bioRxiv ScienceSearch

bioRxiv · 10.1101/518605

Do Synthesis Centers Synthesize? A Semantic Analysis of Diversity and Performance

Abstract

Synthesis centers are a recently-developed form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports a form of interdisciplinary research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales, scientific phenomena, and forms of expertise to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Research has shown the synthesis working group to be a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that reliably produces consequential, high-impact publications, but no one has asked: do synthesis working groups produce publications that are substantially more diverse than those produced outside of synthesis centers, and if so, how and with what effects? We have investigated these questions through a novel textual analysis. We found that if diversity is measured solely by mean difference in the Rao-Stirling (aggregate) measure of diversity, then the answer is no. But synthesis center papers have significantly greater variety and balance, but significantly lower disparity, than papers in the reference corpus. Synthesis center influence is mediated by the greater size of synthesis center collaborations (numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references) but even when taking size into account, there is a persistent direct effect: synthesis center papers have significantly greater variety and balance, but less disparity, than papers in the reference corpus. We conclude by inviting further exploration of what this novel textual analysis approach might reveal about interdisciplinary research and by offering some practical implications of our results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hackett, E. J., Leahey, E., Parker, J. N., Rafols, I., Hampton, S., Corte, U., Drake, J. M., Penders, B., Sheble, L., Vermeulen, N., Vision, T.. 2019-01-13. Do Synthesis Centers Synthesize? A Semantic Analysis of Diversity and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1101/518605

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education

Antibiotics and food in the American press

The emergence of antimicrobial resistant infections from food is well documented in the scientific literature but, in this kind of matter, the public opinion is an important policy driver and is vastly forged by traditional media. Here, we propose a text mining study through about 500 articles from two reference daily U.S. newspapers to assess the media coverage of this issue. Our results indicate that, since the middle of the 80s, the two journals considered here adopted a very different narrative around the issue, echoing civil society concerns in one case and the official discourse in the other.

scientific communication and education

Revisiting the decay of scientific email addresses

Email is the primary means of communication for scientists. However, scientific authors change email address over time. Using a new method, we have calculated that approximately 18% of all authors contact email addresses in MEDLINE are invalid. While an unfortunate number, it is, however, lower than previously estimated. To mitigate this problem, institutions should provide email forwarding and scientific authors should use more stable email addresses. In fact, a steadily growing share already use free private email addresses: 32% of all new addresses in MEDLINE in 2018 were of this kind.

scientific communication and education