Should Young Computer Scientists Stop Collaborating with their Doctoral
Advisors?
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08103v1
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:49:39 GMT
- Title: Should Young Computer Scientists Stop Collaborating with their Doctoral
Advisors?
- Authors: Ariel Rosenfeld and Oleg Maksimov
- Abstract summary: We find that highly independent researchers are more academically successful than their peers in terms of H-index, i10-index and total number of citations throughout their careers.
Both highly and moderately independent researchers are found to have longer academic careers.
- Score: 9.497980068926859
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: One of the first steps in an academic career, and perhaps the pillar thereof,
is completing a PhD under the supervision of a doctoral advisor. While prior
work has examined the advisor-advisee relationship and its potential effects on
the prospective academic success of the advisee, very little is known on the
possibly continued relationship after the advisee has graduated. We harnessed
three genealogical and scientometric datasets to identify 3 distinct groups of
computer scientists: Highly independent, who cease collaborating with their
advisors (almost) instantly upon graduation; Moderately independent, who
(quickly) reduce the collaboration rate over ~5 years; and Weakly independent
who continue collaborating with their advisors for at least 10 years
post-graduation. We find that highly independent researchers are more
academically successful than their peers in terms of H-index, i10-index and
total number of citations throughout their careers. Moderately independent
researchers perform, on average, better than weakly independent researchers,
yet the differences are not found to be statistically significant. In addition,
both highly and moderately independent researchers are found to have longer
academic careers. Interestingly, weakly independent researchers tend to be
supervised by more academically successful advisors.
Related papers
- What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? [173.8912784451817]
In modern science, peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error.
Since the artifacts involved in peer review are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing.
We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T16:06:43Z) - Forecasting Success of Computer Science Professors and Students Based on
Their Academic and Personal Backgrounds [0.0]
We analyze the influence of students' previous universities on their chances of being accepted to prestigious North American universities.
Our findings demonstrate that the ranking of their prior universities is a significant factor in achieving their goals.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-04T18:30:24Z) - Artificial intelligence adoption in the physical sciences, natural
sciences, life sciences, social sciences and the arts and humanities: A
bibliometric analysis of research publications from 1960-2021 [73.06361680847708]
In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI, but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times.
In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI (many in computer science), but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times.
We conclude that the context of the current surge appears different, and that interdisciplinary AI application is likely to be sustained.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-15T14:08:07Z) - How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors'
Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions? [87.00095008723181]
Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers.
Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors.
At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-22T15:59:30Z) - Exploring the Confounding Factors of Academic Career Success: An
Empirical Study with Deep Predictive Modeling [43.91066315776696]
We propose to explore the determinants of academic career success through an empirical and predictive modeling perspective.
We analyze the co-author network and find that potential scholars work closely with influential scholars early on and more closely as they grow.
We find that being a Fellow could not bring the improvements of citations and productivity growth.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-19T08:16:21Z) - Long-Term Mentoring for Computer Science Researchers [62.64059477903536]
Leaders in programming languages and computer architecture realized they needed long-term mentoring programs.
In January 2021, SIGPLAN-M grew to an official cross-institutional long-term mentoring program.
In January 2022, Computer Architecture Long-term Mentoring (CALM) grew to an official cross-institutional program.
We hope this will kick-start a larger long-term mentoring effort across all of computer science.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-08-06T13:24:20Z) - A dataset of mentorship in science with semantic and demographic
estimations [4.317131795436002]
We describe a crowdsourced dataset of 743176 mentorship relationships among 738989 scientists across 112 fields.
We enrich the scientists' profiles with publication data from the Microsoft Academic Graph and "semantic" representations of research using deep learning content analysis.
We perform extensive validations of the profile--publication matching, semantic content, and demographic inferences.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-11T16:12:15Z) - Learnings from Frontier Development Lab and SpaceML -- AI Accelerators
for NASA and ESA [57.06643156253045]
Research with AI and ML technologies lives in a variety of settings with often asynchronous goals and timelines.
We perform a case study of the Frontier Development Lab (FDL), an AI accelerator under a public-private partnership from NASA and ESA.
FDL research follows principled practices that are grounded in responsible development, conduct, and dissemination of AI research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-11-09T21:23:03Z) - Understanding the Advisor-advisee Relationship via Scholarly Data
Analysis [32.63446608170046]
Advisees mentored by advisors with high academic level have better academic performance than the rest.
Advisees mentored by advisors with high academic level can raise their advisees' h-index ranking.
This work provides new insights on promoting our understanding of the relationship between advisors' academic characteristics and advisees' performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-20T02:57:25Z) - Undergraduate Student Research With Low Faculty Cost [1.90365714903665]
Many programs aimed at introducing undergraduates to research are structured like graduate research programs.
We have started a pilot program in our department where a larger number of students work with a single faculty member.
Students report that they develop a better understanding of what research in Computer Science is.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-03-10T23:54:09Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.