Search

Context: The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent. Objective: The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact upon systematic reviews and mapping studies. Method: We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar. Results: We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., ≈ 8%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also some disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper to be available beyond the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted (median = 3; maximum = 18). Systematic reviews are also impacted with ≈ 30% of the retracted papers having one or more citations from a review. Conclusions: Unfortunately, retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The action required to stem the environmental and social implications of climate change depends crucially on how humankind shapes technology, economy, lifestyle and policy. With transport CO2 emissions accounting for about a quarter of the total, we examine the contribution of CO2 output by scientific travel. Thankfully for the reputation of the scientific community, CO2 emissions associated with the trips required to present a paper at a scientific conference account for just 0.003% of the yearly total. However, with CO2 emissions for a single conference trip amounting to 7% of an average individual’s total CO2 emissions, scientists should lead by example by demonstrating leadership in addressing the issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peer evaluation is the cornerstone of science evaluation. In this paper, we analyze whether or not a form of peer evaluation, the pre-publication selection of the best papers in Computer Science (CS) conferences, is better than random, when considering future citations received by the papers. Methods: Considering 12 conferences (for several years), we collected the citation counts from Scopus for both the best papers and the non-best papers. For a different set of 17 conferences, we collected the data from Google Scholar. For each data set, we computed the proportion of cases whereby the best paper has more citations. We also compare this proportion for years before 2010 and after to evaluate if there is a propaganda effect. Finally, we count the proportion of best papers that are in the top 10% and 20% most cited for each conference instance. Results: The probability that a best paper will receive more citations than a non best paper is 0.72 (95% CI = 0.66, 0.77) for the Scopus data, and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.81) for the Scholar data. There are no significant changes in the probabilities for different years. Also, 51% of the best papers are among the top 10% most cited papers in each conference/year, and 64% of them are among the top 20% most cited. Discussion: There is strong evidence that the selection of best papers in Computer Science conferences is better than a random selection, and that a significant number of the best papers are among the top cited papers in the conference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informed consent is the cornerstone of human research subject protection. Many subjects sign consent documents without understanding the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights. Proof of comprehension is not required and rarely obtained. Understanding might improve by using an interactive system with multiple options for hearing, viewing and reading about the study and the consent form at the subject’s own pace with testing and immediate feedback. This prospective randomized study compared the IRB-approved paper ICF for an actual clinical research study with an interactive presentation of the same study and its associated consent form using an iPad device in two populations: clinical research professionals, and patients drawn from a variety of outpatient practice settings. Of the 90 participants, 69 completed the online test and survey questions the day after the session (maximum 36 hours post-session). Among research professionals (n = 14), there was a trend (p  = .07) in the direction of iPad subjects testing better on the online test (mean correct  =  77%) compared with paper subjects (mean correct  =  57%). Among patients (n = 55), iPad subjects had significantly higher test scores than standard paper consent subjects (mean correct  =  75% vs 58%, p < .001). For all subjects, the total time spent reviewing the paper consent was 13.2 minutes, significantly less than the average of 22.7 minutes total on the three components to be reviewed using the iPad (introductory video, consent form, interactive quiz). Overall satisfaction and overall enjoyment slightly favored the interactive iPad presentation. This study demonstrates that combining an introductory video, standard consent language, and an interactive quiz on a tablet-based system improves comprehension of research study procedures and risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is widespread debate on whether to anonymize author identities in peer review. The key argument for anonymization is to mitigate bias, whereas arguments against anonymization posit various uses of author identities in the review process. The Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) 2023 conference adopted a middle ground by initially anonymizing the author identities from reviewers, revealing them after the reviewer had submitted their initial reviews, and allowing the reviewer to change their review subsequently. We present an analysis of the reviews pertaining to the identification and use of author identities. Our key findings are: (I) A majority of reviewers self-report not knowing and being unable to guess the authors' identities for the papers they were reviewing. (II) After the initial submission of reviews, 7.1% of reviews changed their overall merit score and 3.8% changed their self-reported reviewer expertise. (III) There is a very weak and statistically insignificant correlation of the rank of authors' affiliations with the change in overall merit; there is a weak but statistically significant correlation with respect to change in reviewer expertise. We also conducted an anonymous survey to obtain opinions from reviewers and authors. The main findings from the 200 survey responses are: (i) A vast majority of participants favor anonymizing author identities in some form. (ii) The "middle-ground" initiative of ITCS 2023 was appreciated. (iii) Detecting conflicts of interest is a challenge that needs to be addressed if author identities are anonymized. Overall, these findings support anonymization of author identities in some form (e.g., as was done in ITCS 2023), as long as there is a robust and efficient way to check conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Divide-and-conquer dividing by a half recurrences, of the form x n = a · x ⌈ n / 2 ⌉ + a · x ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ + p (n) , n ⩾ 2 , appear in many areas of applied mathematics, from the analysis of algorithms to the optimization of phylogenetic balance indices. These equations are usually "solved" by means of a Master Theorem that provides a bound for the growing order of xn, but not the solution's explicit expression. In this paper we give a finite explicit expression for this solution, in terms of the binary decomposition of n, when the independent term p(n) is a polynomial in ⌈n/2⌉ and ⌊n/2⌋. As an application, we obtain explicit formulas for several sequences of interest in phylogenetics, combinatorics, and computer science, for which no such formulas were known so far: for instance, for the Total Cophenetic index and the rooted Quartet index of the maximally balanced bifurcating phylogenetic trees with n leaves, and the sum of the bitwise AND operator applied to pairs of complementary numbers up to n. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Network diffusion processes or how information spreads through networks have been widely examined in numerous disciplines such as epidemiology, physics, sociology, politics, or computer science. In this paper, we extend previous developments by considering a generalization of the diffusion by considering the possibility of differences in the speed of diffusion and reduction depending on the forces' directions. In this situation, the differential speed of diffusion produces deviations from the standard solution around the average of the initial conditions in the network. In fact, this asymmetry gives rise to non-linear dynamics in which, contrary to the symmetric case, the final solution depends on the topology of the graph as well as on the distribution of the initial values. Counter-intuitively, less central nodes in the network are able to exert a higher influence on the final solution. This behavior applies also for different simulated networks such as random, small-world, and scale-free. We show an example of this kind of asymmetric diffusion process in a real case. To do so, we use a network of US Boards of Directors, where boards are the nodes and the directors working for more than one board, are the links. Changes in the proportion of women serving on each board are influenced by the gradient between adjacent boards. We also show that there is an asymmetry: the gradient is reduced at a slower (faster) rhythm if the board has less (more) women than neighboring boards. We are able to quantify the accumulated effect of this asymmetry from 2000 to 2015 in the overall proportion of women on boards, in a 4.7 percentage points (the proportion should have been an 14.61% instead of the observed 9.93% in 2015). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science advances by pushing the boundaries of the adjacent possible. While the global scientific enterprise grows at an exponential pace, at the mesoscopic level the exploration and exploitation of research ideas are reflected through the rise and fall of research fields. The empirical literature has largely studied such dynamics on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on explaining how and why communities of knowledge production evolve. Although fields rise and fall on different temporal and population scales, they are generally argued to pass through a common set of evolutionary stages. To understand the social processes that drive these stages beyond case studies, we need a way to quantify and compare different fields on the same terms. In this paper we develop techniques for identifying common patterns in the evolution of scientific fields and demonstrate their usefulness using 1.5 million preprints from the arXiv repository covering 175 research fields spanning Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology and Quantitative Finance. We show that fields consistently follow a rise and fall pattern captured by a two parameters right-tailed Gumbel temporal distribution. We introduce a field-specific re-scaled time and explore the generic properties shared by articles and authors at the creation, adoption, peak, and decay evolutionary phases. We find that the early phase of a field is characterized by disruptive works mixing of cognitively distant fields written by small teams of interdisciplinary authors, while late phases exhibit the role of specialized, large teams building on the previous works in the field. This method provides foundations to quantitatively explore the generic patterns underlying the evolution of research fields in science, with general implications in innovation studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Distributed Systems architectures are becoming the standard computational model for processing and transportation of information, especially for Cloud Computing environments. The increase in demand for application processing and data management from enterprise and end-user workloads continues to move from a single-node client-server architecture to a distributed multitier design where data processing and transmission are segregated. Software development must considerer the orchestration required to provision its core components in order to deploy the services efficiently in many independent, loosely coupled—physically and virtually interconnected—data centers spread geographically, across the globe. This network routing challenge can be modeled as a variation of the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP). This paper proposes a new optimization algorithm for optimum route selection using Algorithmic Information Theory. The Kelly criterion for a Shannon-Bernoulli process is used to generate a reliable quantitative algorithm to find a near optimal solution tour. The algorithm is then verified by comparing the results with benchmark heuristic solutions in 3 test cases. A statistical analysis is designed to measure the significance of the results between the algorithms and the entropy function can be derived from the distribution. The tested results shown an improvement in the solution quality by producing routes with smaller length and time requirements. The quality of the results proves the flexibility of the proposed algorithm for problems with different complexities without relying in nature-inspired models such as Genetic Algorithms, Ant Colony, Cross Entropy, Neural Networks, 2opt and Simulated Annealing. The proposed algorithm can be used by applications to deploy services across large cluster of nodes by making better decision in the route design. The findings in this paper unifies critical areas in Computer Science, Mathematics and Statistics that many researchers have not explored and provided a new interpretation that advances the understanding of the role of entropy in decision problems encoded in Turing Machines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The gender gap in computer science (CS) research is a well-studied problem, with an estimated ratio of 15%–30% women researchers. However, far less is known about gender representation in specific fields within CS. Here, we investigate the gender gap in one large field, computer systems. To this end, we collected data from 72 leading peer-reviewed CS conferences, totalling 6,949 accepted papers and 19,829 unique authors (2,946 women, 16,307 men, the rest unknown). We combined these data with external demographic and bibliometric data to evaluate the ratio of women authors and the factors that might affect this ratio. Our main findings are that women represent only about 10% of systems researchers, and that this ratio is not associated with various conference factors such as size, prestige, double-blind reviewing, and inclusivity policies. Author research experience also does not significantly affect this ratio, although author country and work sector do. The 10% ratio of women authors is significantly lower than the 16% in the rest of CS. Our findings suggest that focusing on inclusivity policies alone cannot address this large gap. Increasing women's participation in systems research will require addressing the systemic causes of their exclusion, which are even more pronounced in systems than in the rest of CS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]