scholarly journals One year after the outbreak – Involvement of scientists in the Covid-19 pandemic Findings from a Germany-wide study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Ambrasat ◽  
Gregor Fabian
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Life Science ◽  
Gender Effects ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Scientific Expertise ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
One Year ◽  
Open Question ◽  
New Situation ◽  
Academic Positions

The Covid-19 pandemic initially led to high demands for scientific expertise, while at the same time scientific results, for example in the form of preprints, being widely and sometimes critically discussed in public almost as soon as they were published. It is an open question how Scientists react and adopt to the changed situation. With data from the (German) Scientists Survey, it is possible to map the scientists' involvement in the pandemic - across academic positions and disciplines. Our results show that scientists from all disciplines are involved in corona-related research, have started or acquired projects and already published with relation to COVID-19. Social Sciences are even more involved than e.g. life science. Gender effects emerge I such a way that women actually less rapidly adopt to the new situation.

The Rise of Professors of Economics and Business Studies in Switzerland

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Rossier ◽  
Felix Bühlmann ◽  
André Mach
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Business Studies ◽  
Power Resources ◽  
Institutional Capital ◽  
Scientific Reputation ◽  
The University ◽  
Academic Positions

AbstractThis paper studies the rise of professors of economics and business studies in the second half of the 20th century in Switzerland. It focuses on three types of power resources: positions in the university hierarchy, scientific reputation and extra-academic positions in the economic and political spheres. Based on a biographical database of N = 487 professors, it examines how these resources developed from 1957 to 2000. We find that professors of economic sciences were increasingly and simultaneously successful on all three studied dimensions – especially when compared to disciplines such as law, social sciences or humanities. This evolution seems to challenge the notorious trade-off between scientific and society poles of the academic field: professors of economics and business increased their scientific reputation while becoming more powerful in worldly positions. However, zooming in on their individual endowment with capital, we see that the same professors rarely hold simultaneously a significant amount of scientific and institutional capital.

scholarly journals Research in Education Draws Widely From the Social Sciences and Humanities

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristine Lund ◽  
Heisawn Jeong ◽  
Sebastian Grauwin ◽  
Pablo Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Collective Knowledge ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Research In Education

It is well-known that education related research is carried out within different disciplines and frameworks, but how is it specifically connected through citations to the larger social sciences and humanities? And how can this knowledge be mobilized to improve dialogue between researchers in different communities, given the benefits of integrating different frameworks and methods? We used different scientometric methods to show where exactly research in education connects to social sciences and humanities. This multidisciplinary context provokes a set of integration challenges for research in education. We propose how our work can supplement an existing model in order to give a framework for meeting these challenges with the goal of achieving broader education-related collective knowledge advancement.

Developing Biomedical Applications in the Framework of EELA

2009 ◽  
pp. 206-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Aparicio ◽  
Fernando Blanco ◽  
Ignacio Blanquer ◽  
César Bonavides ◽  
Juan Luis Chaves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Biomedical Applications ◽  
Neglected Diseases ◽  
Sequence Alignments ◽  
International Collaborations ◽  
Grid Infrastructures ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Increasing Demand ◽  
One Year ◽  
Computational Phylogenetics

In the last years an increasing demand for Grid Infrastructures has resulted in several international collaborations. This is the case of the EELA Project, which has brought together collaborating groups of Latin America and Europe. One year ago, the authors presented this e-infrastructure used, among others, by the biomedical groups for the studies of oncological analysis, neglected diseases, sequence alignments and computational phylogenetics. After this period, the achieved advances and the scientific results are summarized in this chapter

The divided views of the information and digital divides: A call for integrative theories of information inequality

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 660-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liangzhi Yu
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Digital Divide ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Number Of Clusters ◽  
Information Inequality ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Digital Divides ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Information Poverty

This article defines information inequality as multifaceted disparity between individuals, communities or nations in mobilizing society’s information resources for the benefit of their lives and development. It then examines related research from a wide range of disciplines that focuses either on information inequality in general or on its specific forms, e.g. information poverty, information divide, knowledge gap and digital divide. It shows that it is possible to identify a number of clusters of information inequality research according to their theoretical perspectives, and that these perspectives have inherited to a great extent the traditional divisions of social sciences between structure vs agency, society vs individuals and objectivism vs subjectivism. Following earlier calls for greater dialogue between divisions of related research, this article goes further to call for integrative theorizing of information inequality in the way exemplified by Bourdieu’s research on social inequality.

scholarly journals COVID-19 research in Wikipedia

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 1349-1380
Author(s):  
Giovanni Colavizza
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Fast Pace ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
New Research ◽  
The Web ◽  
Highly Cited

Wikipedia is one of the main sources of free knowledge on the Web. During the first few months of the pandemic, over 5,200 new Wikipedia pages on COVID-19 were created, accumulating over 400 million page views by mid-June 2020. 1 At the same time, an unprecedented amount of scientific articles on COVID-19 and the ongoing pandemic have been published online. Wikipedia’s content is based on reliable sources, such as scientific literature. Given its public function, it is crucial for Wikipedia to rely on representative and reliable scientific results, especially in a time of crisis. We assess the coverage of COVID-19-related research in Wikipedia via citations to a corpus of over 160,000 articles. We find that Wikipedia editors are integrating new research at a fast pace, and have cited close to 2% of the COVID-19 literature under consideration. While doing so, they are able to provide a representative coverage of COVID-19-related research. We show that all the main topics discussed in this literature are proportionally represented from Wikipedia, after accounting for article-level effects. We further use regression analyses to model citations from Wikipedia and show that Wikipedia editors on average rely on literature that is highly cited, widely shared on social media, and peer-reviewed.

scholarly journals An empirical assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in the social sciences (2014-2017)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Elis Hardwicke ◽  
Joshua D Wallach ◽  
Mallory Kidwell ◽  
Theiss Bendixen ◽  
Sophia Crüwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Related Research ◽  
The Social

Serious concerns about research quality have catalyzed a number of reform initiatives intended to improve transparency and reproducibility and thus facilitate self-correction, increase efficiency, and enhance research credibility. Meta-research has evaluated the merits of some individual initiatives; however, this may not capture broader trends reflecting the cumulative contribution of these efforts. In this study, we manually examined a random sample of 250 articles in order to estimate the prevalence of a range of transparency and reproducibility-related indicators in the social sciences literature published between 2014-2017. Few articles indicated availability of materials (16/151, 11% [95% confidence interval, 7% to 16%]), protocols (0/156, 0% [0% to 1%]), raw data (11/156, 7% [2% to 13%]), or analysis scripts (2/156, 1% [0% to 3%]), and no studies were pre-registered (0/156, 0% [0% to 1%]). Some articles explicitly disclosed funding sources (or lack of; 74/236, 31% [25% to 37%]) and some declared no conflicts of interest (36/236, 15% [11% to 20%]). Replication studies were rare (2/156, 1% [0% to 3%]). Few studies were included in evidence synthesis via systematic review (17/151, 11% [7% to 16%]) or meta-analysis (2/151, 1% [0% to 3%]). Less than half the articles were publicly available (101/250, 40% [34% to 47%]). Minimal adoption of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices could be undermining the credibility and efficiency of social science research. The present study establishes a baseline that can be revisited in the future to assess progress.

scholarly journals Ritorno a Likert. Verso una survey discorsiva

2009 ◽  
pp. 5-28
Author(s):  
Giampietro Gobo
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Response Alternatives ◽  
Alternative Proposal ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Methodological Debate

- For decades, the dilemma between open-ended and closed-ended response alternatives occupied the methodological debate. Over the years, dominant approaches in survey have reacted to this dilemma by opting for fixed response alternatives and the standardization of interviewer's behaviour. If this methodological decision has been the survey's fortune, making it the methodology most widely used in the social sciences, however it produces a large amount of biases well known in the literature. In order to re- medy these biases an alternative proposal can be designed by re-discovering and adapting two «old» proposals: Likert's technique called «fixed question/free answers», and Galtung's procedure named «open question/closed answer». Both procedures are guided by the same principle: make the interview into a conversation, let the interviewee answer freely in his/her own words, and thus release him/her from the researcher's schemes.

scholarly journals COVID-19 research in Wikipedia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Colavizza
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Fast Pace ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
New Research ◽  
The Web ◽  
Highly Cited

AbstractWikipedia is one of the main sources of free knowledge on the Web. During the first few months of the pandemic, over 5,200 new Wikipedia pages on COVID-19 have been created and have accumulated over 400M pageviews by mid June 2020.1 At the same time, an unprecedented amount of scientific articles on COVID-19 and the ongoing pandemic have been published online. Wikipedia’s contents are based on reliable sources such as scientific literature. Given its public function, it is crucial for Wikipedia to rely on representative and reliable scientific results, especially so in a time of crisis. We assess the coverage of COVID-19-related research in Wikipedia via citations to a corpus of over 160,000 articles. We find that Wikipedia editors are integrating new research at a fast pace, and have cited close to 2% of the COVID-19 literature under consideration. While doing so, they are able to provide a representative coverage of COVID-19-related research. We show that all the main topics discussed in this literature are proportionally represented from Wikipedia, after accounting for article-level effects. We further use regression analyses to model citations from Wikipedia and show that Wikipedia editors on average rely on literature which is highly cited, widely shared on social media, and has been peer-reviewed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document