arXiv subjects

Ana Maria Jaramillo

Publications and source records attributed to Ana Maria Jaramillo.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

arXiv2025

Systematic comparison of gender inequality in scientific rankings across disciplines

The participation of women in academia has increased in the last few decades across many fields (e.g., Computer Science, History, Medicine). However, this increase in the participation of women has not been the same at all career stages. Here, we study how gender participation within different fields is related to gender representation in top-ranking positions in productivity (number of papers), research impact (number of citations), and co-authorship networks (degree of connectivity). We analyzed over 80 million papers published from 1975 to 2020 in 19 academic fields. Our findings reveal that women remain a minority in all 19 fields, with physics, geology, and mathematics having the lowest percentage of papers authored by women at 14% and psychology having the largest percentage at 39%. Women are significantly underrepresented in top-ranking positions (top 10% or higher) across all fields and metrics (productivity, citations, and degree), indicating that it remains challenging for early researchers (especially women) to reach top-ranking positions, as our results reveal the rankings to be rigid over time. Finally, we show that in most fields, women and men with comparable productivity levels and career age tend to attain different levels of citations, where women tend to benefit more from co-authorships, while men tend to benefit more from productivity, especially in pSTEMs. Our findings highlight that while the participation of women has risen in some fields, they remain under-represented in top-ranking positions. Greater gender participation at entry levels often helps representation, but stronger interventions are still needed to achieve long-lasting careers for women and their participation in top-ranking positions.

cs.SI↗

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↗