Lee, Disambiguating author names is indeed a difficult problem. It may have been mentioned on this list before, but are you familiar with ORCID? (Open Researcher & Contributor ID ? http://orcid.org). The number and nature of the participants make for a good chance of success for this initiative.
Jan Velterop On 4 Jan 2012, at 04:09, Lee Giles wrote: > > I would like to ask a counting question since all of this is based on good > counting > and a great deal of faith is placed on the the counters. Even the US census > knows the issues with doing this and resorts to capture/recapture methods > to get things right. > > Counting papers should be rather straightforward since there are databases > which are primarily populated manually mostly by the authors themselves. > > However, counting unique authors is not so straightforward; clustering > same author mentions is nontrivial and just counting each mention leads > to terribly inaccurate results. > > How does the UN or anyone disambiguate authors, such as the John Smith > at Harvard from the John Smith at Berkeley or, more interestingly, from > the H. Chen at many places? Is this a manual or an automatic method? > Manual methods do not scale (look at DBLP) and have many > errors - see PubMed. Do you know how many different "you's" there are in > health > record or credit databases; you would be surprised. > > As for automatic methods, the literature is rife with results. > Disambiguation algorithms are notoriously temperamental and, > depending on the parameters, can lead to over- or under- counting > by factors up to an order of magnitude. > > Best regards, > > Lee Giles > > On 1/3/12 9:59 AM, Arif Jinha wrote: >> >> Arthur, >> Great work. Just trying to save you some time. Here's what I found after >> working on it for about 2 years. >> - # of researchers in the world is reported by UN data in the Science >> Report. >> - That figure directly relates to the number of journal titles which relates >> directly to the number of articles, and the growth rates of articles and >> researchers are 1:1. So, even if you're not interested in the number of >> annual articles published, it's important to note as a check on data and >> possibly a challenge to the evidence thus far. >> - There are more researchers than annual articles - about 6 to 7. Again, a >> check on data or a challenge. >> >> In the absence of any undertaking of reasonable time and expense to count >> researchers better than the UN, I've relied on that data not for great >> precision but because of the logical and empirical support for the internal >> consistency of the relationships (the self-organizing system of scholarly >> communication). >> >> I'm very confident in the precision of some estimates and growth rates for >> articles and not others, those done by Mabe (1 million annual articles in >> 2000, 3.4% growth of journals over 3 centuries and variability in Little >> Science, Big Science and Disillusionment periods) Tenopir and King (similar >> data in the late 1990s) and Bjork. The 2.5 million articles frequently >> cited by Harnad is way off because they failed to take into account the >> difference in article averages - they used the article average from ISI and >> the number of titles from Ulrich's. There is no excuse for that. The other >> estimates that are way off occur before the tools were available to get the >> precision needed and those are older estimtes. >> >> In addition, Bjork's work continues to cite the 3.4% average annual growth >> of active journals, whereas I have noted a spike in article and journal >> output since 2000 which is important to note. The variations in article and >> journal growth are what defines Little Science (before WWII), Big Science >> (after WWII), Disillusionment (1970s to 2000) periods. Since the current >> growth rate is minimally 4.5%, we currently see a) a reversal of >> disllusionment, b) the highest variation in history, and c) the highest >> annual increase in production. Moreover, we see a massive 10% drop in the >> share to the West (NA, Europe, Australia and New Zealand), as a result of >> globalization. We can also see from the data minimally 20% of articles >> being OA now, and the current growth rate (last 5 yrs) pointing towards 50% >> in the next 20 years. So, I have named 2 new periods after Disillusionment - >> Global Science (2000 to current) and Open Science (current to future). >> >> Here are my frustrations with this research, it is rooted in the ancient >> research paradigms of the 20th century, which I myself had to wade through. >> It lacks REFLEXIVITY, and is hopelessly academic. Academia is hopelessly >> unimaginative. >> >> You cannot determine the future of OA by the trend alone, logically if the >> share of OA is already significant and growing rapidly, this alters the >> market, and puts pressure on publishers to react. What will happen is that >> as the OA share increases, more journals will convert to OA, and more new >> journals will start OA. A quick look into Urlich's tells me that the >> increase in new OA journals is much higher than the current growth rate of >> Gold OA articles. Secondly, the growth of mandates is spectacular, but the >> effect takes 2 years to manifest so we are only going to start to see that >> in the next decade. That means an acceleration of the trends that I've >> pointed out is likely, begging the question as to who in their right mind >> would publish a Toll Access journal in the year 2030, to a global audience >> who will see Toll Access as a dinosaur? >> >> Major publishers, as we've seen, have started OA brands and this will >> continue until a major publisher converts their entire product line to OA. >> That publisher will be loved because they will have a useable website, and >> the others will start to look even more awful. >> >> You cannot determine the future either by the behaviour of current >> researchers, since we are in the midst of a vast demographic shift from a >> research world dominated by Western baby boomers who are retiring or will >> retire in the next 20 years. You should determine the future of OA by the >> behavior of future researchers who reflected the boom in the global youth >> population, and grew up in digital culture. Pay attention to students. >> >> The goals of OA create this change, so you have a reflexive effect >> particularly when researchers are transparently advocates of OA (which is >> better than attempting a facade of neutrality impossible for the researcher >> whose choices we are concerned with). The more you succeed in advocating >> OA, the more you re-arrange and accelerate the data you're studying. But no >> one is talking to the students. >> >> Following my research, I decided to register a new publising firm and I'm >> actually much more focused at the moment on creative arts and culture - so >> I'm using what I call an Open Creative Commercial business model. I plan to >> publish scholarly communication going forward, though I'm not satisfied by >> the 'article' as a format since this was designed for print. When we >> publish in print, there will be articles but they will have to justify their >> production value by being both sound scholarship and nice to read. Most >> journal articles are awful reads. >> >> My thesis is not that nice to read because my university requires me to >> confine myself to 20th century conventions. I apologize for this since you >> have decided to read it. What I will do is put together a web presentation >> of the thesis, when I have recovered from academia. I'm satisfied that the >> data shows that the research world is changing, and I can't understand why >> OA advocates pay not attention to students, particularly grad students since >> it is their culture and attitudes which will determine their legacy and the >> future of OA. OA should pay attention to and encourage students, and >> students know more about how to use the web than their professors. >> >> There are several reasons why students are Occupying campuses, and tuition >> is only one problem. Respect is the mai problem. It is like the 'Bread and >> Roses' strike, we want the money problem to be solved, but we want respect >> more than anything. >> >> There is the lack of respect for students' at universities, particularly at >> the biggest ones in the North/West, which is characterized by a culture of >> research entitlement. That is to say, profs generally chase research money >> and neglect their students, adminstrators direct funds to a massive, >> bureaucratic institutional structure and the value and quality of education >> does not keep pace with social change. Students encounter outdated lessons, >> teaching which does not observe pedagogical knowledge, grading which >> discourages innovation, high debt load, and the parochial tradition of >> bullying students with criticism. The criticism is largely habitual by now, >> since profs do not have the time to constructively assist 100s of students >> in their classes. >> >> Profs know and understand that the institutions are broken, but they have >> zero time to address problems. The system of tenure puts forward the false >> notions of 'academic freedom' as if it were a carrot, whereas all it is is >> job security. Thus, their days are spent chasing this carrot, and carrying >> the heavy workload of dealing with 20th century administration. They are >> time-poor They do this for the money. >> >> Academic freedom cannot be granted, it is inherent. I learned that in high >> school when I cut class to learn about the world. All the best critical >> young thinkers are fed up with a generation that has led us to crisis, >> failure, climate change, war, a university climate which does not tolerate >> the spirituality or mysticism that informs arts and culture, and that used >> to infuse intellect with brilliance. In the Muslim world, I think we >> understand that the great towering intellects of history were all mystics. >> Academia and in particular social sciences, holds giant cultural prejudices >> about the nature of reality, all of which were rejected by modern physics 50 >> years ago. >> >> University today is oppression by debt and drudgery and old white folks who >> feelg guilty about global decline. This will be the case until it is >> occupied by the love of wisdom again. Access to scholarship and Open >> Science marks the end of exclusivity to scholarship reserved for elites who >> are members of rich institutions, and ends the cultural hegemony of >> accreditated knowledge. >> >> Tomorrow's researchers are going to take knowledge into vast new dimensions >> of integrated understanding together with the need to raise children in a >> world that one must admit is schizoprhenic, bipolar and >> personality-disordered! It is chaotic and it can only be tolerated by a >> student who becomes a Master, who grounds themselves in enlightenment - >> intellectual, spiritual, mystical and devotional. My child's studies in >> Sufism will be as important as their studies in maths. There is no >> university today that understands any of this. >> >> Because the OA trend is irreversible and people do not require nor >> reasonably should place trust in peer-review anymore, all of the topics we >> are now interested in quickly fade, and we become interested in the action >> of sharing knowledge and being their own filter, doing it rather than >> letting institutions do it. It would be unwise for today's university >> teachers to place great emphasis on publishing in journals anyway, but it >> would be wise for them to teach their students how to be leaders in >> contemporary thought, how to navigate truth and reality, and to be >> informationally wise, and to be fearless about the Openness paradigm - share >> your work! For me it's like the Blues Brothers - 'I'm on a mission from >> God'. lol. >> >> Now that I've finished my MA, I don't have to conform anymore and I can be >> myself again - mystic-philosopher-entrepreneur-occupier. There is a lot of >> bitterness I need to transform into beauty, which is why I Occupy myself >> with the Creative Arts at the moment. Poetry, literature, music, visual art, >> photography, creative capitalism and mutual aid. This was dashed off >> quickly, and I really ought to be on my zafu doing anapasati (that's >> Buddhist for 'sitting around'). Do you think, though, that there will ever >> space in the future for the Bohemian at university - the Alan Watts type? I >> hope so. Otherwise, you'll just say to people 'I got this strange letter >> from this student who is probably mentally ill or on drugs'. Ugggh. That is >> the Brave New World we are in. >> >> If this stuff is less fun and interesting to read than my thesis, I've lost >> you! I wish you greatness in life, the depth of being human, and a good >> death. >> >> 'I believe that unconditional love and unarmed truth will have the final say >> in reality' - MLK. >> >> all the best, >> >> Arif >> >> yo >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Arthur Sale >> To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' >> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 11:43 PM >> Subject: [GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there? >> >> >> Thank you Arif. I have read the article this afternoon (3 January) and >> will download and look through your thesis asap. >> >> >> >> However I feel compelled to re-emphasize to the list that I am not looking >> for an estimate of how many articles are published annually, or ever. The >> first of those pieces of data is useful for estimating what I really want to >> know: how many active researchers are employed in year y? Particularly 2011. >> Of course, it will be useful to have article counts by discipline, however >> rough, because publication practices differ widely between disciplines. A >> publication in some disciplines is worth far less than in others, the number >> of authors/article differs widely, and journal prestige varies at least as >> much. >> >> >> >> There are many other confusing factors in estimates based on article >> production rates which I touched on in my reply to Stevan Harnad, not least >> of which is the frequency of publication of equally highly respected >> researchers. Some publish rarely (say once every three years), others >> produce multiple articles per year. There are distributions in all these >> things which we should understand. If I mention just one, the huge disparity >> between articles/title in ISI and non-ISI journals listed in your article >> (111 vs 26, from Bjork et al) must give anyone cause to reflect! That's over >> 4:1, too big to gloss over. >> >> >> >> I know of course that I cannot determine exactly the number of researchers >> in the world, any more than anyone else can determine exactly how many >> articles were written or published. As an engineer in a previous career, >> absolute precision in these matters is not required, rather sufficient >> confidence that we are in the right ballpark. Anyway, thank you very much >> for your help and links, which I greatly appreciate. >> >> >> >> Arthur Sale >> >> University of Tasmania >> >> >> >> >> >> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On >> Behalf Of Arif Jinha >> Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012 5:26 AM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Subject: [GOAL] Re: How many researchers are there? >> >> >> >> Arthur, >> >> >> >> You're not going to be able to determine the exact number of researchers >> in the world and you will have to make good estimates. But there are direct >> relationships between the number of researchers, the number of articles >> published annually and the number of active peer-reviewed journals. Good >> sources for methodology are my thesis - >> http://arif.jinhabrothers.com/sites/arif.jinhabrothers.com/files/aj.pdf >> (defended and submitted this fall) >> >> - Article 50 million - >> http://www.mendeley.com/research/article-50-million-estimate-number-scholarly-articles-existence-6/ >> >> Methods and data are based chiefly on: >> >> Bjork et al's studies on OA share growth 2006 to current >> >> Mabe and Amin, Tenopir and King - works 1990s to early 2000s >> >> Derek De Sallo Price - 1960s - the 'father of scientometrics. >> >> - you can get the number of article from Bjork's methods and data and mine. >> >> - you can get the number of researchers from UN data but there is ratio of >> researchers to publishing researchers, and publishing researchers publish an >> average of 1 article per year, so if you can determine good estimate for >> that ratio you are on your way. You have good data on growth rates of >> researchers, articles and journals, but growth rates have increased >> dramatically since 2000 as demonstrated in my thesis. It got a bit complex >> and I tried to sort it best I could in my thesis. >> >> >> >> all the best, >> >> >> >> Arif >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Arthur Sale >> >> To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' >> >> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 6:25 PM >> >> Subject: [GOAL] How many researchers are there? >> >> >> >> I am trying to get a rough estimate of the number of active researchers >> in the world. Unfortunately all the estimates seem to be as rough as the >> famous Drake equation for calculating the number of technological >> civilizations in the universe: in other words all the factors are extremely >> fuzzy. I seek your help. My interest is that this is the number of people >> who need to adopt OA for us to have 100% OA. (Actually, we will approach >> that sooner, as the average publication has more than one author and we need >> only one to make it OA. >> >> >> >> To share some thinking, let me take Australia. In 2011 it had 35 >> universities and 29,226 academic staff with a PhD. Let me assume that this >> is the number of research active staff. The average per institution is 835, >> and this spans big universities down to small ones. Australia produces >> according to the OECD 2.5% of the world's research, so let's estimate the >> number of active researchers in the world (taking Australia as 'typical' of >> researchers) as 29226 / 0.025 = 1,169,040 researchers in universities. Note >> that I have not counted non-university research organizations (they'll make >> a small difference) nor PhD students (there is usually a supervisor listed >> in the author list of any publication they produce). >> >> >> >> Let's take another tack. I have read the number of 10,000 research >> universities in the world bandied about. Let's regard 'research university' >> as equal to 'PhD-granting university'. If each of them have 1,000 research >> active staff on average, then that implies 10000 x 1000 = 10,000,000 >> researchers. >> >> >> >> That narrows the estimate, rough as it is, to >> >> 1.1M < no of researchers < 10M >> >> I can live with this, as it is only one power of ten (order of >> magnitude) between the two bounds. The upper limit is around 0.2% of the >> world's population. >> >> >> >> Another tactic is to try to estimate the number of people whose name >> appeared in an author list in the last decade. Disambiguation of names rears >> its ugly head. This will also include many non-researchers in big labs, some >> of them will be dead, and there will be new researchers who have just not >> yet published, but I am looking for ball-park figures, not pinpoint >> accuracy. I haven't done this work yet. >> >> >> >> Can we do better than these estimates, in the face of different national >> styles? It is even difficult to get one number for PhD granting >> universities in the US, and as for India and China @$#! >> >> >> >> Arthur Sale >> >> University of Tasmania, Australia >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL at eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL at eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120104/a0f3f86b/attachment-0001.html
