Two Hierarchies in Science: The Free Flow of Ideas and the Academy

Two Hierarchies in Science: The Free Flow of Ideas and the Academy

Adrian Bejan 

J. A. Jones Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

Page: 
386-394
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/DNE-V4-N4-386-394
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
31 December 2009
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Here I show that the pattern of generation of science is in disaccord with the pattern of admission to the academy. The contrast between the two patterns is illustrated with two rankings: the most highly cited authors in all US engineering and the members of the US National Academy of Engineering. Only 2.7% of the academy members are highly cited. This discrepancy raises the question of how the academicians have succeeded in this mode of self-organization. The answer is evident when we examine two drawings: (1) the numbers of highly cited authors versus the ranks of their institutions, and (2) the numbers of academy members versus the ranks of their institutions. Drawing (1) is a natural (Zipf) distribution, which is virtually the same as the hierarchy and scaling of all freely morphing flow structures in nature (e.g. city sizes on the landscape, tree sizes in the forest, and river sizes in the basins). Drawing (2) fails the natural (Zipf) test, and reveals that the flow to the academy is not free, that is, not for everybody.

Keywords: 

constructal law, highly cited, national academy, mafias, dark networks, university rankings, Zipf distribution

  References

[1] Bejan, a., Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics, 2nd edn, Wiley: New york, 1997.

[2] Bejan, a., Shape and Structure, from Engineering to Nature, cambridge University Press: cambridge, Uk, 2000. 

[3] Bejan, a. & lorente, S., constructal theory of generation of configuration in nature and engineering. J. Appl. Phys., 100, p. 041301, 2006. doi:10.1063/1.2221896

[4] reis, a.h., constructal theory: from engineering to physics, and how flow systems develop shape and structure. Appl. Mech. Rev., 59, pp. 269–282, 2006. doi:10.1115/1.2204075

[5] Poirier, h., a theory explains the intelligence of nature. Science & Vie, 1034, pp. 44–63, 2003.

[6] reis, a.h., constructal view of scaling laws of river basins. Geomorphology, 78, pp. 201–206, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.01.015

[7] miguel, a.f., constructal pattern formation in stony corals, bacterial colonies and plant roots under different hydrodynamics conditions. J. Theor. Biol., 242, pp. 954–961, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.05.010

[8] Bejan, a. & merkx, g.W. (eds), Constructal Theory of Social Dynamics, Springer: New york, 2007.

[9] Bejan, a., lorente, S., miguel, a.f. & reis, a.h., constructal theory of distribution of river sizes (Section 13.5 in a. Bejan). Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics, 3rd edn, Wiley: hoboken, 2006.

[10] rosa, r.N., river basins: geomorphology and dynamics. Bejan’s Constructal Theory of Shape and Structure, eds r.N. rosa, a.h. reis & a.f. miguel, Évora geophysics center, University of Évora: Portugal, 2004.

[11] Bejan, a., lorente, S., miguel, a.f. & reis, a.h., constructal theory of distribution of city sizes (Section 13.4 in a. Bejan). Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics, 3rd edn, Wiley: hoboken, 2006.

[12] Bejan, a., lorente, S. & lee, J., Unifying constructal theory of tree roots, canopies and forests. J. Theor. Biol., 254(3), pp. 529–540, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.06.026

[13] Bejan, a., Why university rankings do not change: education as a natural hierarchical flow architecture. Int. J. Des. Nat., 2, pp. 319–327, 2007. doi:10.2495/JDN-V2-N4-319-327 [14] ISIhighlycited.com, www.isihighlycited.com.

[15] antunes, a., Encouraging good science on the web. Physics Today, pp. 41–42, 2009. doi:10.1063/1.3212692

[16] Scheff, T.J., academic gangs. Crime, Law & Social Change, 23, pp. 157–162, 1995. doi:10.1007/Bf01298529

[17] Soler, J.J., moller, a.P. & Soler, m., mafia behavior and the evolution of facultative virulence. J. Theor. Biol., 191, pp. 267–277, 1998. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1997.0599

[18] clark, B.r., The many pathways of academic coordination. Higher Education, 9, pp. 251–267, 1979. doi:10.1007/Bf00137211

[19] chaput de Saintonage, m. & Pavlovic, a., cheating. Medical Education, 38, pp. 8–9, 2004. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01771.x

[20] News: Italy continues r & D reforms. Nature Medicine, 4(9), p. 993, 1998.

[21] Xu, J. & chen, h., The topology of dark networks. Communications of the ACM, 51(10), pp. 58–65, 2008. doi:10.1145/1400181.1400198

[22] Bejan, a., constructal self-organization of research: empire building versus the individual investigator. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn., 3, pp. 177–189, 2008. doi:10.2495/DNE-V3-N3-177-189

[23] mazur, S., margulis: peer review or “cycle of submission”, Scoop, 5 January 2010, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/hl1001/S00010.htm [24] http://www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nsf.