A few observations from "The Science of Science", a useful review article appearing in this week's Science: http://barabasi.com/f/939.pdf
Show this thread
-
This - diversity in team size (& everything else, frankly) - I thoroughly endorse. I'm all for chaotically trying everything...pic.twitter.com/RehKxNL30z
Show this thread
Teams are growing, an average, 17% per decade. That's really not all that fast. It means a doubling time of about 44 years.
-
-
Something I do wonder about in connection with the equal odds rule across a scientists' career: does it take into account the fact that in many fields citation rates are (I believe) rising? If so, the numbers should be rescaled.
Show this thread -
The probability density for a paper's number of citations, normalized by the average number of citations for its discipline. The is essentially identical across disciplines(!) This is honestly quite remarkable.pic.twitter.com/SQvHcmabee
Show this thread -
It's striking how much the paper focuses on citations and similar measures, but not on things like understanding, quality of explanations, deep new ideas, and so on; nor on economic impacts. Lots of proxy measures, rather than the reasons we want to do science in the first place
Show this thread -
Put another way, it's not so much about the science of science, as the science of the extremely limited set of things we can measure about science. Citations are not uninteresting, but there's a reason Boltzmann's grave has S = k log W on it, not his h-indexpic.twitter.com/RVhOGtTaEA
Show this thread -
Anyways, it's a useful survey paper, with much that was new to me in it. And it was fun to make a first pass over it "in public" like this
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.