We compare recent approaches to community structure identification in terms of sensitivity and computational cost. The recently proposed modularity measure is revisited and the performance of the methods as applied to ad hoc networks with known community structure, is compared. We find that the most accurate methods tend to be more computationally expensive, and that both aspects need to be considered when choosing a method for practical purposes. The work is intended as an introduction as well as a proposal for a standard benchmark test of community detection methods.

We propose a method to find the community structure in complex networks based on an extremal optimization of the value of modularity. The method outperforms the optimal modularity found by the existing algorithms in the literature giving a better understanding of the community structure. We present the results of the algorithm for computer-simulated and real networks and compare them with other approaches. The efficiency and accuracy of the method make it feasible to be used for the accurate identification of community structure in large complex networks. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.72.027104 © 2005 The American Physical Society

Teamwork is a fundamental aspect of many human activities, from business to art and from sports to science. Recent research suggest that team work is of crucial importance to cutting-edge scientific research, but little is known about how teamwork leads to greater creativity. Indeed, for many team activities, it is not even clear how to assign credit to individual team members. Remarkably, at least in the context of sports, there is usually a broad consensus on who are the top performers and on what qualifies as an outstanding performance. In order to determine how individual features can be quantified, and as a test bed for other team-based human activities, we analyze the performance of players in the European Cup 2008 soccer tournament. We develop a network approach that provides a powerful quantification of the contributions of individual players and of overall team performance. We hypothesize that generalizations of our approach could be useful in other contexts where quantification of the contributions of individual team members is important.

Many studies demonstrate that there is still a significant gender bias, especially at higher career levels, in many areas including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We investigated field-dependent, gender-specific effects of the selective pressures individuals experience as they pursue a career in academia within seven STEM disciplines. We built a unique database that comprises 437,787 publications authored by 4,292 faculty members at top United States research universities. Our analyses reveal that gender differences in publication rate and impact are discipline-specific. Our results also support two hypotheses. First, the widely-reported lower publication rates of female faculty are correlated with the amount of research resources typically needed in the discipline considered, and thus may be explained by the lower level of institutional support historically received by females. Second, in disciplines where pursuing an academic position incurs greater career risk, female faculty tend to have a greater fraction of higher impact publications than males. Our findings have significant, field-specific, policy implications for achieving diversity at the faculty level within the STEM disciplines.

Collaboration plays an increasingly important role in promoting research productivity and impact. What remains unclear is whether female and male researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) disciplines differ in their collaboration propensity. Here, we report on an empirical analysis of the complete publication records of 3,980 faculty members in six STEM disciplines at select U.S. research universities. We find that female faculty have significantly fewer distinct co-authors over their careers than males, but that this difference can be fully accounted for by females’ lower publication rate and shorter career lengths. Next, we find that female scientists have a lower probability of repeating previous co-authors than males, an intriguing result because prior research shows that teams involving new collaborations produce work with higher impact. Finally, we find evidence for gender segregation in some sub-disciplines in molecular biology, in particular in genomics where we find female faculty to be clearly under-represented. Collaboration plays an increasingly important role in promoting research productivity and impact. What remains unclear is whether female and male researchers differ in their collaboration practices. In our study, we report on an empirical analysis of the complete publication records of 3,980 faculty members in six science, technology, engineering, and mathematical disciplines at select U.S. research universities. First we found that female faculty have significantly fewer distinct co-authors over their careers than males, but that this difference can be fully accounted for by females’ lower publication rate and shorter career lengths. Next, we find that female scientists have a lower probability of repeating previous co-authors than males, an intriguing result because prior research shows that teams involving new collaborations produce work with higher impact. Finally, we find evidence for gender segregation in some sub-disciplines in molecular biology, in particular in genomics where we find female faculty to be clearly under-represented.