Cultural Differences and Perverse Incentives in Science Create a Bad Mix: Exploring Country-Level Publication Bias in Select ACM Conferences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17150v3
• Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:46:15 GMT
• Title: Cultural Differences and Perverse Incentives in Science Create a Bad Mix: Exploring Country-Level Publication Bias in Select ACM Conferences
• Authors: Aksheytha Chelikavada, Casey C. Bennett,
• Abstract summary: In the era of big science, many national governments are helping to build well-funded teams of scientists to serve nationalistic ambitions.<n>We provide evidence that indicates significant inequality using standard Gini Index metrics in the publication rates of individual scientists.<n>Scientists who were affiliated with the top-5 countries were found to be contributing significantly more to the inequality in publication rates than others.
• Score: 0.0789257770465417
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In the era of big science, many national governments are helping to build well-funded teams of scientists to serve nationalistic ambitions, providing financial incentives for certain outcomes for purposes other than advancing science. That in turn can impact the behavior of scientists and create distortions in publication rates, frequency, and publication venues targeted. To that end, we provide evidence that indicates significant inequality using standard Gini Index metrics in the publication rates of individual scientists across various groupings (e.g. country, institution type, ranking-level) based on an intensive analysis of thousands of papers published in several well-known ACM conferences (HRI, IUI, KDD, CHI, SIGGRAPH, UIST, and UBICOMP) over 15 years between 2010 to 2024. Furthermore, scientists who were affiliated with the top-5 countries (in terms of research expenditure) were found to be contributing significantly more to the inequality in publication rates than others, which raises a number of questions for the scientific community. We discuss some of those questions later in the paper. We also detected several examples in the dataset of potential serious ethical problems in publications likely caused by such incentive systems. Finally, a topic modeling analysis revealed that some countries are pursuing a much narrower range of scientific topics relative to others, indicating those incentives may also be limiting genuine scientific curiosity. In summary, our findings raise awareness of systems put in place by certain national governments that may be eroding the pursuit of truth through science and gradually undermining the integrity of the global scientific community.

Related papers

• Transforming Science with Large Language Models: A Survey on AI-assisted Scientific Discovery, Experimentation, Content Generation, and Evaluation [58.064940977804596]
  A plethora of new AI models and tools has been proposed, promising to empower researchers and academics worldwide to conduct their research more effectively and efficiently. Ethical concerns regarding shortcomings of these tools and potential for misuse take a particularly prominent place in our discussion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T18:26:45Z)
• AI Expands Scientists' Impact but Contracts Science's Focus [11.634306888037273]
  We analyze 67.9 million research papers across six major fields using a validated language model. Scientists who adopt AI tools publish 67.37% more papers, receive 3.16 times more citations, and become team leaders 4 years earlier than non-adopters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T18:24:17Z)
• Past, Present, and Future of Citation Practices in HCI [5.498355194100662]
  We show how a change in editorial policies introduced at the ACM CHI Conference in 2016 destabilized the CHI research community.<n>If this near-linear trend continues undisrupted, an article at CHI 2030 will include on average almost 130 references.<n>Our exploratory analysis highlights the profound impact of meso-level policy adjustments on the evolution of scientific fields and disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-26T11:22:47Z)
• Understanding Fine-grained Distortions in Reports of Scientific Findings [46.96512578511154]
  Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public is crucial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T19:00:01Z)
• Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process [82.2069685579588]
  We investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research. We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023. Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T20:05:49Z)
• Academic competitions [61.592427413342975]
  This chapter provides a survey of academic challenges in the context of machine learning and related fields. We review the most influential competitions in the last few years and analyze challenges per area of knowledge. The aims of scientific challenges, their goals, major achievements and expectations for the next few years are reviewed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T01:01:04Z)
• Diversity of Expertise is Key to Scientific Impact: a Large-Scale Analysis in the Field of Computer Science [1.8794304012790348]
  We analysed how the diversity of research fields within a research team relates to the number of citations their papers received in the upcoming 5 years. This suggests that, at least in Computer Science, diversity of expertise is key to scientific impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T09:56:44Z)
• How Data Scientists Review the Scholarly Literature [4.406926847270567]
  We examine the literature review practices of data scientists. Data science represents a field seeing an exponential rise in papers. No prior work has examined the specific practices and challenges faced by these scientists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-10T03:53:05Z)
• Geographic Citation Gaps in NLP Research [63.13508571014673]
  This work asks a series of questions on the relationship between geographical location and publication success. We first created a dataset of 70,000 papers from the ACL Anthology, extracted their meta-information, and generated their citation network. We show that not only are there substantial geographical disparities in paper acceptance and citation but also that these disparities persist even when controlling for a number of variables such as venue of publication and sub-field of NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T02:25:23Z)
• Modeling Information Change in Science Communication with Semantically Matched Paraphrases [50.67030449927206]
  SPICED is the first paraphrase dataset of scientific findings annotated for degree of information change. SPICED contains 6,000 scientific finding pairs extracted from news stories, social media discussions, and full texts of original papers. Models trained on SPICED improve downstream performance on evidence retrieval for fact checking of real-world scientific claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T07:44:38Z)
• Award rate inequities in biomedical research [55.850540873687386]
  The authors performed an analysis of 14,263 biomedical research proposals with proposed start dates between 2010-2022 from the University of Michigan Medical School. There is a clear relationship between race/ethnicity and rates of proposal award. Black/African American and Asian researchers appear disadvantaged across all submission categories relative to White researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-14T14:05:39Z)
• Gender Imbalance and Spatiotemporal Patterns of Contributions to Citizen Science Projects: the case of Zooniverse [0.0]
  We report on the uneven geographical distribution of the citizen scientist and model the variations among countries based on the socio-economic conditions. We report on the temporal features of contributions as well as the leisurely nature of participation suggested by the time of the day that the citizen scientists were the most active. Our findings can help attract the attention of public and private stakeholders, as well as to inform the design of the platforms and science policy making processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-07T18:57:51Z)
• Brain Drain and Brain Gain in Russia: Analyzing International Migration of Researchers by Discipline using Scopus Bibliometric Data 1996-2020 [77.34726150561087]
  We analyze all researchers who have published with a Russian affiliation address in Scopus-indexed sources in 1996-2020. While Russia was a donor country in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it has experienced a relatively balanced circulation of researchers in more recent years. Overall, researchers emigrating from Russia outnumbered and outperformed researchers immigrating to Russia.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-07T12:47:38Z)

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.