As a cold war with China heats up, the U.S. and other members of the G7 need new approaches to their science and technology innovation (STI) policies. Dominance on the innovation frontier is no longer possible through traditional techno‐nationalist policies that view nations as ‘competing’ through exclusive STI development. Instead, we must recognise that talent and intellectual property are globally distributed, and thus build global collaborations that draw on the world's greatest talent while providing benefits equitably in a global STI commons. We need to recognise this new reality, not only for the benefits this would confer on humankind, but also to contend with China's growing STI capabilities and, eventually perhaps, integrating China into a system of global collaboration. Additionally, and importantly, national policies must recognise the geographically untethered operations of multinational enterprises that are the developers and/or repositories of STI but have weak ties to any one nation, thus blunting policies that try to contain STI within a country's borders. In this paper, we suggest approaches to advance these goals for global STI based on theories and cases of collective action.

In several author name disambiguation studies, some ethnic name groups such as East Asian names are reported to be more difficult to disambiguate than others. This implies that disambiguation approaches might be improved if ethnic name groups are distinguished before disambiguation. We explore the potential of ethnic name partitioning by comparing performance of four machine learning algorithms trained and tested on the entire data or specifically on individual name groups. Results show that ethnicity-based name partitioning can substantially improve disambiguation performance because the individual models are better suited for their respective name group. The improvements occur across all ethnic name groups with different magnitudes. Performance gains in predicting matched name pairs outweigh losses in predicting nonmatched pairs. Feature (e.g., coauthor name) similarities of name pairs vary across ethnic name groups. Such differences may enable the development of ethnicity-specific feature weights to improve prediction for specific ethic name categories. These findings are observed for three labeled data with a natural distribution of problem sizes as well as one in which all ethnic name groups are controlled for the same sizes of ambiguous names. This study is expected to motive scholars to group author names based on ethnicity prior to disambiguation.

How can we evaluate the performance of a disambiguation method implemented on big bibliographic data? This study suggests that the open researcher profile system, ORCID, can be used as an authority source to label name instances at scale. This study demonstrates the potential by evaluating the disambiguation performances of Author-ity2009 (which algorithmically disambiguates author names in MEDLINE) using 3 million name instances that are automatically labeled through linkage to 5 million ORCID researcher profiles. Results show that although ORCID-linked labeled data do not effectively represent the population of name instances in Author-ity2009, they do effectively capture the 'high precision over high recall' performances of Author-ity2009. In addition, ORCID-linked labeled data can provide nuanced details about the Author-ity2009's performance when name instances are evaluated within and across ethnicity categories. As ORCID continues to be expanded to include more researchers, labeled data via ORCID-linkage can be improved in representing the population of a whole disambiguated data and updated on a regular basis. This can benefit author name disambiguation researchers and practitioners who need large-scale labeled data but lack resources for manual labeling or access to other authority sources for linkage-based labeling. The ORCID-linked labeled data for Author-ity2009 are publicly available for validation and reuse.

In author name disambiguation, author forenames are used to decide which name instances are disambiguated together and how much they are likely to refer to the same author. Despite such a crucial role of forenames, their effect on the performance of heuristic (string matching) and algorithmic disambiguation is not well understood. This study assesses the contributions of forenames in author name disambiguation using multiple labeled data sets under varying ratios and lengths of full forenames, reflecting real-world scenarios in which an author is represented by forename variants (synonym) and some authors share the same forenames (homonym). The results show that increasing the ratios of full forenames substantially improves both heuristic and machine-learning-based disambiguation. Performance gains by algorithmic disambiguation are pronounced when many forenames are initialized or homonyms are prevalent. As the ratios of full forenames increase, however, they become marginal compared to those by string matching. Using a small portion of forename strings does not reduce much the performances of both heuristic and algorithmic disambiguation methods compared to using full-length strings. These findings provide practical suggestions, such as restoring initialized forenames into a full-string format via record linkage for improved disambiguation performances. © 2019 ASIS&T

Mathematics is an important and hotly contested aspect of U.S. postsecondary education. Its importance for academics and careers and the extent and impact of math achievement disparities are all subject of longstanding debate. Yet there is surprisingly little research into how much and what types of mathematics courses are taken by U.S. undergraduates and the extent of math achievement differentials among students. This article advances the understanding of math course taking by developing course-taking metrics for a nationally representative cohort of bachelor’s graduates. Using NCES transcript data to construct consistent measures of mathematics and quantitative course taking, our analysis finds large variability both within and between STEM/non-STEM majors and a large population of non-STEM graduates earning mathematics credits comparable to their peers in STEM fields. Mathematics course taking differs substantially from course taking in other subjects. We also find that often-observed gender differentials are a function of major, not gender, with females in the most mathematics-intensive programs earning as many or more mathematics credits than their male peers.

Machine learning for author name disambiguation is usually conducted on the training and test subsets of labeled data created for a specific task. As a result, disambiguation models learned on heterogeneous labeled data are often inapplicable for other purposes that either do not use the same labeled data or do not make use of any labeled data at all. This article explores the idea of transfer learning in a new context, author name disambiguation. We focus on cases where a disambiguation task lacking labeled training data uses models trained on labeled data generated for other tasks. For this purpose, two labeled source datasets are used for training of disambiguation models to be applied to three test target datasets that are deficient of labeled training data. Our results show that transfer learning can produce disambiguation performances similar to those achievable by traditional machine learning in which training and test datasets come from the same labeled data source. The good performance through transfer learning are possible when training source datasets have similar feature distributions as test target datasets. This study suggests that through transfer learning, rich disambiguation models in previous studies can be retained and reused across ambiguous bibliographic data from different fields and data sources, motivating further research on how to correct feature distribution differences between source and target datasets to expand the application of transfer learning in author name disambiguation beyond the model sharing explored in this research.

y Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet, unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering an article as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze the publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more articles, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference articles seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on journal publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.

Several studies have found that collaboration networks are scale-free, proposing that such networks can be modeled by specific network evolution mechanisms like preferential attachment. This study argues that collaboration networks can look more or less scale-free depending on the methods for resolving author name ambiguity in bibliographic data. Analyzing networks constructed from multiple datasets containing 3.4 M similar to 9.6 M publication records, this study shows that collaboration networks in which author names are disambiguated by the commonly used heuristic, i.e., forename-initial-based name matching, tend to produce degree distributions better fitted to power-law slopes with the typical scaling parameter (2 < alpha < 3) than networks disambiguated by more accurate algorithm-based methods. Such tendency is observed across collaboration networks generated under various conditions such as cumulative years, 5- and 1-year sliding windows, and random sampling, and through simulation, found to arise due mainly to artefactual entities created by inaccurate disambiguation. This cautionary study calls for special attention from scholars analyzing network data in which entities such as people, organization, and gene can be merged or split by improper disambiguation.

The relationship between education policy and workforce policy has long been uneasy. It is widely believed in many quarters of American society that the U.S. education system is in decline and, what’s more, that it bears significant responsibility for a wide range of social ills, including stagnant wages, increasing inequality, high unemployment, and overall economic lethargy. However, as analyzed in this paper, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the U.S. education system has produced ample supplies of students to respond to STEM labor market demand. The “pipeline” of STEM-potential students is similarly strong and expanding.

Clustering results in author name disambiguation are often evaluated by measures such as Cluster-F, K-metric, Pairwise-F, Splitting and Lumping Error, and B-cubed. Although these measures have different evaluation approaches, this paper shows that they can be calculated in a single framework by a set of common steps that compare truth and predicted clusters through two hash tables recording information about name instances with their predicted cluster indices and frequencies of those indices per truth cluster. This integrative calculation reduces greatly calculation runtime, which is scalable to a clustering task involving millions of name instances within a few seconds. During the integration process, B-cubed and K-metric are shown to produce the same precision and recall scores. In addition, name instance pairs for Pairwise-F are counted using a heuristic, which enables the proposed method to surpass a state-of-the-art algorithm in speedy calculation. Details of the integrative calculation are described with examples and pseudo-code to assist scholars to implement each measure easily and validate the correctness of implementation. The integrative calculation will help scholars compare similarities and differences of multiple measures before they select ones that characterize best the clustering performances of their disambiguation methods.