doesn't mean that the US or the UK have performed the academic preparation necessary to produce excellent researchers.

Re:misleading metrics (1)

mikejuk (1801200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551496)

... The US and the UK are particularly good at draining other countries of already well-educated people, but this doesn't mean that the US or the UK have performed the academic preparation necessary to produce excellent researchers.

Ah but it doesn't alter the location of the centers that are doing well. If you are interested in identifying places that are doing the best/most work then you don't caer if the people doing the work have come from somewhere else!

Re:misleading metrics (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551654)

Surely it is as interesting to find out what produces the excellent researchers as it is to find out what consumes them:

(i) from the PoV of improving education at home and abroad;

(ii) for countries with potential for local scientific growth to note where they are losing out and consider how to improve;

(iii) to perhaps produce a more distributed network of research centres rather than consolidating skills in a few dozen centres across the world. (Is so much centralisation necessary or even positive?)

In particular, the headline "top science city" suggests that most of the work done is locally in producing the research, when as much input may have occurred elsewhere in nurturing an excellent researcher. For example, where the US is "number one" scientifically, it is increasingly so only in being able to identify which foreigners to import. Is that healthy?

Re:misleading metrics (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552092)

I can think of no better way for a nation to acquire skills than to import people that some other country has gotten to the point of finishing undergraduate training, pouring in the high-value-added grad school, and working them to death as postdocs on the slim hope that they'll score a tenure-track faculty position.

Besides, given the dismal job prospects of most science PhDs, Americans are often making a very rational choice to stay out of those fields. If you want to work yourself to death, medical or dental school pays a lot better in the long run, and if you'd like an easier lifestyle there are plenty of jobs that will pay a resourceful college graduate $30k a year.

Re:misleading metrics (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552358)

Even "per capita in a given metro area" would make TFA more revealing... :/ (that said, even a map which tracks the educational steps of "most accomplished / cited" group shouldn't be too hard; it's all basically public info)

Re:misleading metrics (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551582)

The first report that you linked to is very interesting -- thank you.

It provides an overview of non-U.S. citizens who were awarded doctorates in science and engineering, but there is no comparison against U.S. citizens provided, other than this little excerpt.

From the paper:

Some academics and scientists do not view scientific migration as a problem, but as a net gain.
These proponents believe that the international flow of knowledge and personnel has enabled the
U.S. economy to remain at the cutting-edge of science and technology. A 2005 report of the
National Academies states that:

The participation of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars is an important
part of the research enterprise of the United States. In some fields they make up more than
half the populations of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. If their presence were
substantially diminished, important research and teaching activities in academe, industry, and federal laboratories would be curtailed, particularly if universities did not give more attention to recruiting and retaining domestic students.50.

Re:misleading metrics (1)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551702)

The US and the UK are particularly good at draining other countries of already well-educated people, but this doesn't mean that the US or the UK have performed the academic preparation necessary to produce excellent researchers.

Cite needed.

Re:misleading metrics (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551762)

The part before the "but" is covered above.

The part after the "but" is a statement of logic: we cannot assume that a university in country X full of good researchers implies that country X provides good preparation for research (or any sort of good education). Are you asking for evidence that the US education system is not as good as its research output would speciously suggest?

Re:misleading metrics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551738)

US has a significant financial incentive for people *not* to become a professional researchers.

So we import a large number from oversees.

Re:misleading metrics (1)

Mathlol1 (1962554) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551890)

A very good idea and I for one am curious where the smartest or most influential people in their fields originate(d) from. We will never know the origins of the smartest people. The only connection the public has to them is where they ended up and made a name for themselves. It would be pretty hard and darn hard to track that next step to this process they've mapped.

Re:misleading metrics (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551934)

I think this is a generic problem with metrics: the things that are easy to measure do not necessarily correspond with the things you want to know. While citations have some relation to the scientific value of publications, it is not an extremely strong correlation. And since citations play a major role in performance evaluation of researchers, there is motivation to game the system.

On the other hand, you cannot directly measure some property that is not clearly defined. Is it better to measure something that is inaccurate or to not measure at all? In my opinion it is useful to measure but you should be very careful in interpreting the results. For example, if you measure the lines of code in a project, the result is useful to determine how much effort it takes to maintain the code, but as an indicator of productivity it is so flawed that it is better to ignore it.

Re:misleading metrics (2)

cb123 (1530513) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551966)

If you read the paper or click on the maps you will actually see that they DO NOT CORRECT for local population density. So, the metric in question is absolute rather than "per capita" productivity. This doesn't entirely invalidate it, but it calls into question how you would verbalize or interpret the results.

I mean, if 8 of the top 10 cities for science *by any metric* are also 8 of the top 10 cities by population you have said something less interesting. These cities are already top cities for "being" at all. :-)

It would be far more interesting to normalize in a per capita sense. There are clearly some major outliers in that sense scrolling around on the map. Vancouver lept out at me, but I'm sure others could find them as well. Now, wouldn't it be nice if the fancy visualization researchers helped us along in that task? :-)

Re:misleading metrics (2)

Idarubicin (579475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552990)

If you read the paper or click on the maps you will actually see that they DO NOT CORRECT for local population density. So, the metric in question is absolute rather than "per capita" productivity. This doesn't entirely invalidate it, but it calls into question how you would verbalize or interpret the results.

Local population density is pretty irrelevant here, too, unless your question is "what is the probability that I will meet the author of a journal article while walking down the street?" (To be fair, that is something one might be interested in when choosing where to live, but even in large cities there are often university enclaves near campus.) If you put a university with ten thousand students in a city of a million people, all other things being equal there's no reason why its scientific output ought to differ from a ten-thousand-student university in a 'college town' with just fifty thousand residents. The size of the circle in Los Angeles has nothing to do with the city itself, and everything to do with the output of UCLA.

More interesting would be something like number and quality of publications normalized according to the number of graduate students and postdocs (since they're the ones who are most likely doing the actual hands-on research) in the city.

Re:misleading metrics (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552062)

If it is the place where the best people from around the world go to to work together, that is significant.

Re:misleading metrics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552218)

I'm not sure what to think about this study, but I like the idea of evaluating research merit in other ways than the current standard used by some in my field.

Some scientists (at least in biology) rely almost exclusively on the impact factor of the journal a scientist published in as a measure of the scientists success. Impact factor = # of times all articles from last 2 years in a journal are cited by journals that are indexed divided by total number of articles in that journal in those two years. This judges the scientist by the journal they publish in and is not necessarily directly related to the impact of their work. Thier paper could never be cited, but if it's in a "good" journal, it looks good for them. Also, some work takes more than two years for other researchers to catch onto the importance of. In addition, some journals publish review articles, which are cited more, and so this makes the journal have a higher impact factor. Lastly, larger labs which publish more and more often, can cite themselves within the two year frame and help to increase impact factor of the journals they publish in.

I'm not sure what a good metric would be, but impact factor is clearly not a good metric. Unfortunately at least by some older established scientists in my field, its the 'standard' metric...

Northeast USA, represent! (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551500)

Sorry Southern US, maybe next year.

P.S. Austin, TX isn't in the south. It is San Francisco colonizing you.

Offtopic, I know (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551556)

P.S. Austin, TX isn't in the south. It is San Francisco colonizing you.

Every Southerner would agree with you. In fact, most Southerns believe that Texas isn't even in the South. It's its own separate, crazy entity.

Re:Offtopic, I know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552142)

I-45 is pretty much the ne plus ultra of the South in Texas.

The Maps (4, Informative)

Big_Oh (623570) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551510)

Physics: http://www.leydesdorff.net/topcity/figure1.htm [leydesdorff.net] Chemistry: http://www.leydesdorff.net/topcity/figure2.htm [leydesdorff.net] Psychology: http://www.leydesdorff.net/topcity/figure1.htm [leydesdorff.net] And for the record, the authors refer to these as "fields of study", not "fields of science."

Re:The Maps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551536)

I never knew Moscow was so scientifically active.

Re:The Maps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551718)

Yes, here in Moscow we spend most of the time hunting polar bears on the streets. There's no time to do science when you have to wake up 5:00 AM to milk your Moscow cow and then proceed strait to bear hunting.

Re:The Maps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551746)

... after all, everyone knows that everything they need to know to launch Gagarin into space, they stole from the Germans. And then stole from Americans (once more, just for the sake of being evil).

Pah, I don't believe it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551524)

citation needed!

Pay attention CERN (1)

FlapHappy (937803) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551558)

Do NOT, I repeat do NOT, outsource any of the research or implementation of the Super Large Hadron Collider to anyone living in or around Moscow.

Re:Pay attention CERN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552156)

More worrying for them is that on that map Geneva does not seem to be an important place for publishing physics papers. What? Does CERN not count then?

Word is for office girls (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551590)

In what software did they write the paper? Word 97? It is absolutly infuriating to see a scientific paper not written in TeX-based software.

Get over it (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35553248)

Word is now extremely standard in academics, including engineering and science disciplines. The reason is that what the researchers are interested in is actually getting their ideas out to the world, not proving they are toughguys by using TeX. What you use to create doesn't matter all that much since journals are very much saying "Give us a PDF," they don't really care how it was created. So you just choose what is easiest for you to do your paper in that looks good and can export to PDF. Word plus Mathtype can do a nice, easy, job of formatting equations visually, and gets you all the spell checking and other functions of Word.

I work for an engineering department at a research university (doing computer support) and we see more Word usage than anything else. Some researchers still like TeX, but they are in the minority these days.

If you want to be a tough guy (hiding behind an AC post) about only TeX based papers being "real" scientific papers go ahead, however realize the world has moved on and left you behind.

Re:Get over it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35553548)

word is standard for _academics_. Anyone who needs equations uses TeX, so that's mathematicians and physicists.

All mathematicians use TeX.

Re:Get over it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35553624)

Word is now extremely standard in academics, including engineering and science disciplines.

It is common. It is not standard. It varies from discipline to discipline, and journal to journal.

not proving they are toughguys by using TeX.

You're biased. It is hardly being a "toughguy" to use TEX. Sounds like a marketing lowlife talking, trying to manipulate with emotion rather than argument.

however realize the world has moved on and left you behind.

It is not "moving on" to use a proprietary product in science, it is moving backwards.

I am not the PP AC.

Rochester, NY (4, Interesting)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551606)

It seems that the University of Rochester should have published at least one article in Physics, Chemistry, or Psychology. In fact, I've gone and verified that there were many. Yet still, Rochester does not appear on any of the maps. That makes me wonder about these data...

Re:Rochester, NY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551720)

Yes, but Rochester is awful.

Re:Rochester, NY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551730)

they stated top papers only you idiot.

Re:Rochester, NY (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552020)

"So taking the data from the Web-of-Science database the researchers simply counted how many papers originated from each city and plotted a circle with a radius proportional to the number of papers on Google Maps."

The top papers were only involved with the color of the circle.

I think you can safely be considered a troll.

Re:Rochester, NY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35553118)

Maybe no one cited any of them.

Renaming cities. (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551640)

Is it a sign that our world is becoming too PC? Can't we still call it Fort Collins, and not just Collins? Is "Fort" too war-mongering for society today?

Re:Renaming cities. (1)

arb phd slp (1144717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551976)

University Park, PA is listed as "University."

Apparently a "park" is too play-mongering for these researchers so they renamed it.

[/sarcasm] seriously now, why would you jump to the conclusion anti-war political correctness was why the name was truncated?

oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551642)

Poor Greenland :(. He has nothing.

Biology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551658)

Where are the biological sciences represented?

even newer math, 1+1=2+~babys=vast majority (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551664)

most? best? accurate missing? that's a gimme.phd?

it's strictly a biological 'problem', as no other equations resolve this
way. an overheard 'quip' at population.controll; "seems like every time
they get left alone, more of them start happening. that'll have to stop,
as digits tend to mount without any regard for the #s, which are written
in stone", in georgia.

the bips mention that some of them are even more advanced
(dna/consciousness/photon gathering etc...), than previously estimated. do
they know how to 'meet the need' or what? they are scattered. please
disallow any more of them from being captured, damaged or killed. we need
them much more than we realize.

ALL MOMMYS>=

good thing we're not censored here?

Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or
less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his
or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back
and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email
posting@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID, which is babys were meant to be
seen & heard as well. Let us know how many comments you think you've
posted in the last 24 hours (6).

BANISHED

Either your network or ip address has been banned from Slashdot ...due to script flooding that originated from your network or ip address
-- or this IP might have been used to post comments designed to break web
browser rendering. Or you crawled us with a rude robot, especially one
that doesn't understand RFCs very well.

If you feel that this is unwarranted, feel free to include your IP address
in the subject of an email, and we will examine why there
is a ban. If you fail to include the IP address (again, in the subject!),
then your message will be deleted and ignored. I mean come on, we're good,
we're not psychic.

If you think your IP number is different from $@;:/ tell us both.

If you are using a browser with some kind of add-on that crawls or caches
pages for you, tell us what it is.

Since you can't read the FAQ because you're banned, here's the relevant
portion:
Why is my IP banned?

  Perhaps you are running some sort of program that loaded thousands of
Slashdot Pages. We have limited resources here and are fairly protective
of them. We need to make sure that everyone shares. If your IP loads
thousands of pages in a day, you will likely be banned. Please note that
many proxy servers load large quantities of pages, but we can usually
distinguish between proxy servers being used by humans, and IPs running
software that is hammering our servers.

  Your IP might have been used to perform some sort of denial of service
attack against Slashdot. These range from simple programs that just load a
lot of pages, to programs that attempt to coordinate an avalanche of posts
in the forums (often through misconfigured "Open Relay" proxy servers).

  You might be using a proxy server that is also being used by another
person who did something from the above list. You should have your proxy
server administrator contact us.

  Your IP might have been used to post comments designed to break web
browser rendering, or our priority motive $income$.

No IBM? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551668)

I looked at Yorktown Heights, NY (about 50 mi north of NYC), but saw no papers indicated. Yet that's IBM's main R&D center. I suspect the data is not properly representative.

Psychology Map May Be Incorrect (3, Interesting)

schwnj (990042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551688)

In looking at the psychology map, I am suspicious that the authors made a minor error in their data collection. The database they used (Web of Science, Science Citation Index) does contain a category for psychology; however, it lists only the 71 psychology journals that are in the physiological/cognitive subfields of psychology. The overwhelming majority of psychology journals (almost 500 of them) are not in those fields, so the search should have also included the Social Science Citation Index data (also part of the Web of Science, just involves clicking another box). I suspect the authors only used the Science (and not Social Science) database because the data displayed on the map seems to over-represent programs that are strong in physio/cognitive, and under-represents (or ignores) programs that are strong in social, developmental, and clinical psychology.

Re:Psychology Map May Be Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551824)

My guess is that they were focusing on programs in experimental psychology that are harder science. With the exception of some developmental programs, the ones you listed are the subfields that get psychology branded as a pseudoscience.

Re:Psychology Map May Be Incorrect (1)

schwnj (990042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552028)

If that was the authors' intent, they didn't specify that in their paper. And, although there is plenty of fluff in psychology, some of the most highly cited journals in psychology are in social, developmental, and clinical. (In fact, the flagship social psych journal is the most often cited psych journal by articles appearing in "hard" science places like Science & PNAS -- there's some neat visualizations of this at eigenfactor.org.) If you look at the "top-tier" journals in each psychology subfield, you will find nothing but rigorous, experimental science.

Politically incorrect map (1, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551768)

I wonder how long before someone slaps the map authors as being racist, as it is so obviously politically incorrect, with green largely clustered in US and Europe.

big red circles (2)

fragfoo (2018548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551820)

Moscow and Kiev have big red circles on the physics maps. I wonder if it is an interesting case study to discover why. Is it a language barrier or are the publications not relevant enough. I personaly believe the issue is not the quality of the publications, russia (and former ussr) has allways produced great scientists.

Re:big red circles (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551964)

It may be the signal-to-noise ratio; unless I've been very much misled (not beyond the realms of possibility, I freely admit), Russia/China/Eastern Europe do have a much greater problem with academic dishonesty than the west (and I have also heard it said that they are more accepting of 'success' by dishonesty, but I don't have remotely enough firsthand experience of their cultures to know whether I agree with that), meaning that the work of the many extremely capable scientists they do produce could well be buried among the larger quantity of junk.

Re:big red circles (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552204)

The Hungarian system is fairly critical, not really accepting of dishonesty. Then again, I'm in Political Science, so I can't speak for other fields.

I do know that in the past, we used to produce many high-quality scientists, who later emigrated to the West around the start of WWII, collectively termed "Martians", but since then, the educational system has gone downhill in quality, not quality control and rigor, just the material being taught to students. Hence the small, but very green circle of Budapest in all three fields.

Re:big red circles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552422)

prI vThink artThe adjBig nProblem vIs artThe nWay prYou nFolks vTalk :)

One of these things is not like the others. (1)

frist (1441971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551842)

Is this a SAT test question? Physics, Chemistry, and Psychology? Why not Voodoo or Phrenology?

Re:One of these things is not like the others. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551938)

Design experiments (same fundamental principles), collect data (varying levels of instrumentation), analyze (any number of statistical techniques), repeat. How are they different? In the real world, if challenged what thorough critique would you make to defend the implied conclusion? You see, I'm gonna hypothesize that you don't have an argument hence the data-free comment. Too often I encounter folks who hint at knowing something, all the while it's a ruse - a bit of impression management, a lie. Because typing here on Slashdot is free, convince me otherwise, sport.

Curious, when do you expect mankind to begin travels through time, wormholes, and exploring other galaxies?

Is this what is meant by 'ignorance is bliss'?

Re:One of these things is not like the others. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552198)

You see, applying scientific method superficially to astrology doesn't make it a science.

Re:One of these things is not like the others. (2)

schwnj (990042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552246)

If the scientific method discovered that there was actual substance to astrology, then it would be a science. (But it doesn't, so it's not.)

people with babys should get more votes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551896)

that would be mathematically accurate, as baby's have equal rights, & only their parent(s) to faithfully represent them, as their uncle sam seems to be failing at even simple math anymore, like billionerrors?

Language? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35551920)

Moscow's Physics and Chemistry papers would be IN RUSSIAN. Hence they would not be as commonly cited by English authors. Hence the large red circle on Moscow. Different language != poor quality research.

'people' with money get as many votes as they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552054)

is that fair (not only bad math) to the babys who've yet to learn to steal & kill for money? they'd likely prefer to do stuff based on living, & being, useful to each other & us. see the difference? 0 errors so far. run that through your totalister.

Odd, seems like OSU has done nothing in physics. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552056)

Yet when looking at any other citation metric, OSU physics is near the top.

Mississippi Sate in Missouri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552234)

They obviously still have a few bugs to work out since Springfield MO does not house Mississippi State, just saying...

They flunk geography..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552260)

The dot labeled Santa Barbara is misplaced in Thousand Oaks......a considerable miss.

No Tucson (University of Arizona)? (1)

burningcpu (1234256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35552548)

The University of Arizona is the 4th top ranked University for Analytical Chemistry, and important advances in solar cell research, organic LEDs (OLEDs), and CCDs for analytical use were pioneered here. Any such plot that does not include UA is obviously flawed, especially considering that Arizona State University was listed. ASU's Chemistry program is simply not of the same caliber.

Data display completly flawed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35552682)

The data plotting is deeply flawed : when you go on the chemistry map (http://www.leydesdorff.net/topcity/figure2.htm) in France, the data about Nice (south East of France) displayed by hovering over the corresponding circle correspond to the town of Strasbourg (situated in the East of France, along the German border roughly at the same latitude than Paris).

And the data about Lille (north of France) corresponds to a town (Rueil Malmaison) situated in the suburbs of Paris. I found a couple other bugs of the same type.

The city of Argonne? (1)

Walter White (1573805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35553102)

I see lots of chemistry is done in Argonne Illinois. That's funny since Argonne is a lab, not a city. (Argonne National Laboratory.) Probably in Westmont. At least they got Batavia right (FNAL.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...