1. NBIC2 International Study on Converging Technologies for Societal Benefit, D.C. 2012.06.26 Chin Hua Kong (kongch@indiana.edu) Cyberinfrastructure for Network Science Center, Information Visualization Laboratory, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN http://cns.iu.edu Science of Science Tool (Sci2) Software for Finding Fields of Science

2. Find your way Find collaborators, friends Identify trends Take terabytes of data Plug-and-Play Macroscopes 2 Challenges

3. physical instruments continuously changing bundles of software plug-ins While microscopes and telescopes are physical instruments, macroscopes resemble continuously changing bundles of software plug-ins. Macroscopes make it easy to select and combine algorithm and tool plug-ins but also interface plug-ins, workflow support, logging, scheduling, and other plug-ins needed for scientifically rigorous yet effective work. Sharing algorithm components, tools, or novel interfaces becomes as easy as sharing images on Flickr or videos on YouTube. Assembling custom tools is as quick as compiling your custom music collection. They make it easy to share plug-ins via email, flash drives, or online. To use new plugins, simply copy the files into the plug-in directory, and they appear in the tool menu ready for use. No restart of the tool is necessary. Sharing algorithm components, tools, or novel interfaces becomes as easy as sharing images on Flickr or videos on YouTube. Assembling custom tools is as quick as compiling your custom music collection. 3 CNS.IU.EDU, CIShell.org, SciMaps.org Plug-and-Play Macroscopes

4. Type of Analysis vs. Level of Analysis Micro/Individual (1-100 records) Meso/Local (101–10,000 records) Macro/Global (10,000 < records) Statistical Analysis/Profiling Individual person and their expertise profiles Larger labs, centers, universities, research domains, or states All of NSF, all of USA, all of science. Temporal Analysis (When) Funding portfolio of one individual Mapping topic bursts in 20-years of PNAS 113 Years of Physics Research Geospatial Analysis (Where) Career trajectory of one individual Mapping a states intellectual landscape PNAS publications Topical Analysis (What) Base knowledge from which one grant draws. Knowledge flows in Chemistry research VxOrd/Topic maps of NIH funding Network Analysis (With Whom?) NSF Co-PI network of one individual Co-author networkNIH’s core competency 4

5. Micro/Individual (1-100 records) Meso/Local (101–10,000 records) Macro/Global (10,000 < records) Statistical Analysis/Profiling Individual person and their expertise profiles Larger labs, centers, universities, research domains, or states All of NSF, all of USA, all of science. Temporal Analysis (When) Funding portfolio of one individual Mapping topic bursts in 20-years of PNAS 113 Years of Physics Research Geospatial Analysis (Where) Career trajectory of one individual Mapping a states intellectual landscape PNAS publciations Topical Analysis (What) Base knowledge from which one grant draws. Knowledge flows in Chemistry research VxOrd/Topic maps of NIH funding Network Analysis (With Whom?) NSF Co-PI network of one individual Co-author networkNIH’s core competency 5 Type of Analysis vs. Level of Analysis

6. Science of Science Tool http://sci2.cns.iu.edu http://sci2.cns.iu.edu answer where, when, what, and with whom a science is invented. A software designed for the study of science to answer where, when, what, and with whom a science is invented. Sci2 Tool v1.0 alpha (June 13th, 2012) Can be freely downloaded for all major operating systems from http://sci2.cns.iu.edu Sci2 Manual is at http://sci2.wiki.cns.iu.edu 6 Cite as Sci 2 Team. (2009). Science of Science (Sci 2 ) Tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies, http://sci2.cns.iu.edu.http://sci2.cns.iu.edu Funded by NSF SciSIP program, users from 73 countries, actively used by major agencies such as National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NSF loves Adoption!!National Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthUS Department of AgricultureNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

7. Existing works in Discovery and Finding Fields of Science

8. Mapping Indiana’s Intellectual Space Identify  Pockets of innovation  Pathways from ideas to products  Interplay between industry and academia 8

9. Individual Co-PI Network Ke & Börner, (2006) 9

10. Mapping the Evolution of Co-Authorship Networks Ke, Visvanath & Börner, (2004) Won 1st price at the IEEE InfoVis Contest. 10

11. 11

12. Compare R01 investigator based funding with TTURC Center awards in terms of number of publications and evolving co-author networks. Zoss & Börner, forthcoming. Supported by NIH/NCI Contract HHSN261200800812 Mapping Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers Publications 12

13. Co-word space of the top 50 highly frequent and bursty words used in the top 10% most highly cited PNAS publications in 1982-2001. Mane & Börner. (2004) PNAS, 101(Suppl. 1): 5287-5290. Mapping Topic Bursts 13

14. Spatio-Temporal Information Production and Consumption of Major U.S. Research Institutions Börner, Katy, Penumarthy, Shashikant, Meiss, Mark and Ke, Weimao. (2006) Mapping the Diffusion of Scholarly Knowledge Among Major U.S. Research Institutions. Scientometrics. 68(3), pp. 415-426. Research questions: 1. Does space still matter in the Internet age? 2. Does one still have to study and work at major research institutions in order to have access to high quality data and expertise and to produce high quality research? 3. Does the Internet lead to more global citation patterns, i.e., more citation links between papers produced at geographically distant research instructions? Contributions:  Answer to Qs 1 + 2 is YES.  Answer to Qs 3 is NO.  Novel approach to analyzing the dual role of institutions as information producers and consumers and to study and visualize the diffusion of information among them. 14

15. References Börner, Katy, Chen, Chaomei, and Boyack, Kevin. (2003). Visualizing Knowledge Domains. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), ARIST, Medford, NJ: Information Today, Volume 37, Chapter 5, pp. 179-255. http://ivl.slis.indiana.edu/km/pub/2003-borner-arist.pdf http://ivl.slis.indiana.edu/km/pub/2003-borner-arist.pdf Shiffrin, Richard M. and Börner, Katy (Eds.) (2004). Mapping Knowledge Domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(Suppl_1). http://www.pnas.org/content/vol101/suppl_1/ http://www.pnas.org/content/vol101/suppl_1/ Börner, Katy, Sanyal, Soma and Vespignani, Alessandro (2007). Network Science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), ARIST, Information Today, Inc., Volume 41, Chapter 12, pp. 537-607. http://ivl.slis.indiana.edu/km/pub/2007-borner-arist.pdf Börner, Katy (2010) Atlas of Science. MIT Press. http://scimaps.org/atlas Scharnhorst, Andrea, Börner, Katy, van den Besselaar, Peter (2012) Models of Science Dynamics. Springer Verlag. 15 Special Issue on “Collaborative Information Visualization Environments”, MIT Press, 14(1).

16. All papers, maps, tools, talks, press are linked from http://cns.iu.eduhttp://cns.iu.edu CNS Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cnscenterhttp://www.facebook.com/cnscenter Mapping Science Exhibit Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/mappingsciencehttp://www.facebook.com/mappingscience 16