BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Staša Milojević

Staša Milojević contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Digital Librariesphysics.soc-phastro-ph.IMInformation RetrievalInformation Theorymath.ITMethodologySocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
11works
0followers
8topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

11 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Metrics and Mechanisms: Measuring the Unmeasurable in the Science of Science

What science does, what science could do, and how to make science work? If we want to know the answers to these questions, we need to be able to uncover the mechanisms of science, going beyond metrics that are easily collectible and quantifiable. In this perspective piece, we link metrics to mechanisms by demonstrating how emerging metrics of science not only offer complementaries to existing ones, but also shed light on the hidden structure and mechanisms of science. Based on fundamental properties of science, we classify existing theories and findings into: hot and cold science referring to attention shift between scientific fields, fast and slow science reflecting productivity of scientists and teams, soft and hard science revealing reproducibility of scientific research. We suggest that interest about mechanisms of science since Derek J. de Solla Price, Robert K. Merton, Eugene Garfield, and many others complement the zeitgeist in pursuing new, complex metrics without understanding the underlying processes. We propose that understanding and modeling the mechanisms of science condition effective development and application of metrics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Enabling Discoveries: Thirty Years of Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation at the National Science Foundation

Over its more than thirty-year history, the Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation (ATI) program has provided grants to support technology development and instrumentation for ground-based astronomy. Through a combination of automated literature assessment and in-depth literature review, we present a survey of ATI-funded research and an assessment of its impact on astronomy and society. Award acknowledgement and literature citation statistics for ATI are comparable to a comparison astronomy grant program that does not support technology development. Citation statistics for both NSF-funded programs exceed those of the general astronomical literature. Numerous examples demonstrate the significant, long term impact of ATI-supported research on astronomy. As part of this impact, ATI grants have provided many early career researchers the opportunity to gain critical professional experience. However, technology development unfolds over a time period that is longer than an individual grant. A longitudinal perspective shows that investments in technology and instrumentation have lead to extraordinary scientific progress.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Nature, Science, and PNAS -- Disciplinary profiles and impact

Nature, Science, and PNAS are the three most prestigious general-science journals, and Nature and Science are among the most influential journals overall, based on the journal Impact Factor (IF). In this paper we perform automatic classification of ~50,000 articles in these journals (published in the period 2005-2015) into 14 broad areas, to explore disciplinary profiles and to determine their field-specific IFs. We find that in all three journals the articles from Bioscience, Astronomy, and Geosciences are over-represented, with other areas being under-represented, some of them severely. Discipline-specific IFs in these journals vary greatly, for example, between 18 and 46 for Nature. We find that the areas that have the highest disciplinary IFs are not the ones that contribute the most articles. We also find that publishing articles in these three journals brings prestige for articles in all areas, but at different levels, the least being for Astronomy. Comparing field-specific IFs of Nature, Science and PNAS to other top journals in six largest areas (Bioscience, Medicine, Geosciences, Physics, Astronomy, and Chemistry) these three journals are always among the top seven journals, with Nature being at the very top for all fields except in Medicine.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Practical method to reclassify Web of Science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines

Classification of bibliographic items into subjects and disciplines in large databases is essential for many quantitative science studies. The Web of Science classification of journals into ~250 subject categories, which has served as a basis for many studies, is known to have some fundamental problems and several practical limitations that may affect the results from such studies. Here we present an easily reproducible method to perform reclassification of the Web of Science into existing subject categories and into 14 broad areas. Our reclassification is at a level of articles, so it preserves disciplinary differences that may exist among individual articles published in the same journal. Reclassification also eliminates ambiguous (multiple) categories that are found for 50% of items, and assigns a discipline/field category to all articles that come from broad-coverage journals such as Nature and Science. The correctness of the assigned subject categories is evaluated manually and is found to be ~95%.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Towards a more realistic citation model: The key role of research team sizes

We propose a new citation model which builds on the existing models that explicitly or implicitly include "direct" and "indirect" (learning about a cited paper's existence from references in another paper) citation mechanisms. Our model departs from the usual, unrealistic assumption of uniform probability of direct citation, in which initial differences in citation arise purely randomly. Instead, we demonstrate that a two-mechanism model in which the probability of direct citation is proportional to the number of authors on a paper (team size) is able to reproduce the empirical citation distributions of articles published in the field of astronomy remarkably well, and at different points in time. Interpretation of our model is that the intrinsic citation capacity, and hence the initial visibility of a paper, will be enhanced when more people are intimately familiar with some work, favoring papers from larger teams. While the intrinsic citation capacity cannot depend only on the team size, our model demonstrates that it must be to some degree correlated with it, and distributed in a similar way, i.e., having a power-law tail. Consequently, our team-size model qualitatively explains the existence of a correlation between the number of citations and the number of authors on a paper.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Citation content analysis (cca): A framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content

This paper proposes a new framework for Citation Content Analysis (CCA), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. The framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. This paper briefly reviews the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences, and its previous application in Library and Information Science. Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA, including principles to identify the reference scope, a two-dimensional (citing and cited) and two-modular (syntactic and semantic modules) codebook, are provided and described. Future works and implications are also suggested.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

How are academic age, productivity and collaboration related to citing behavior of researchers?

References are an essential component of research articles and therefore of scientific communication. In this study we investigate referencing (citing) behavior in five diverse fields (astronomy, mathematics, robotics, ecology and economics) based on 213,756 core journal articles. At the macro level we find: (a) a steady increase in the number of references per article over the period studied (50 years), which in some fields is due to a higher rate of usage, while in others reflects longer articles and (b) an increase in all fields in the fraction of older, foundational references since the 1980s, with no obvious change in citing patterns associated with the introduction of the Internet. At the meso level we explore current (2006-2010) referencing behavior of different categories of authors (21,562 total) within each field, based on their academic age, productivity and collaborative practices. Contrary to some previous findings and expectations we find that senior researchers use references at the same rate as their junior colleagues, with similar rates of re-citation (use of same references in multiple papers). High Modified Price Index (MPI, which measures the speed of the research front more accurately than the traditional Price Index) of senior authors indicates that their research has the similar cutting-edge aspect as that of their younger colleagues. In all fields both the productive researchers and especially those who collaborate more use a significantly lower fraction of foundational references and have much higher MPI and lower re-citation rates, i.e., they are the ones pushing the research front regardless of researcher age. This paper introduces improved bibliometric methods to measure the speed of the research front, disambiguate lead authors in co-authored papers and decouple measures of productivity and collaboration.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Information Metrics (iMetrics): A Research Specialty with a Socio-Cognitive Identity?

"Bibliometrics", "scientometrics", "informetrics", and "webometrics" can all be considered as manifestations of a single research area with similar objectives and methods, which we call "information metrics" or iMetrics. This study explores the cognitive and social distinctness of iMetrics with respect to the general information science (IS), focusing on a core of researchers, shared vocabulary and literature/knowledge base. Our analysis investigates the similarities and differences between four document sets. The document sets are drawn from three core journals for iMetrics research (Scientometrics, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and Journal of Informetrics). We split JASIST into document sets containing iMetrics and general IS articles. The volume of publications in this representation of the specialty has increased rapidly during the last decade. A core of researchers that predominantly focus on iMetrics topics can thus be identified. This core group has developed a shared vocabulary as exhibited in high similarity of title words and one that shares a knowledge base. The research front of this field moves faster than the research front of information science in general, bringing it closer to Price's dream.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Multidisciplinary Cognitive Content of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

This article examines the cognitive evolution and disciplinary diversity of nanotechnology as expressed through the terminology used in titles of nano journal articles. The analysis is based on the NanoBank bibliographic database of 287,106 nano articles published between 1981 and 2004. We perform multifaceted analyses of title words, focusing on 100 most frequent terms. Hierarchical clustering of title terms reveals three distinct time periods of cognitive development of nano research: formative (1981-1990), early (1991-1998), and current (after 1998). Early period is characterized by the introduction of thin film deposition techniques, while the current period is characterized by the increased focus on carbon nanotube and nanoparticle research. We introduce a method to identify disciplinary components of nanotechnology. It shows that the nano research is being carried out in a number of diverse parent disciplines. Currently only 5% of articles are published in dedicated nano-only journals. We find that some 85% of nano research today is multidisciplinary. Hierarchical clustering of disciplinary components reveals that the cognitive content of current nanoscience can be divided into nine clusters. Some clusters account for a large fraction of nano research and are identified with such parent disciplines as the condensed matter and applied physics, materials science, and analytical chemistry. Other clusters represent much smaller parts of nano research, but are as cognitively distinct. In the decreasing order of size, these fields are: polymer science, biotechnology, general chemistry, surface science, and pharmacology. Cognitive content of research published in nano-only journals is closest to nano research published in condensed matter and applied physics journals.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Modes of Collaboration in Modern Science - Beyond Power Laws and Preferential Attachment

The goal of the study is to determine the underlying processes leading to the observed collaborator distribution in modern scientific fields, with special attention to non-power law behavior. Nanoscience is used as a case study of a modern interdisciplinary field, and its coauthorship network for 2000-04 period is constructed from NanoBank database. We find three collaboration modes that correspond to three distinct ranges in the distribution of collaborators: (1) for authors with fewer than 20 collaborators (the majority) preferential attachment does not hold and they form a log-normal "hook" instead of a power law, (2) authors with more than 20 collaborators benefit from preferential attachment and form a power law tail, and (3) authors with between 250 and 800 collaborators are more frequent than expected because of the hyperauthorship practices in certain subfields.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Power-law Distributions in Information Science - Making the Case for Logarithmic Binning

We suggest partial logarithmic binning as the method of choice for uncovering the nature of many distributions encountered in information science (IS). Logarithmic binning retrieves information and trends "not visible" in noisy power-law tails. We also argue that obtaining the exponent from logarithmically binned data using a simple least square method is in some cases warranted in addition to methods such as the maximum likelihood. We also show why often used cumulative distributions can make it difficult to distinguish noise from genuine features, and make it difficult to obtain an accurate power-law exponent of the underlying distribution. The treatment is non-technical, aimed at IS researchers with little or no background in mathematics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access