Top Research Papers in the US for 2020
In February of 2020, the top research papers in the US included a report on a space storm that was unprecedented as well as a call for take action to support Black scientists, and a paper highlighting the gap in funding between white and Black scientists. Despite the controversy surrounding COVID-19 research the top papers didn’t contain any COVID-19-related research. They included a paper about the discovery of mammoth remains which date back to the beginning of time, and an investigation into the evolution of human activity and new insight into how life started.
In the top 1percent of citations, Chinese research is more widely cited than U. S.scientists.
A recent report indicates that China is currently leading the world in the amount of scientific papers with high citations and is surpassing the United States in both quantity and quality. China is the home of 27.2% of the top 1% most cited scientific papers, in contrast to the United States’ 24.9%. The study conducted by Japan’s National Institute of Science and Technology Policy revealed that China is now the most influential nation in producing scientific papers.
Citation counts can serve as a measure of the global impact of research because they can be a record of knowledge flow. They can be used to identify local knowledge. Citations of Chinese research are more localized, since Chinese researchers tend to cite more of their own publications than U. S.researchers.
There are pockets of scientific excellence in China however, the majority of their work is based on established science. Chinese scientists, however, have to be aware of who they are citing. Citation nepotism is when individuals group together to boost their citation count.
Multiple-author papers are much more often cited than single-author publications.
A recent study showed that multiple-author papers were cited more often than single-author papers. The reason for this is not entirely evident, but it could be due to the expanding size of scientific research projects. It can be difficult for a single author to manage large-scale research projects. Additionally, the computational resources required to conduct such research are usually beyond their capabilities.
Universities and funding agencies as well as university hiring bodies may have an impact on the trend towards co-authorship. This factor is not the only reason for co-authorship. A recent study of the impact factor of scientific journals found that single-authored articles garnered less citations when compared to papers written by multiple authors. Academic policymakers should reconsider this trend and look into accepting articles based on the number of authors.
The proportion of multiple-authored papers has been steadily increasing in the social sciences for a long time. For instance, in 1945, three percent of articles in top ten journals in economics were co-authored. This number grew to ten percent in 1960 and thirty percent by 1976. Despite this single-author articles still accounted for 70 percent of the total.
Rankings are based on various criteria
Rankings are based on a range of criteria, including the volume and impact of web content. Rankings also consider things like the number of external links. These are often ignored by other metrics, for instance, the number of publications. However researchers have come up with new methods of evaluating educational institutions and create more meaningful comparisons.
Rankings are also useful in other areas, such as the social sciences. They aid in understanding survey results and provide a comparative framework for similar entities. For instance, a company could be ranked by the number of employees it has. In the manufacturing industry, rankings can be used to assist companies evaluate the quality of their products and service.
Rankings are based on a variety of criteria and each one is considered independently. Data used to determine rankings comes from a variety of sources. For instance, the Times and Jiao Tong rankings consider what is primary research and secondary research the size of the institution and its perceived importance. This means that smaller technical universities such as the Technical University of Munich or the University of Edinburgh, score lower than large universities like Cambridge and MIT.
