Author Disambiguation in PubMed: Evidence on the Precision and Recall of Author-ity among NIH-Funded Scientists

Lerchenmueller, Marc J.; Sorenson, Olav

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158731

Cited by 40 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not use any methods for author name disambiguation for researchers indexed under the same “LastName”, “ForeName” and “Initials”. [13, 14] We set N s to be equal to the number of publications for which we identified at least one author.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, this study demonstrated that from the ORCIDs-linked labeled data, we can create stratified samples of names that are susceptible to specific disambiguation errors, merging or splitting, and thereby can help us better measure the DBLP's disambiguation performance. It is, however, unclear how well author records in ORCIDs can represent the population of authors in DBLP (Lerchenmueller and Sorenson, 2016). Moreover, the accuracy of ORCIDs records has not yet been properly evaluated.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating author name disambiguation for digital libraries: a case of DBLP

Kim

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Author name ambiguity in a digital library may affect the findings of research that mines authorship data of the library. This study evaluates author name disambiguation in DBLP, a widely used but insufficiently evaluated digital library for its disambiguation performance. In doing so, this study takes a triangulation approach that author name disambiguation for a digital library can be better evaluated when its performance is assessed on multiple labeled datasets with comparison to baselines. Tested on three types of labeled data containing 5,000 ~ 700K disambiguated names and about 6M pairs of disambiguated names, DBLP is shown to assign author names quite accurately to distinct authors, resulting in pairwise precision, recall, and F1 measures around 0.90 or above overall. DBLP's author name disambiguation performs well even on large ambiguous name blocks but deficiently on distinguishing authors with the same names. When compared to other disambiguation algorithms, DBLP's disambiguation performance is quite competitive, possibly due to its hybrid disambiguation approach combining algorithmic disambiguation and manual error correction. A discussion follows on strengths and weaknesses of labeled datasets used in this study for future efforts to evaluate author name disambiguation on a digital library scale.

show abstract

“…To build the publication histories of F32 recipients we need to ensure that two scientists with the same name on two different papers actually represent the same individual. Prior research documents that Author-ity disambiguates scientists with over 99% accuracy, across different levels of scientists' productivity, ethnicity, and name prevalence, for articles listed in PubMed (Lerchenmueller and Sorenson, 2016). We make use of this core data feature to not only assemble the publication histories of the F32 recipients, but also to identify the likely mentors of the F32 recipients as well as the research network of these mentors.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Homophily, Biased Attention, and the Gender Gap in Science

Lerchenmueller¹,

Hoisl

Schmallenbach

2019

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does homophilous collaboration influence women's early career progress? To answer this question, we turn to a granular dataset of 3,233 highly qualified junior life scientists who receive mentored, early career sponsorship from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and analyze their publication trajectories as careers unfold. Employing a matched sample approach that exploits variance in the sets of research contacts the junior scientists start out with, we distinguish sex differences in collaboration choices from potential differences in collaboration opportunities. We document that outsized gender homophily among women exists and primarily stems from how female leaders of scientific projects assemble their teams. Women continue same-sex collaborations as lead authors at twice the rate compared to men, on average, and in particular when the mentor is part of the author team or when the focal junior scientist leads the team. As such, systematic gender homophily among female scientists may engender the sponsorship and resources needed to motivate young women to join and pursue an academic career. On the flip side, we show that author teams led by women receive 11% less citations, on average, and up to 29% less citations for work of comparable caliber published in the most influential journals. Taken together, while women's propensity to working with other women may support early career researchers, biased attention to women's work may harm careers and, in particular, women who publish in the highest-impact journals and who would otherwise be poised to narrowing gender gaps at more senior career stages.

show abstract

Author Disambiguation in PubMed: Evidence on the Precision and Recall of Author-ity among NIH-Funded Scientists

Cited by 40 publications

References 18 publications

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

Evaluating author name disambiguation for digital libraries: a case of DBLP

Homophily, Biased Attention, and the Gender Gap in Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About