DNA barcoding of Research Diversity
Every university has its own research strength and norms — a unique mixture of ideas, vocabularies, and disciplinary codes. Epistemic diversity is often celebrated as a hallmark of vibrant academic institutions, fostering innovation and cross-pollination of ideas. University administrators are increasingly interested in fostering interdisciplinary research, and identifying the measures that can cultivate, sustain, or restore the strength of research ecosystems. Many researchers have tried to quantify this diversity, but it’s a tricky problem. Most publishers use subject classification systems to tag research articles: WoS category and ASJC to name a few. However, these systems are coarse-grained and often inconsistent granularity across disciplines. Many discipline has its own coding — physics has PACS, astrophysics has AAS, biology and medical sciences have MeSH terms, economics has JEL. But there are many disciplines that lack such coding systems. Recent advances in interdisciplinary research make it even harder to classify research into discrete categories. ...
Application of OSS Pull Requests to Academic Citation and Incentivise Public Participation Peer Review
By defining “push” in academic citation, learning from open-source software (OSS) development, we demonstrate citation metrics can incentivise reviewer as repository owners, under open participatory peer review. Potential drawbacks and countermeasures are also discussed. venue: ‘ScisciConference’ paperurl: ‘https://sciscijp.github.io/scisciconfJP2024/program/' type: ‘Poster Presentation’
[Contributed Talk] Incentivised Open Participated Peer Review without Rewarding
By defining “push” in academic citation, learning from open-source software (OSS) development, we demonstrate citation metrics can incentivise reviewer as repository owners, under open participatory peer review. Potential drawbacks and countermeasures are also discussed.
Hybrid Discipline: Knowledge Flows in Political Science for the past Century
Science of Science Tutorial
I have contributed to ScisciConf. as a chief coder and superviser of scisci-handson. Codes are consists of 1. Data structure of OpenAlex, 2. Clustering and visualization of disciplines, 3. Research evaluation by Wu-disruptiveness index, 4. Researcher evaluation by h-index. venue: ‘ScisciConference’ paperurl: ‘https://github.com/ScisciJP/scisciJP2024_tutorial' type: ‘Lecture’ Science of Science Tutorial
Bento-kai: Making Better Science and Academic Ecosystem
You can see details here Build a better ecosystem of science and academia, together. We are inviting you to the "Bento-kai," a lunchtime study group: As we aim to innovate further and enhance research capabilities, we face many daily challenges regarding the mechanisms of science and academia. To address these, efforts have begun actively across industry, government, and academia to form communities, design policies and systems, and develop services. However, given the complexity of the challenges we face, you may experience difficulties and frustrations in your activities. We define endeavors that tackle challenges in science and academia as "Metascience," and with the aim of sharing practical knowledge surrounding Metascience and building an organic space for connections among participants, we have launched "Bento-kai," a "brown-bag" style study group. ...
From Audit to Dialogue: Research Evaluation's Radical Turn
What do research crowdfunding, citizen science, and blockchain technologies have in common? They represent a fundamental shift away from centralized authority toward distributed decision-making. This same shift is now reaching the heart of academic governance: how we evaluate research. I attended a symposium at Kyoto University on their new research evaluation framework, COMON. As an outsider—a researcher studying peer review systems—I witnessed something that goes far beyond the “responsible metrics” discourse of DORA or the collaborative spirit of CoARA. This is not another call for better measurement. It is a restructuring of institutional relationships, built on recognition that universities must help research communities create entirely new resources rather than compete for a fixed pie. ...
[Contributed Talk] The Age of Anticipation and the Better Way to Share Science
venue: ‘DeSciTokyo Conference’ url: ‘https://desci-tokyo.jp/' type: ‘Contributed Talk’
[Contributed Talk] Scientists Have an Inherent Prioritized Queue in Selecting Collaborations
title: “Scientists Have an Inherent Prioritized Queue in Selecting Collaborations” excerpt: The paper analyzes the temporal dynamics of co-authorship in scientific publications, finding a fat-tailed interval distribution between recurring collaborations, which can be explained by a proposed priority selection model simulating multi-agent team dynamics based on co-authorship willingness. The findings suggest non-Poisson activity patterns in scientific collaborations. venue: ‘ICSSI’ url: https://icssi2024.org/ (the website is no longer available) paperurl: ‘http://academicpages.github.io/files/paper3.pdf' type: ‘Contributed Talk’ ...
[Infographics] Shared Print in Japan
Shared Print — 論点提示ノート 誰と、 分かち合うか。 これは結論を示す資料ではない。北米で40プログラム・750館が実践するシェアードプリント(印刷体資料の共同保存)を手がかりに、日本の図書館がネットワークと管理体制をどう設計すべきかを、現場の図書館員・意思決定者が議論するための土台として作成した。 対象読者 北米外の図書館員・意思決定者 目的 周知ではなく、論点提示と議論喚起 軸 日本 × 北米の対比 01 資料費は語られる。では「管理」のコストは? 大学図書館の予算は年々細る。だが議論の的になるのは新規購入費ばかりで、すでに書架を埋めている資料を保存・管理し続けるコストは、ほとんど可視化されていない。日本ではどうか。 日本 — 書架は、もう追いつかない 国立大学図書館 蔵書充足率98% 文部科学省「学術情報基盤実態調査」令和6年度(蔵書冊数 ÷ 書架収容可能冊数) 686,075冊/年 令和5年度の年間受入冊数(国立大学図書館)。この量が、すでに98%埋まった書架に毎年積み上がっていく。 約3年 このペースで積み上がり続けると、収容力の上限に達するまでの猶予は約3年という計算になる。 同調査の数値から試算(除籍等は考慮しない単純計算) データなし保存・書庫維持・デジタル化等にかかる「管理費」そのものを分離した公表統計は、現時点で存在しない。ここに示すのは蔵書・受入という「量」の統計。 02 Concept — 理念と北米の規模 シェアードプリントとは何か 同じ本を、何十もの図書館がそれぞれ「万一のため」に個別に保管し続けている — これが今の状態。シェアードプリントは、参加館同士で「この一冊はうちが将来にわたって保存すると約束する」と分担を決め、重複した保管をお互い手放せるようにする仕組み。資料保存を「各館の個別課題」から「機関間の共同責任」へ捉え直す点が核心にある。 この広がりを後押ししてきたのが、繰り返し示されてきたコスト効果だ。 北米 — 試算はある $4.26 開架書庫 $0.86 高密度書庫 約80%減 高密度書庫に切り替えた場合の、1冊・年あたり保管費の削減幅(2009年ドル)。 Courant & Nielsen (2010) $50万〜$200万/年 ARL加盟館がシェアードプリント体制を整えた場合の削減見込み。スペースは45,000平方フィート超の削減も。 OCLC Research (2013) ※ いずれも事後検証された「実績」ではなく、コスト構造に基づく試算値。 900館+ 15コンソーシアムが参加(Shared Print Partnership) 6,800万冊+ 保存を約束した冊数。増加中 20〜25% 各館が自己申告する保存対象の割合 この規模を支えているのが3層構造。単独機関が支配的立場に立たないよう、層ごとに役割を分けている。 個別図書館 実際に資料を保存する責任を負う最小単位。 地域プログラム 日常運営の実務を担う層。専任プログラムマネージャーを置いたり、物理的な共同保存拠点を運営したりする(例:SCELC、MSCC、Colorado Alliance、Keep@Downsview)。 連合体 個別図書館ではなく、プログラム間の取り決めとして運営される層(例:The Partnership for Shared Book Collections、カナダのNorth/Nord)。 03 Japan — ここまでの歩み 日本の動き 2026年4月、東海国立大学機構の岐阜大学図書館・名古屋大学附属図書館蔵書構築プロジェクトチームが、北米Shared Print Toolkitの日本語翻訳版を公開した。この一報の背景には、10年以上にわたる検討の積み重ねがある。 ...