New publications by our member

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Borut Trpin

unread,
Sep 10, 2022, 1:20:00 PM9/10/22
to eenps_...@googlegroups.com
Dear members,

it is a pleasure to share a couple of recent publications (co-)authored by Vlasta Sikimić, a member of the EENPS steering committee. See below and for further info here https://eenps.weebly.com/members-publications.html.

Best wishes,
Borut Trpin


Vlasta Sikimić (University of Tübingen) and Sandro Radovanović (University of Belgrade)
Machine learning in scientific grant review: algorithmically predicting project efficiency in high energy physics, European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2022
Abstract:
As more objections have been raised against grant peer-review for being costly and time-consuming, the legitimate question arises whether machine learning algorithms could help assess the epistemic efficiency of the proposed projects. As a case study, we investigated whether project efficiency in high energy physics (HEP) can be algorithmically predicted based on the data from the proposal. To analyze the potential of algorithmic prediction in HEP, we conducted a study on data about the structure (project duration, team number, and team size) and outcomes (citations per paper) of HEP experiments with the goal of predicting their efficiency. In the first step, we assessed the project efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) of 67 experiments conducted in the HEP laboratory Fermilab. In the second step, we employed predictive algorithms to detect which team structures maximize the epistemic performance of an expert group. For this purpose, we used the efficiency scores obtained by DEA and applied predictive algorithms – lasso and ridge linear regression, neural network, and gradient boosted trees – on them. The results of the predictive analyses show moderately high accuracy (mean absolute error equal to 0.123), indicating that they can be beneficial as one of the steps in grant review. Still, their applicability in practice should be approached with caution. Some of the limitations of the algorithmic approach are the unreliability of citation patterns, unobservable variables that influence scientific success, and the potential predictability of the model.
Twitter: @VlastaSikimic

Vlasta Sikimić (University of Tübingen)
How to Improve Research Funding in Academia? Lessons From the COVID-19 Crisis, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2022
Abstract:
The current COVID-19 crisis has put both public and private funding of life sciences in the spotlight. One of the most frequent critiques of the scientific research conducted in industry is that researchers working for companies lack intellectual freedom. Moreover, from the perspective of the general public, industry research is always questioned because monetary interests might influence it. Sponsorship bias—a tendency of researchers working in the private sector to align their results with the interest of their funders—has been widely discussed in philosophy of science (e.g., Holman and Elliott, 2018; Leefmann, 2021). Some authors even go as far as opposing intellectual property in life sciences (Brown, 2008). Having all this in mind, epistemic trust in research conducted by companies is often lacking. However, it is questionable whether the academic sector alone, in its current state, can appropriately respond to global challenges. I argue that academic research requires substantial restructuring as similar objections can be raised both in the case of research done by academic institutions and in industry. Additionally, there are specific dangers connected with the current academic system such as elitism in science that are epistemically harmful. Though similar tendencies can also be detected in industry, academia has its own outdated rules that are reflected in its current culture.
Twitter: @VlastaSikimic

Aleksandra Vučković (University of Belgrade) and Vlasta Sikimić (University of Tübingen)
How to Fight Linguistic Injustice in Science: Equity Measures and Mitigating Agents, Social Epistemology, 2022
Abstract:
Though a common language of science allows for easier communication of the results among researchers, the use of lingua franca also comes with the cost of losing some of the diverse ideas and results arising from the plurality of languages. Following Quine’s famous thesis about the indeterminacy of translation, we elaborate on the inherent loss of diverse ideas when only one language of science is used. Non-native speakers sometimes experience epistemic injustice due to their language proficiency and consequently, their scientific insights get marginalized. Thus, it is important epistemically to include the results of all researchers independent of their native language. As a solution, we promote epistemic equity and inclusion both on the individual level and on the level of the scientific community. Epistemic equity means that researchers who suffer disadvantages because of their language skills get support from the rest of the scientific community that will compensate for their disadvantage and at the same time facilitate their epistemic inclusion. This can be achieved through the introduction of mitigating agents – the individuals and organizations that ought to serve as a communication bridge between individual researchers and the scientific community.
Twitter: @VlastaSikimic

Vlasta Sikimić (University of Tübingen) and Ole Herud-Sikimić (Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Tübingen)
Modelling efficient team structures in biology, Journal of Logic and Computation, 2022
Abstract:
We used agent-based modelling to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of several management styles in biology, ranging from centralized to egalitarian ones. In egalitarian groups, all team members are connected with each other, while in centralized ones, they are only connected with the principal investigator. Our model incorporated time constraints, which negatively influenced weakly connected groups such as centralized ones. Moreover, our results show that egalitarian groups outperform others if the questions addressed are relatively simple or when the communication among agents is limited. Complex epistemic spaces are explored best by centralized groups. They outperform other team structures because the individual members can develop their own ideas with less interference of the opinions of others. The optimal ratio between time spent on experimentation and dissemination varies between different organizational structures. Furthermore, if the evidence is shared only after a relevant degree of certainty is reached, all investigated groups epistemically profit. We discovered that the introduction of seminars to the model changes the epistemic performance in favour of weakly connected teams. Finally, the abilities of the principal investigator do not seem to outperform cognitive diversity, as group performances were not strongly influenced by the increase of her abilities.
Twitter: @VlastaSikimic

Vlasta Sikimić (University of Tübingen), Mike Stuart (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) and Jamie Shaw (University of Toronto)
Science funding policy and the COVID-19 pandemic, The International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 2022
Abstract:
Science funding policy is constantly evolving as a result of geopolitical, technological, cultural, social, and economic shifts. The last major upheaval of science funding policy happened in response to a catastrophic series of events: World War II. The newest worldwide catastrophe, the COVID-19 pandemic, has prompted similar reflections on fundamental questions about the roles of the sciences in society and the relationships between governments, private industry, public bodies, and the broader public. Contained in this special section of the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine is a series of reflections and insights from four interdisciplinary scholars, most of which urge drastic and urgent changes that should be made.
Twitter: @VlastaSikimic, @miikeessttuuart

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages