She is an Expert in this Research Field: The Signal of Recent Publications' Relevance

G. Zeevi, O. Mokryn
{"title":"She is an Expert in this Research Field: The Signal of Recent Publications' Relevance","authors":"G. Zeevi, O. Mokryn","doi":"10.22191/nejcs/vol5/iss1/7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessing the expertise of researchers has garnered increased interest recently. This heightened focus arises from the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary science and the subsequent need to form expert teams. When forming these teams, the coordinators need to assess expertise in fields that are often very different from theirs. The conventional reliance on signals of success, prestige, and academic impact can unintentionally perpetuate biases within the assessment process. This traditional approach favors senior researchers and those affiliated with prestigious institutions, potentially overlooking talented individuals from underrepresented backgrounds or institutions. This paper addresses the challenge of determining expertise by proposing a methodology that leverages the relevance of a researcher's recent publication track to the proposed research as a \"sensemaking\" signal. We introduce a novel {\\em $\\alpha-$relevance} metric between the trained embedding over the titles and abstracts of a researcher's recent publications and the embedding of a call and show that high values of {\\em $\\alpha-$relevance} indicate expertise in the field of the call. By evaluating the {\\em $\\alpha-$relevance} threshold, we establish a robust framework for the assessment process. For the evaluation process, we use (1) NIH grant-winning records and researchers' publications obtained from Scopus and (2) grant submissions dataset from a research university and the corresponding researchers' publications. Additionally, we investigate the optimal time window required to capture the researcher's expertise based on their publication timeline. Considering the temporal relationship between grant winnings and publications, we identify the most informative time window reflecting the researcher's relevant contributions. The data-driven methodology transcends traditional signals of success, promoting a fair evaluation process of the researcher's relevance to the proposed research. By leveraging objective indicators, we aim to facilitate the formation of expert teams across disciplines while mitigating biases in assessing expertise.","PeriodicalId":184569,"journal":{"name":"Northeast Journal of Complex Systems","volume":"748 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northeast Journal of Complex Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22191/nejcs/vol5/iss1/7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessing the expertise of researchers has garnered increased interest recently. This heightened focus arises from the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary science and the subsequent need to form expert teams. When forming these teams, the coordinators need to assess expertise in fields that are often very different from theirs. The conventional reliance on signals of success, prestige, and academic impact can unintentionally perpetuate biases within the assessment process. This traditional approach favors senior researchers and those affiliated with prestigious institutions, potentially overlooking talented individuals from underrepresented backgrounds or institutions. This paper addresses the challenge of determining expertise by proposing a methodology that leverages the relevance of a researcher's recent publication track to the proposed research as a "sensemaking" signal. We introduce a novel {\em $\alpha-$relevance} metric between the trained embedding over the titles and abstracts of a researcher's recent publications and the embedding of a call and show that high values of {\em $\alpha-$relevance} indicate expertise in the field of the call. By evaluating the {\em $\alpha-$relevance} threshold, we establish a robust framework for the assessment process. For the evaluation process, we use (1) NIH grant-winning records and researchers' publications obtained from Scopus and (2) grant submissions dataset from a research university and the corresponding researchers' publications. Additionally, we investigate the optimal time window required to capture the researcher's expertise based on their publication timeline. Considering the temporal relationship between grant winnings and publications, we identify the most informative time window reflecting the researcher's relevant contributions. The data-driven methodology transcends traditional signals of success, promoting a fair evaluation process of the researcher's relevance to the proposed research. By leveraging objective indicators, we aim to facilitate the formation of expert teams across disciplines while mitigating biases in assessing expertise.
她是该研究领域的专家:最近出版物的相关性信号
评估研究人员的专业知识最近引起了越来越多的兴趣。这种高度关注源于对跨学科科学的日益重视以及随后形成专家团队的需要。在组建这些团队时,协调员需要评估通常与他们的领域非常不同的专业知识。传统上对成功、声望和学术影响信号的依赖可能在评估过程中无意中使偏见永久化。这种传统的方法倾向于高级研究人员和那些隶属于著名机构的人,潜在地忽视了来自代表性不足的背景或机构的有才华的人。本文通过提出一种方法来解决确定专业知识的挑战,该方法利用研究人员最近发表的文章与所提议的研究的相关性作为“意义制造”信号。我们在研究人员最近出版物的标题和摘要的训练嵌入与呼叫嵌入之间引入了一种新颖的{\em $\alpha-$相关性}度量,并表明{\em $\alpha-$相关性}的高值表明该呼叫领域的专业知识。通过评估{\em $\alpha-$相关性}阈值,我们为评估过程建立了一个健壮的框架。在评估过程中,我们使用(1)从Scopus获得的NIH获奖记录和研究人员的出版物;(2)从研究型大学获得的资助提交数据集和相应的研究人员出版物。此外,我们调查了最佳的时间窗口,需要捕捉研究人员的专业知识,基于他们的出版时间表。考虑到奖金和出版物之间的时间关系,我们确定了反映研究人员相关贡献的最具信息量的时间窗口。数据驱动的方法超越了传统的成功信号,促进了对研究人员与拟议研究的相关性的公平评估过程。通过利用客观指标,我们的目标是促进跨学科专家团队的形成,同时减少评估专业知识的偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信