经konard网友提醒，发现《Science》也介绍了“透明计算”获奖的质疑声；感谢郝老师跟进，《Science》英文报道如下： Critics pounce on China’s top science prize Tweet Email Hao By Hao Xin 2 February 2015 12:15 pm 0 Comments Controversy has erupted over China’s highest science prize for 2014. Critics are blasting the winning project, on network computing, as not innovative and undeserving. On 9 January, the State First-Class Natural Science Award went to Zhang Yaoxue, a computer scientist and member of the prestigious Chinese Academy of Engineering, and his team. The 200,000 yuan ($32,000) annual prize is considered prestigious because it is awarded sparingly: Nine times in the past 15 years there have been no winners. The government has said that it is better to have no winners than to award the prize to undeserving work. That’s why many scientists are fuming over the selection of Zhang’s “transparent computing” research for the 2014 award. Zhang’s work is “too engineering-oriented and too ordinary” to warrant the top science prize, and the award has drawn “a barrage of criticism” from China’s information technology community, says Liu Yang, a computer engineer who builds and hosts websites. Liu was the first to question the merit of Zhang’s work on ScienceNet.cn; he wrote in a blog post (later deleted by censors) that Zhang’s work “at most is an application of some open-source software.” Many people share Liu’s view. Wang Xiaoping, a computer scientist at Tongji University in Shanghai, wrote in a blog post that Zhang’s work is “a far cry” from the standard required for winning the science award. In an interview in Science and Technology Daily , the mouthpiece of China’s science ministry, which oversees the nation’s science prizes, Zhang describes his work as a “meta–operating system” that allows operating systems to be run on any hardware. The breakthrough, he says, lies in “separating computing from storage and making software independent of hardware.” He gave a link to a video demonstrating “transparent computing” on personal computers, tablets, and smart phones. Comments posted at that site say that Zhang’s model is no different from a remote desktop—a software tool that allows users to access another device on a network with the local device serving as a desktop of the remote computer—or from a network computer, a diskless device made by some U.S. companies in the late 1990s that depends on other devices on a network to store software and data. Zhang did not respond to an e-mail request for comment. For years, many in China’s scientific community have criticized the selection process for ST prizes as too political. The process involves researchers submitting their own work to ministries, agencies, and provincial governments, which then nominate submissions for awards. Before being appointed president of Central South University in Changsha in 2011, Zhang had served for more than a decade as an official at the education ministry, which nominated his work for the award. An anonymous comment on ScienceNet.cn put it this way: Zhang’s “transparent computing is so transparent that it’s like the emperor’s new clothes.” China’s professional computer society, the China Computer Federation (CCF), seemed to disagree with the selection of Zhang’s work for the top science award. On 21 January, CCF posted an appeal on its website, calling on the government to stop meddling in science awards. The statement was replaced 2 days later with a notice saying that the appeal was not related to last year’s science awards and was removed “in order not to mislead the public.” Posted in Asia/Pacific , People Events Tweet Science | DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa7788 原文链接： http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2015/02/critics-pounce-china-s-top-science-prize
Science , 24 July 2009 (Volume 325, Issue 5939) Special Issue: Complex Systems and Networks Introduction to special issue Connections B. R. Jasny et al. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/405 News Ourselves and Our Interactions: The Ultimate Physics Problem? Adrian Cho In the field of complex socioeconomic systems, physicists and others analyze people almost as if they were interchangeable electrons. Can that approach decipher society and what ails it? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/5939/406 Econophysics: Still Controversial After All These Years Adrian Cho Econophysics is the biggest branch of complex-systems research, and physicists have flocked into finance. But many economists view econophysicists as dilettantes. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/5939/408 Counterterrorism's New Tool: Metanetwork Analysis John Bohannon Researchers have created sophisticated new programs to probe beneath the surface of social interactions. How well do they work against terrorists? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/5939/409 Investigating Networks: The Dark Side John Bohannon A few months ago, Lawrence Wilkerson, a former U.S. State Department official and Army colonel, painted a nightmare scenario of how social network science can be applied in a battle zone, outlining something he called the mosaic philosophy. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/5939/410 Perspective Scale-Free Networks: A Decade and Beyond Albert-Lszl Barabsi http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/412 Revisiting the Foundations of Network Analysis Carter T. Butts http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/414 Disentangling the Web of Life Jordi Bascompte http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/416 A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems Elinor Ostrom http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/419 Economic Networks: The New Challenges F. Schweitzer et al. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/422 Predicting the Behavior of Techno-Social Systems Alessandro Vespignani http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/425 Review Transcriptional Regulatory Circuits: Predicting Numbers from Alphabets H. D. Kim et al. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/429
《 Nature 》和《 Science 》哪个影响力更大？ 半个世纪的 h 指数视角浅析 《 Nature 》和《 Science 》可能是现有最具影响力的综合类科技期刊。国人在上面发表论文，很多所在单位也会给予几十万甚至上百万的重奖，可谓名利双收。 但关于《 Nature 》和《 Science 》哪个更好一直存在很大争议。这里以两种期刊在 Web of Science 中 5 年等距抽样 h 指数（含义见注释 1 ）数据，粗略探讨过去半个世纪以来，《 Nature 》和《 Science 》的影响力演进实况和相互差别。 统计时段选择 1955 年－ 2005 年。未选择更早的数据，是因为 Web of Science 1955 年之前的数据只能按较长时段查询不能按具体年份检索。另外，据笔者所知，此两种期刊在世界范围的权威地位于 20 世纪下半叶才逐渐完全确立。 图 1 是两种期刊的 h 指数演变数据。 图 1 1955 年－ 2005 年《 Nature 》和《 Science 》的 h 指数演变及比较 可见， 20 世纪下半叶，《 Nature 》和《 Science 》的 h 指数一直在上升，特别是 1975 年后，两种期刊的影响力扩大很快。两种期刊的 h 指数峰值都在 1995 年，当年两种期刊各有 280 余篇论文至今被引用了不少于 280 余次，论文影响力持续能力较强。新世纪里 h 指数的下降并不能证明两种期刊影响力有所下降，而是 h 指数增长需要时间积累所致。 半个世纪以来，除了 1965 年两种期刊 h 指数相等外，其余统计点上，《 Nature 》的 h 指数都大于《 Science 》，这种差别在 1980 年－ 1990 年之间较为明显，但近年来差距似乎有所缩小。 h 指数主要关注产出论文集合的高被引论文及其被引强度 。应指出的是，任一单一指标的测度总有片面性，本博文数据仅供参考。 注释： 1. h 指数由美国物理学家 Hirsch 于 2005 年提出，以简单的计算同时衡量学者个人论文成果的数量和质量（影响力） 。 Braun 将其扩展到对期刊的 影响力测评 。 期刊 h 指数的定义为：某一时段内，期刊发表的总计 N 篇论文中，有 h 篇论文的被引次数至少为 h 次，且其余 N-h 篇论文的被引次数均小于或等于 h 。期刊 h 指数是目前除学者 h 指数之外，研究和应用最多的 h 指数扩展。 参考文献： 赵星 , 高小强 , 何培 . 科学基金 h 指数 : 基金论文成果数量与影响力的综合衡量 . 中国科学基金 ,2009,1: 15-19 Hirsch J E. An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. PNAS,2005,102(46): 16569 16572 Ball P.Index aims for fair ranking of scientists.Nature,2005,436(7053): 900 Egghe L, Rousseau R.An informetric model for the Hirsch index. Scientometrics,2006,69(1): 121129 Braun T et al.A Hirsch-type index for journals.Scientometrics,2006,69(1),169-173.
标签: 《Science》
