Visualizing researchers’ scientific contributions with radar plots

Author(s)

• Manh-Toan Ho

Full text (open access)

• PDF

• Supplemental Information (R code)

Abstract

• The essay advocates for diverse approaches in presenting a researcher's scientific contributions in a project. Taking inspiration from sports journalism and its visualization of football players' data, the essay suggests that a radar plot, incorporating CRediT contributor role data, enables multiple authors of a scientific paper to illustrate their contributions in a more specific manner. The suggested method, though subject to bias reporting, pays credit to different aspects of a research project, from conceptualization, analysis, administration, to writing and revising. It not only enables both academics and lay readers to better understand the considerable amount of work required in every project but also calls for the need to employ diverse viewpoints in science.

Date

• December, 2023

Author Biography

• Manh-Toan Ho is a researcher in the field of social sciences, with a background in media studies and economics. He is currently working towards his PhD, with a focus on using video games to address environmental issues in Vietnam. Manh-Toan has a broad range of interests, including video games, cinema, emotional artificial intelligence, and consciousness

Donations

• Toan would like those who appreciate this article to donate to Blue Dragon Children's Foundation (https://www.bluedragon.org/) or Như chưa hề có cuộc chia ly program (https://haylentieng.vn/ungho/).

Citation

• Manh-Toan Ho (2023). Visualizing researchers’ scientific contributions with radar plots. Seeds of Science. https://doi.org/10.53975/36vs-8hk1

• BibTex

Areas

• Metascience

References

1. Tran T, et al. (2020). Scrambling for higher metrics in the Journal Impact Factor bubble period: a real-world problem in science management and its implications. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 18(1), 48-56.

2. Vuong QH. (2019). Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1034.

3. Stevenson T. (2020). The difficulty of statistically analyzing match performance.

4. Muller J. (2021). Introducing the no-touch all-stars. The Athletic. Retrieved from https://theathletic.com/3028824/2021/12/22/introducing-the-no-touch-all-stars/

5. Knutson T. (2017). Revisiting radars. StatsBomb. URL: https://statsbomb.com/2017/05/revisiting-radars

6. Koetsier, R. (2021). Percentile Radars/Pizza's. Getting blue fingers. URL: https://www.gettingbluefingers.com/tutorials/RadarPizzaChart

7. CASRAI. (2021). CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy. CASRAI. URL: https://casrai.org/credit/

8. Vuong QH. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149.

9. Mastroianni A. (2022). The rise and fall of peer review. Experimental History.

10. Seglen PO. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 497.

11. Nguyen CT. (2021). The Seductions of Clarity. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 89, 227–255. doi:10.1017/s1358246121000035

12. Biermann, C. (2019). Football hackers: The science and art of a data revolution. Kings Road Publishing.

13. Vuong QH (2017). Open data, open review and open dialogue in making social sciences plausible. Nature: Scientific Data Updates.

14. Vuong QH. (2018). The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 5.

15. Ho MT, Ho MT, Vuong QH. (2021). Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science. Publications, 9(3), 31