And this means what?
I think it means biology is WAY cooler than physics, based on popularity, or something like that.
I guess so.
No meteorology?! This map sucks.
I'm not bad at biology, it was one of my favorite subjects, so the map rocks.
It sucks and is complete nonsense.
Biology :yuck: (I would rather die than taking that crap or Chemistry)
I don't know but most EE people hate anything like Chemistry/bio .. and are math freaks to some extent
I think these are fisheye vizualizations of three-dimensional maps - if that's true, the perspective is the only reason that some subjects show up bigger than others.⚛
Heh, I know what you mean.
Biology is awesome.
But not as awesome as Biophysics ...
All of science is awesome IMO.
Math >> Everything
the only thing worse than biology is botany.
That molecular and cellular biology receive a lot more funding than any other science.
That researchers in molecular and cellular biology publish a lot more papers than researchers in any other science.
That authors of molecular and cellular biology papers list a lot more references in their papers than do authors of papers in any other field.
That a map of the sciences based solely on citations provides a skewed view of the sciences.
i'm still trying to figure out how Control Theory links to neuroscience and computer science, but no probability, mathematics, or engineering. maybe the field is just so old that there are no new contributions from those areas? economics could probably benefit from a little control theory, too.
Electrical engineering is spread around in multiple tiny disciplines, and mechanical engineering is non-existent.
The latter omission points out one huge bias: Journal selection. They didn't use any ASME journals! "Death studies" is a scientific pursuit, but mechanical engineering isn't?
Another bias is in the way people in different disciplines write papers. The list of references can be rather short in a mathematics, the hard sciences, or engineering journal paper. In the social sciences, papers in which the list of references is longer than the body of the paper is the norm. A math paper with 20 references might well come back with reviewer comments, "why so many references?" A linguistics paper with 50 references might well come back with reviewer comments, "why so few references?"
A field where papers typically stand on their own merits will artificially suffer by the methodology apparently used by the developers of this map.
That's because physicists and engineers are wusses and give up as soon as a subject gets challenging and complicated. :tongue:
*dons fireproof suit and runs for cover*
*finds a spare fireproof suit in moonbear's closet and dons it*
Nah. It's just that you biological and medical science people insert dozens of references to unrelated articles in your papers, making the subject appear to be challenging and complicated.
That technique sure fooled this "map".
meh, medical science doesn't have to worry about being right, only statistically significant.
Separate names with a comma.