Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent.

BACKGROUND: While specialization plays an essential role in how scientific research is pursued, we understand little about its effects on a researcher's impact and career. In particular, the extent to which one specializes within their chosen fields likely has complex relationships with productivity, career stage, and eventual impact. Here, we develop a novel and fine-grained approach for measuring a researcher's level of specialization at each point in their career and apply it to the publication data of almost 30,000 established biomedical researchers to measure the effect that specialization has on the impact of a researcher's publications. RESULTS: Using a within-researcher, panel-based econometric framework, we arrive at several important results. First, there are significant scientific rewards for specialization-25% more citations per standard deviation increase in specialization. Second, these benefits are much higher early in a researcher's career-as large as 75% per standard deviation increase in specialization. Third, rewards are higher for researchers who publish few papers relative to their peers. Finally, we find that, all else equal, researchers who make large changes in their research direction see generally increased impact. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which one specializes, particularly at the early stages of a biomedical research career, appears to play a significant role in determining the citation-based impact of their publications. When this measure of impact is, implicitly or explicitly, an input into decision-making processes within the scientific system (for example, for job opportunities, promotions, or invited talks), these findings lead to some important implications for the system-level organization of scientific research and the incentives that exist therein. We propose several mechanisms within modern scientific systems that likely lead to the scientific rewards we observe and discuss them within the broader context of reward structures in biomedicine and science more generally.

Look who's talking: Two-mode networks as representations of a topic model of New Zealand parliamentary speeches.

Quantitative methods to describe the participation to debate of Members of Parliament and the parties they belong to are lacking. Here we propose a new approach that combines topic modeling with complex networks techniques, and use it to characterize the political discourse at the New Zealand Parliament. We implement a Latent Dirichlet Allocation model to discover the thematic structure of the government's digital database of parliamentary speeches, and construct from it two-mode networks linking Members of the Parliament to the topics they discuss. Our results show how topic popularity changes over time and allow us to relate the trends followed by political parties in their discourses with specific social, economic and legislative events. Moreover, the community analysis of the two-mode network projections reveals which parties dominate the political debate as well as how much they tend to specialize in a small or large number of topics. Our work demonstrates the benefits of performing quantitative analysis in a domain normally reserved for qualitative approaches, providing an efficient way to measure political activity.