搜索结果：Researchers

Research touts universal participation through accessibility initiatives, yet blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers face systematic exclusion as visual representations dominate modern research workflows. To materialize inclusive processes, we, as BLV researchers, examined how our peers combat inaccessible infrastructures. Through an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach, we conducted a cross-sectional, observational survey (n=57) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (n=15), analyzing open-ended data using reflexive thematic analysis and framing findings through activity theory to highlight research's systemic shortcomings. We expose how BLV researchers sacrifice autonomy and shoulder physical burdens, with nearly one-fifth unable to independently perform literature review or evaluate visual outputs, delegating tasks to sighted colleagues or relying on AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue. Researchers also voiced frustration with specialized tools, citing developers' performative responses and losing deserved professional accolades. We seek follow-through on research's promises through design recommendations that reconceptualize accessibility as fundamental to succ

In the early stages of scientific research, researchers rely on core scholarly judgments to identify relevant literature, assess credible evidence, and determine which directions merit pursuit. As AI tools become increasingly integrated into these early-stage workflows, the scholarly judgments that were once transparent and attributable to individual researchers become obscured, raising critical Responsible AI (RAI) concerns around accountability, transparency, and trust. Yet how these three dimensions manifest in real-time, in-situ scholarly practice remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a think-aloud study with 15 researchers to examine how they used AI tools powered by large language models (LLMs) across early-stage research tasks, including literature exploration, synthesis, and research ideation. Our key findings address the tripartite constructs of accountability, transparency, and trust. First, the confident tone of AI outputs misrepresents epistemic uncertainty, making it more difficult for researchers (who are ultimately accountable) to identify which outputs require the greatest scrutiny. Second, opaque retrieval and content construction make prove

As large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT become increasingly integrated into our everyday lives--from customer service and education to creative work and personal productivity--understanding how people interact with these AI systems has become a pressing issue. Despite the widespread use of LLMs, researchers lack standardized tools for systematically studying people's interactions with LLMs. To address this issue, we introduce GPT for Researchers (G4R), or g4r.org, a free website that researchers can use to easily create and integrate a GPT Interface into their studies. At g4r.org, researchers can (1) enable their study participants to interact with GPT (such as ChatGPT), (2) customize GPT Interfaces to guide participants' interactions with GPT (e.g., set constraints on topics or adjust GPT's tone or response style), and (3) capture participants' interactions with GPT by downloading data on messages exchanged between participants and GPT. By facilitating study participants' interactions with GPT and providing detailed data on these interactions, G4R can support research on topics such as consumer interactions with AI agents or LLMs, AI-assisted decision-making, and linguistic p

Stakeholder-based ethics analysis is now a formal requirement for submissions to top cybersecurity research venues. This requirement reflects a growing consensus that cybersecurity researchers must go beyond providing capabilities to anticipating and mitigating the potential harms thereof. However, many cybersecurity researchers may be uncertain about how to proceed in an ethics analysis. In this guide, we provide practical support for that requirement by enumerating stakeholder types and mapping them to common empirical research methods. We also offer worked examples to demonstrate how researchers can identify likely stakeholder exposures in real-world projects. Our goal is to help research teams meet new ethics mandates with confidence and clarity, not confusion.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has led many researchers to consider their usage for scientific work. Some have found benefits using LLMs to augment or automate aspects of their research pipeline, while others have urged caution due to risks and ethical concerns. Yet little work has sought to quantify and characterize how researchers use LLMs and why. We present the first large-scale survey of 816 verified research article authors to understand how the research community leverages and perceives LLMs as research tools. We examine participants' self-reported LLM usage, finding that 81% of researchers have already incorporated LLMs into different aspects of their research workflow. We also find that traditionally disadvantaged groups in academia (non-White, junior, and non-native English speaking researchers) report higher LLM usage and perceived benefits, suggesting potential for improved research equity. However, women, non-binary, and senior researchers have greater ethical concerns, potentially hindering adoption.

Interactive notebooks, such as Jupyter, have revolutionized the field of data science by providing an integrated environment for data, code, and documentation. However, their adoption by robotics researchers and model developers has been limited. This study investigates the logging and record-keeping practices of robotics researchers, drawing parallels to the pre-interactive notebook era of data science. Through interviews with robotics researchers, we identified the reliance on diverse and often incompatible tools for managing experimental data, leading to challenges in reproducibility and data traceability. Our findings reveal that robotics researchers can benefit from a specialized version of interactive notebooks that supports comprehensive data entry, continuous context capture, and agile data staging. We propose extending interactive notebooks to better serve the needs of robotics researchers by integrating features akin to traditional lab notebooks. This adaptation aims to enhance the organization, analysis, and reproducibility of experimental data in robotics, fostering a more streamlined and efficient research workflow.

Context: Machine Learning (ML) significantly impacts Software Engineering (SE), but studies mainly focus on practitioners, neglecting researchers. This overlooks practices and challenges in teaching, researching, or reviewing ML applications in SE. Objective: This study aims to contribute to the knowledge, about the synergy between ML and SE from the perspective of SE researchers, by providing insights into the practices followed when researching, teaching, and reviewing SE studies that apply ML. Method: We analyzed SE researchers familiar with ML or who authored SE articles using ML, along with the articles themselves. We examined practices, SE tasks addressed with ML, challenges faced, and reviewers' and educators' perspectives using grounded theory coding and qualitative analysis. Results: We found diverse practices focusing on data collection, model training, and evaluation. Some recommended practices (e.g., hyperparameter tuning) appeared in less than 20\% of literature. Common challenges involve data handling, model evaluation (incl. non-functional properties), and involving human expertise in evaluation. Hands-on activities are common in education, though traditional methods

Various motivations bring researchers to discipline-based education research (DBER), but there is little research on their conceptualization of and navigation into this new-to-them area of research. We use phenomenography to analyze interview data collected from twenty-eight emerging STEM education researchers to gain a better understanding of how they perceive themselves within DBER and what they perceive it to be. Grounded in the figured worlds theoretical framework, we identify the spectrum of ways emerging STEM education researchers identify or project themselves into this new space: to improve their teaching, to make it their new primary research field, and/or to negotiate how it will fit with their primary one. We also highlight salient negotiations that emerge because of the close ties between DBER and disciplinary science, which provides us with a better understanding of emerging researchers' perceptions. This work generates insight into the kinds of professional development opportunities that would support emerging education researchers within STEM departments and the broader DBER community.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Research Software Engineers (RSEs) and Software Engineering Researchers (SERs) often use different terminologies for similar concepts, creating communication challenges. To better understand these divergences, we have started investigating how SE fundamentals from the SER community are interpreted within the RSE community, identifying aligned concepts, knowledge gaps, and areas for potential adaptation. Our preliminary findings reveal opportunities for mutual learning and collaboration, and our systematic methodology for terminology mapping provides a foundation for a crowd-sourced extension and validation in the future.

Computational biologists are frequently engaged in collaborative data analysis with wet lab researchers. These interdisciplinary projects, as necessary as they are to the scientific endeavour, can be surprisingly challenging due to cultural differences in operations and values. In these Ten Simple Rules guide we aim to help dry lab researchers identify sources of friction; and provide actionable tools to facilitate respectful, open, transparent and rewarding collaborations.

Since 2015, the Emerging Researchers in Exoplanetary Science (ERES) conference has provided a venue for early-career researchers in exoplanetary astronomy, astrophysics, and planetary science to share their research, network, and build new collaborations. ERES stands out in that it is spearheaded by early-career researchers, providing a unique attendance experience for the participants and a professional experience for the organizers. In this Bulletin, we share experiences and lessons learned from the perspective of the organizing committee for the 2023 edition of ERES. For this eighth ERES conference, we hosted over 100 participants in New Haven, CT, for a three-day program. This manuscript is aimed primarily toward groups of early-career scientists who are planning a conference for their fields of study. We anticipate that this Bulletin will continue dialogue within the academic community about best practices for equitable event organization.

We study international mobility in academia, with a focus on the migration of published researchers to and from Russia. Using an exhaustive set of over $2.4$ million Scopus publications, we analyze all researchers who have published with a Russian affiliation address in Scopus-indexed sources in 1996-2020. The migration of researchers is observed through the changes in their affiliation addresses, which altered their mode countries of affiliation across different years. While only $5.2\%$ of these researchers were internationally mobile, they accounted for a substantial proportion of citations. Our estimates of net migration rates indicate that while Russia was a donor country in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it has experienced a relatively balanced circulation of researchers in more recent years. These findings suggest that the current trends in scholarly migration in Russia could be better framed as brain circulation, rather than as brain drain. Overall, researchers emigrating from Russia outnumbered and outperformed researchers immigrating to Russia. Our analysis on the subject categories of publication venues shows that in the past 25 years, Russia has, overall, suffered a ne

Researchers' networks have been subject to active modeling and analysis. Earlier literature mostly focused on citation or co-authorship networks reconstructed from annotated scientific publication databases, which have several limitations. Recently, general-purpose web search engines have also been utilized to collect information about social networks. Here we reconstructed, using web search engines, a network representing the relatedness of researchers to their peers as well as to various research topics. Relatedness between researchers and research topics was characterized by visibility boost-increase of a researcher's visibility by focusing on a particular topic. It was observed that researchers who had high visibility boosts by the same research topic tended to be close to each other in their network. We calculated correlations between visibility boosts by research topics and researchers' interdisciplinarity at individual level (diversity of topics related to the researcher) and at social level (his/her centrality in the researchers' network). We found that visibility boosts by certain research topics were positively correlated with researchers' individual-level interdisciplina

The aim of this paper is to uncover the researchers in machine learning using the author-topic model (ATM). We collect 16,855 scientific papers from six top journals in the field of machine learning published from 1997 to 2016 and analyze them using ATM. The dataset is broken down into 4 intervals to identify the top researchers and find similar researchers using their similarity score. The similarity score is calculated using Hellinger distance. The researchers are plotted using t-SNE, which reduces the dimensionality of the data while keeping the same distance between the points. The analysis of our study helps the upcoming researchers to find the top researchers in their area of interest.

Computer science research has led to many breakthrough innovations but has also been scrutinized for enabling technology that has negative, unintended consequences for society. Given the increasing discussions of ethics in the news and among researchers, we interviewed 20 researchers in various CS sub-disciplines to identify whether and how they consider potential unintended consequences of their research innovations. We show that considering unintended consequences is generally seen as important but rarely practiced. Principal barriers are a lack of formal process and strategy as well as the academic practice that prioritizes fast progress and publications. Drawing on these findings, we discuss approaches to support researchers in routinely considering unintended consequences, from bringing diverse perspectives through community participation to increasing incentives to investigate potential consequences. We intend for our work to pave the way for routine explorations of the societal implications of technological innovations before, during, and after the research process.

This study provided a model for the publication dynamics of researchers, which is based on the relationship between the publication productivity of researchers and two covariates: time and historical publication quantity. The relationship allows to estimate the latent variable the publication creativity of researchers. The variable is applied to the prediction of publication productivity for researchers. The statistical significance of the relationship is validated by the high quality dblp dataset. The effectiveness of the model is testified on the dataset by the fine fittings on the quantitative distribution of researchers' publications, the evolutionary trend of their publication productivity, and the occurrence of publication events. Due to its nature of regression, the model has the potential to be extended for assessing the confidence level of prediction results, and thus has clear applicability to empirical research.

Bibliometrics provides accurate, cheap and simple descriptions of research systems and should lay the foundations for research policy. However, disconnections between bibliometric knowledge and research policy frequently misguide the research policy in many countries. A way of correcting these disconnections might come from the use of simple indicators of research performance. One such simple indicator is the number of highly cited researchers, which can be used under the assumption that a research system that produces and employs many highly cited researchers will be more successful than others with fewer of them. Here, we validate the use of the number of highly cited researchers (Ioannidis et al. 2020; PLoS Biol 18(10): e3000918) for research assessment at the country level and determine a country ranking of research success. We also demonstrate that the number of highly cited researchers reported by Clarivate Analytics is also an indicator of the research success of countries. The formal difference between the numbers of highly cited researchers according to Ionannidis et al. and Clarivate Analytics is that evaluations based on these two lists of highly cited researchers are ap