Back

Network analysis of workshop activities reveals increasing transdisciplinarity of German biodiversity research community

Geschke, J.; Lutz, M.; Vohland, K.

2020-02-27 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2020.02.26.966432 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Boundary spanning activities in the biodiversity science-policy interface are urgently needed. Effective science communication and uptake of scientific findings by policymakers is crucial for a successful, cross-scale policy implementation. For this, national platforms promoting knowledge exchange between different stakeholder groups are key. Established in 2009, the Network-Forum on Biodiversity Research Germany (NeFo) until 2018 has organized more than 40 workshops bringing together actors from science, policy and society. In this paper, we present a network and cluster analysis of these NeFo workshops. Based on this, we discuss the importance of science-policy interface projects and networks as knowledge brokers and boundary organizations, as well as challenges in using network analysis as a tool for evaluating workshop impacts. Based on the network analysis outcomes as well as experiences in the conduction of workshops, recommendations to strengthen the innovation impact of networking efforts are drawn.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecology and Evolution
○ 267 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Ecological Informatics
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.8%
Similar papers in this journal
3
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.0%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Sustainability
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
Similar papers in this journal
5
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
○ 27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
Similar papers in this journal
6
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.1%
8
Animals
○ 23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
9
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.7%
10
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.4%
11
Ecological Indicators
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
12
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
13
Biological Conservation
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
14
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
15
Peer Community Journal
● 281 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Marine Science
○ 62 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
ICES Journal of Marine Science
◐ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
18
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
19
Conservation Biology
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
20
Conservation Letters
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
21
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
22
Frontiers in Microbiology
○ 427 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
23
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
24
Conservation Science and Practice
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
25
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
26
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 393 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
27
FACETS
● 14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
28
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
● 51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.6%
30
Wellcome Open Research
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.