arXiv subjects

Ana Maria Jaramillo

Publications and source records attributed to Ana Maria Jaramillo.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Systematic comparison of gender inequality in scientific rankings across disciplines

Participation of Women in academia has grown over recent decades. Yet, it is unclear how this growth translates into representation at the top of academic rankings (measured by scientific productivity and citations). Here, we investigate gender gaps in productivity, citations, and coauthorship networks across 18 fields, using 67.7 million papers published between 1975 and 2020 in the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus, with the authors binary gender inferred from names using Genderize and Namsor. We find that women remain consistently underrepresented in top-ranked positions across all fields, even in disciplines where their overall participation is relatively high. We observe that rankings are generally becoming increasingly rigid over time, with fewer researchers entering or leaving top-ranked positions from one year to the next in most fields, although we do not test whether this rigidity contributes to the disparities we document. Across fields, highly productive men receive more citations than the closest available women based on the observed productivity and career stages. However, when top-ranked women are compared with their closest male counterparts in terms of career stage and publication profile (accounting for venue prestige and authorship position), gaps narrow in some fields and in a few others disappear or reverse, showing that, among highly productive researchers, differences in research output alone do not fully account for the citation gaps.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Bridging the Language Gap in Scholarly Data I: Enhancing Author Disambiguation Algorithms for Chinese Names

Disambiguating scholars with identical names is essential for accurate authorship assignment and robust large-scale scientometric research. Existing methods are often designed for Latin-script metadata and perform poorly on Chinese names. In international publications, Chinese names typically appear as Romanized Pinyin, which is highly ambiguous as it can map to multiple distinct characters. Chinese characters, in contrast, reduce but do not eliminate this ambiguity, and are rarely available in international records. To address both challenges, we propose a rule-based disambiguation framework that integrates co-authorship networks, citation networks, author affiliations, and content similarity. We apply this framework to 65,241 physics papers from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), spanning over 70 years of data. On a human annotated sample of 80 name pairs, our method achieves F1-scores of 0.88 for Pinyin names and 0.89 for character-based names, outperforming two baseline approaches, with improvements driven primarily by higher recall. The comparable performance across both writing systems shows that our approach is script-agnostic, enabling reliable large-scale scientometric analyses.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

The overlooked need for Ethics in Complexity Science: Why it matters

Complexity science, despite its broad scope and potential impact, has not kept pace with fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and social sciences in addressing ethical concerns. The field lacks a comprehensive ethical framework, leaving us, as a community, vulnerable to ethical challenges and dilemmas. Other areas have gone through similar experiences and created, with discussions and working groups, their guides, policies and recommendations. Therefore, here we highlight the critical absence of formal guidelines, dedicated ethical committees, and widespread discussions on ethics within the complexity science community. Drawing on insights from the disciplines mentioned earlier, we propose a roadmap to enhance ethical awareness and action. Our recommendations include (i) initiating supportive mechanisms to develop ethical guidelines specific to complex systems research, (ii) creating open-access resources, and (iii) fostering inclusive dialogues to ensure that complexity science can responsibly tackle societal challenges and achieve a more inclusive environment. By initiating this dialogue, we aim to encourage a necessary shift in how ethics is integrated into complexity research, positioning the field to address contemporary challenges more effectively.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2023

The structure of segregation in co-authorship networks and its impact on scientific production

Co-authorship networks, where nodes represent authors and edges represent co-authorship relations, are key to understanding the production and diffusion of knowledge in academia. Social constructs, biases (implicit and explicit), and constraints (e.g. spatial, temporal) affect who works with whom and cause co-authorship networks to organise into tight communities with different levels of segregation. We aim to look at aspects of the co-authorship network structure that lead to segregation and its impact on scientific production. We measure segregation using the Spectral Segregation Index (SSI) and find 4 ordered segregation categories: completely segregated, highly segregated, moderately segregated and non-segregated communities. We direct our attention to the non-segregated and highly segregated communities, quantifying and comparing their structural topologies and k-core positions. When considering communities of both categories (controlling for size), our results show no differences in density and clustering but substantial variability in core position. Larger non-segregated communities are more likely to occupy cores near the network nucleus, while the highly segregated ones tend to be closer to the network periphery. Finally, we analyse differences in citations gained by researchers within communities showing different segregation categories. Researchers in highly segregated communities get more citations from their community members in middle cores and gain more citations per publication in middle/periphery cores. Those in non-segregated communities get more citations per publication in the nucleus. To our knowledge, this work is the first to characterise community segregation in co-authorship networks and investigate the relationship between community segregation and author citations.

cs.SI↗