Library and Information Service

Library and Information Service >

2024 , Vol. 68 >Issue 6: 72 - 82

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2024.06.007

INFORMATION RESEARCH

Speed of Research Topic Evolution and Scientific Performance: Evidence from Computer Science

  • Liu Meijun ,
  • Shi Jing ,
  • Yang Sijie ,
  • Bu Yi
Expand
  • 1 Institute for Global Public Policy, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433;
    2 School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023;
    3 Center for Informationalization and Information Management Research, Peking University, Beijing 100871;
    4 Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871

Received date: 2023-08-28

  Revised date: 2023-12-24

  Online published: 2024-03-28

Supported by

This work is supported by the Youth Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China titled “Early Recognition of Interdisciplinary Teams with High Scientific Impact Based on Causal Inference” (Grant No. 72104007) and the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China titled “Theory and Mechanisms of Public Governance System Transformation and Innovation” (Grant No. 72234001).

Fold

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] Using deep learning techniques, this study quantifies the speed of topics evolution for scientists over time and explores the historical development and heterogeneity of this trend, as well as the relationship between it and scientific performance.[Method/Process] First, based on publication data from nearly one million computer scientists worldwide from 1980 to 2019, it adopted Doc2vec to measure the distance between text features in sets of papers produced by scientists in adjacent years and calculated the speed of topic evolution. Next, it explored the relationship between the topic evolution speed and scientific performance, and compared the differences in dynamic development of topic evolution among scientists in different career stages.[Result/Conclusion] Empirical evidence indicates that, over the past four decades, the speed of research topic evolution among scientists has gradually decreased, with the global trend in computer science to “exploitation-oriented research”. Lower speed of topic evolution can bring the optimal research performance, and the relationship between them shows an inverted U-shaped curve. In the career lifecycle, elite scientists tend to have a gradually decreasing level of topic evolution, showing a trend of focusing on specific topics, while that of non-elite scientists increasing gradually or remaining steadily in most of the period. The empirical results provide policy guidance for assessment of discipline development, scientists’ career advancement, and science policy formulation.

Key words： topic evolution; research performance; Doc2vec; deep learning; exploitation-oriented research; elite scientist

Cite this article

Liu Meijun , Shi Jing , Yang Sijie , Bu Yi . Speed of Research Topic Evolution and Scientific Performance: Evidence from Computer Science[J]. Library and Information Service, 2024 , 68(6) : 72 -82 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2024.06.007

References

[1] Foster J G, Rzhetsky A, Evans J A. Tradition and innovation in scientists' research strategies[J]. American sociological review, 2015, 80(5): 875-908.
[2] Azoulay P, Fons-Rosen C, Zivin J S G. Does science advance one funeral at a time?[J]. American economic review, 2019, 109(8): 2889-2920.
[3] Finkelstein A. Static and dynamic effects of health policy: evidence from the vaccine industry[J]. The quarterly journal of economics, 2004, 119(2): 527-564.
[4] Catalini C, Fons-Rosen C, Gaulé P. How do travel costs shape collaboration?[J]. Management science, 2020, 66(8): 3340-3360.
[5] Zhang Y, Cai X, Fry C V, et al. Topic evolution, disruption and resilience in early COVID-19 research[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(5): 4225-4253.
[6] Liu M, Bu Y, Chen C, et al. Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: evidence from COVID-19[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73(8): 1065-1078.
[7] Furman J L, Teodoridis F. Automation, research technology, and researchers' trajectories: evidence from computer science and electrical engineering[J]. Organization science, 2020, 31(2): 330-354.
[8] Zeng A, Shen Z, Zhou J, et al. Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics[J]. Nature communications, 2019, 10(1): 3439.
[9] Hill R, Yin Y, Stein C, et al. Adaptability and the pivot penalty in science[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06476, 2021.
[10] 步一, 黄圣智, 黄永, 等. 学者研究主题演化的时空测度:速度、覆盖度和迂回度[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(24): 84-91. (Bu Y, Huang S Z, Huang Y, et al. Temporal-spatial measurements for research topic evolution of researchers: speed, volume, and circuitousness[J]. Library and information service, 2022, 66(24): 84-91.)
[11] Jia T, Wang D, Szymanski B K. Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution[J]. Nature human behaviour, 2017, 1(4): 0078.
[12] Toubia O, Berger J, Eliashberg J. How quantifying the shape of stories predicts their success[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118(26): e2011695118.
[13] 靳嘉林, 王曰芬, 巴志超, 等. 基金项目研究的主题挖掘与动态演化分析——以美国NSF数据中AI领域为例[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(9): 967-979. (Jin J L, Wang Y F, Ba Z C, et al. Topic mining and dynamic evolution analysis of funding projects: case studies of AI field in NSF data[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2022, 41(9): 967-979.)
[14] 王康, 陈悦, 苏成, 等. 多维视角下科学主题演化分析框架[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(3): 297-307. （WANG K, CHEN Y, SU C, et al. Analysis framework for the evolution of scientific themes from a multi-dimensional perspective[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2021, 40(3): 297-307.)
[15] Aleta A, Meloni S, Perra N, et al. Explore with caution: mapping the evolution of scientific interest in physics[J]. EPJ data science, 2019, 8(1): 1-15.
[16] Fu C, Yue X, Shen B, et al. Patterns of interest change in stack overflow[J]. Scientific reports, 2022, 12(1): 11466.
[17] Liu M, Hu X. Movers' advantages: the effect of mobility on scientists? productivity and collaboration[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2022, 16(3): 101311.
[18] Liu M, Hu X. Will collaborators make scientists move? a generalized propensity score analysis[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2021, 15(1): 101113.
[19] Bu Y, Ding Y, Xu J, et al. Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(1): 87-97.
[20] Gatti C J, Brooks J D, Nurre S G. A historical analysis of the field of OR/MS using topic models[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.05154, 2015.
[21] Syed S, Spruit M. Full-text or abstract? examining topic coherence scores using latent Dirichlet allocation[C]//2017 IEEE international conference on data science and advanced analytics. Tokyo: IEEE, 2017: 165-174.
[22] Wu L, Wang D, Evans J A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
[23] 韩晓彤, 朱东华, 汪雪锋. 科学推动下技术机会发现方法研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(10): 19-32. (Han X T, Zhu D H, Wang X F. Research on the method of technology opportunity discovery promoted by science[J] Library and information service, 2022, 66(10): 19-32.)
[24] Le Q, Mikolov T. Distributed representations of sentences and documents[C]//The 31st international conference on machine learning. Beijing: International Machine Learning Society, 2014: 1188-1196.
[25] Liu M, Hu X, Schedl M. The relation of culture, socio-economics, and friendship to music preferences: a large-scale, cross-country study[J]. Plos one, 2018, 13(12): e0208186.
[26] Mimura M. An attempt to read network traffic with Doc2vec[J]. Journal of information processing, 2019, 27: 711-719.
[27] Jones B F. The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: is innovation getting harder?[J]. The review of economic studies, 2009, 76(1): 283-317.
[28] Park M, Leahey E, Funk R J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time[J]. Nature, 2023, 613(7942): 138-144.
[29] Larivière V, Vignola-Gagné E, Villeneuve C, et al. Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec University professors[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 87(3): 483-498.
[30] Eagly A H, Nater C, Miller D I, et al. Gender stereotypes have changed: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018[J]. American psychologist, 2020, 75(3): 301-315.
[31] Liu M, Zhang N, Hu X, et al. Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from coronavirus-related literature[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2022, 16(2): 101295.
[32] Fox M F. Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists[J]. Social studies of science, 2005, 35(1): 131-150.
[33] Liu M, Yang S, Bu Y, et al. Female early-career scientists have conducted less interdisciplinary research in the past six decades: evidence from doctoral theses[J]. Humanities and social sciences communications, 2023, 10(1): 918-933.
[34] Huyer S. Is the gender gap narrowing in science and engineering?[M]//UNESCO. UNESCO science report: towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO publishing 2015:85-103.
[35] Hammond A, Rubiano Matulevich E, Beegle K, et al. The equality equation: advancing the participation of women and girls in STEM[R]. Washington: World Bank, 2020.
[36] Witteman H O, Haverfield J, Tannenbaum C. COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118(6): e2023476118.
[37] Kleijn M d. The researcher journey through a gender lens: an examination of research participation, career progression and perceptions across the globe[EB/OL].[2024-02-05]. https://assets.ctfassets.net/zlnfaxb2lcqx/5qhYSRWFvH4w3ULiVAbtS5/a2e26aef48b8ada2cd401efc06e08867/Elsevier-gender-report-2020.pdf.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

    Copyrights © LIS Press Co., Ltd. Reproduction is prohibited without permission.