A nice reminder that it's hard to know how often simultaneous discoveries happen in science. Any measures based on scholarly literature will be severe undercounts due to secrecy or simply unpublished work
New piece w/ James Evans in Science explores what we call 'science after science', an era where our ability to control nature may exceed our ability to understand it; a new struggle to sustain curiosity & understanding under AI's predictive dominance. #ai #science
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Title and author info of PNAS paper linked
Now published at PNAS ‼️ w/ @innovation.bsky.social
How does peer reviewer diversity affect fairness in peer review and the direction of published science? We find a "geographical representation bias" in 60 STEM journals published by @ioppublishing.bsky.social.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Stack of papers and books
This paper explores academic peer review as a source of knowledge transfer and learning for the reviewers themselves.
spkl.io/63328A1crC
@innovation.bsky.social @jamesmzd.bsky.social
Bad news for economists...
Wow - an important read for #academicsky #scisky #medsky, about a study on professional social media activity by female scientists vs male, performed using @altmetric.com data from 2013-2018 (so, pre-Bluesky)
Summary: news.umich.edu/fewer-women-...
Paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Do you remember Francesca Gino's claim on her website that HBS analyzed the "wrong data file" in their investigation, and that a "real file" proved her innocence?
HBS is now claiming that the "real file" was fabricated by Gino... and thus that Gino's claim was defamatory.
In 1981 NYT published a piece on the then-new citation index, and how it was being used "unintentionally" for performance evaluations
Title page of "Learning by Evaluating"
Probability of citing manuscript within 3 years, by review status. Reviewers are more than twice as likely to cite reviewed paper in future work compared to invited reviewers who declined due to unavailability.
🏮NEW WORKING PAPER ALERT🏮
Scientists collectively spend tens of millions of hours peer reviewing each year, mostly for no $$. Why??
In new work w/ Charles Ayoubi and @innovation.bsky.social, we observe a private benefit for participating in evaluation: 💡💡Learning💡💡
Interesting take. Thanks for linking
Why do we peer review?
In a new paper, we establish a self-interested reason: learning.
With a quasi-experimental design applied to admin data from 55 journals, we show reviewing a paper doubles chances of citing it in future work!
😇
Men are much more likely to self-promote their papers on Twitter/X than women
Seems relevant: politicians are more likely to vote for war when they don't have sons who would do the fighting
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1...
First-ever ranking of journals by impact factor, published by Garfield in Science in 1972.
Science is ranked #77, impact factor 2.99
Nature is #114, impact factor 2.34
Going to the hospital because I broke my wrist smashing the endorse button:
www.understandingai.org/p/i-got-fool...
No, I'd say conventional wisdom doesn't even conceptualize interdisc. as topic vs knowledgebase, it's usually just 1 dimensional. We see that conceptualization as one of our contributions.
Feels reasonable to me too. But that's not quite the conventional wisdom 🤷
Yup, you're right.
Here's one study of grants:
www.nature.com/articles/nat...
Tldr: conventional wisdom only partially true, depends on
- which interdis. type we're talking about
- how types align with each other and audience
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Conventional wisdom says interdisciplinary research is valuable but harder to get through peer review (need to please diverse reviewers, etc).
@sdxiang.bsky.social Daniel and I partnered with @ioppublishing.bsky.social to test this wisdom and add nuance
Schism 2: electric boogaloo
Periodic reminder that economists would sacrifice half a thumb for an AER pub
