Practical operation and theoretical basis of difference-in-difference regression in science of science: The comparative trial on the scientific performance of Nobel laureates versus their coauthors

Yurui Huang, Chaolin Tian, Yifang Ma
{"title":"Practical operation and theoretical basis of difference-in-difference regression in science of science: The comparative trial on the scientific performance of Nobel laureates versus their coauthors","authors":"Yurui Huang, Chaolin Tian, Yifang Ma","doi":"10.2478/jdis-2023-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose In recent decades, with the availability of large-scale scientific corpus datasets, difference-in-difference (DID) is increasingly used in the science of science and bibliometrics studies. DID method outputs the unbiased estimation on condition that several hypotheses hold, especially the common trend assumption. In this paper, we gave a systematic demonstration of DID in the science of science, and the potential ways to improve the accuracy of DID method. Design/methodology/approach At first, we reviewed the statistical assumptions, the model specification, and the application procedures of DID method. Second, to improve the necessary assumptions before conducting DID regression and the accuracy of estimation, we introduced some matching techniques serving as the pre-selecting step for DID design by matching control individuals who are equivalent to those treated ones on observational variables before the intervention. Lastly, we performed a case study to estimate the effects of prizewinning on the scientific performance of Nobel laureates, by comparing the yearly citation impact after the prizewinning year between Nobel laureates and their prizewinning-work coauthors. Findings We introduced the procedures to conduct a DID estimation and demonstrated the effectiveness to use matching method to improve the results. As a case study, we found that there are no significant increases in citations for Nobel laureates compared to their prizewinning coauthors. Research limitations This study ignored the rigorous mathematical deduction parts of DID, while focused on the practical parts. Practical implications This work gives experimental practice and potential guidelines to use DID method in science of science and bibliometrics studies. Originality/value This study gains insights into the usage of econometric tools in science of science.","PeriodicalId":92237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","volume":"8 1","pages":"29 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2023-0003","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

Abstract Purpose In recent decades, with the availability of large-scale scientific corpus datasets, difference-in-difference (DID) is increasingly used in the science of science and bibliometrics studies. DID method outputs the unbiased estimation on condition that several hypotheses hold, especially the common trend assumption. In this paper, we gave a systematic demonstration of DID in the science of science, and the potential ways to improve the accuracy of DID method. Design/methodology/approach At first, we reviewed the statistical assumptions, the model specification, and the application procedures of DID method. Second, to improve the necessary assumptions before conducting DID regression and the accuracy of estimation, we introduced some matching techniques serving as the pre-selecting step for DID design by matching control individuals who are equivalent to those treated ones on observational variables before the intervention. Lastly, we performed a case study to estimate the effects of prizewinning on the scientific performance of Nobel laureates, by comparing the yearly citation impact after the prizewinning year between Nobel laureates and their prizewinning-work coauthors. Findings We introduced the procedures to conduct a DID estimation and demonstrated the effectiveness to use matching method to improve the results. As a case study, we found that there are no significant increases in citations for Nobel laureates compared to their prizewinning coauthors. Research limitations This study ignored the rigorous mathematical deduction parts of DID, while focused on the practical parts. Practical implications This work gives experimental practice and potential guidelines to use DID method in science of science and bibliometrics studies. Originality/value This study gains insights into the usage of econometric tools in science of science.
科学差异回归的实践操作与理论基础——诺贝尔奖获得者与合著者科学表现的比较研究
摘要目的近几十年来,随着大规模科学语料库数据集的出现,差异中的差异(DID)越来越多地用于科学和文献计量学研究。DID方法在几个假设成立的条件下输出无偏估计,特别是在共同趋势假设成立的情况下。在本文中,我们对DID在科学中的应用进行了系统的论证,并提出了提高DID方法准确性的潜在方法。设计/方法论/方法首先,我们回顾了DID方法的统计假设、模型规范和应用程序。其次,为了提高进行DID回归前的必要假设和估计的准确性,我们引入了一些匹配技术,作为DID设计的预选步骤,通过在干预前的观察变量上匹配与治疗对象等效的对照个体。最后,我们进行了一个案例研究,通过比较诺贝尔奖获得者和他们的获奖作品合著者在获奖年度后的年度引用影响,来估计获奖对诺贝尔奖得主科学表现的影响。研究结果我们介绍了进行DID估计的程序,并证明了使用匹配方法改进结果的有效性。作为一项案例研究,我们发现,与获奖合著者相比,诺贝尔奖获得者的引文没有显著增加。研究局限性本研究忽略了DID中严谨的数学推导部分,而专注于实际部分。这项工作为在科学和文献计量学研究中使用DID方法提供了实验实践和潜在的指导。原创性/价值这项研究深入了解了计量经济学工具在科学中的使用。
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