\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage[natbibapa]{apacite}
\usepackage{eso-pic}
\AddToShipoutPictureBG{\AtPageLowerLeft{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{powered-by-Authorea-watermark.png}}}

\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}

\usepackage{authblk}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}



\begin{document}

\title{Research Olympics\\}


 \author{The Authorea Team}


\date{}

\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup




The 2016 Olympics have captivated the world -- records are breaking,
medal counts are climbing, and nationalism is roaring! It's all very
exciting. It should get even more exciting in Tokyo in four years time
at the 2020 games when several new sports are scheduled to be
introduced, including surfing, skateboarding, and\ldots{} research!
Okay, research definitely won't be included, but what if it were? How
would each country fare? Here we look at research output vs. Olympic
prowess on a per-country basis.\\

\section*{The Olympics}\label{the-olympics}

In the 2012 Olympic games in London, the~\textbf{US},~\textbf{China},
and~\textbf{Russia}~dominated, with the~\textbf{UK}~close behind. Given
that these countries have some of the largest populations and economies
in the world, such a result wasn't exactly a surprise. But there
\emph{were} some interesting correlations we didn't predict.\\

To account for population sizes, we divided medal count of each country
by population. Competing countries earned between 0 and 3 medals per
million inhabitants. Taking population into account shows that the US
and China are no longer the dominant countries. Instead, a small group
of countries not typically seen as Olympic powerhouses outperforms the
rest. In particular,~\textbf{New Zealand}, \textbf{Hungary},
\textbf{Australia}, \textbf{Denmark}, and \textbf{Croatia} performed
better than the rest with values of 1 medal or more per 1 million
people. India showed the opposite effect with a particularly low number
of medals per million inhabitants (about 0.005).~\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/interactive-figure-1471573715457/static.png}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-841266}{}
Data
Source:~\url{http://data.worldbank.org/}~,~\url{http://www.espn.com/olympics/summer/2012/medals}~and
Wikipedia. The area of the data points is proportional to the GDP of the
country represented. The full data used to produce the plots in this
article can be downloaded in csv
form:\emph{~\href{https://www.authorea.com/users/8850/articles/123654/master/file/figures/AcademicOlympics_FinalTable.csv}{data}.}~%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section*{Research Olympics~}\label{research-olympics}

Like sports, research can be hyper-competitive.~Researchers are
increasingly measured in terms of how much they publish, where they
publish, citations they receive, and various other metrics. When we
compared Olympic medals
(\href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics_medal_table}{London
2012 Olympics data})~to scholarly output
(\href{http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/\#/data}{NSF 2013
data}), there appeared significant overlap in terms of overall
production and medal awards among the leading countries.~Of the top 10
countries producing articles, 6 also have the highest Olympic medal
count.~\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.00\columnwidth]{figures/Screen-Shot-2016-08-18-at-4.48.43-PM/Screen-Shot-2016-08-18-at-4.48.43-PM}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-391715}{}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/interactive-figure-1471541995717/static.png}
\caption{{\hypertarget{auto-label-caption-165983}{}
Source:~\url{https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst\_all.htm}~and~\url{http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/\#/data}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{The impact of population
size}\label{the-impact-of-population-size}

On average in a year, countries publish about 1 paper for every 1000
people. If we normalize the number of published articles (as above with
Olympic medals), the leaderboard changes. The US and China no longer at
the top -- in fact, there are a few countries that produce around twice
as many articles as the US and China on a population-adjusted basis.~If
we awarded medals for research publications per
capita,~\textbf{Switzerland}, \textbf{Denmark} and
\textbf{Australia~}would take the Gold, Silver, and Bronze.\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/interactive-figure-1471544389953/static.png}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

We encode the GDP in the symbol size, showing~an expected correlation
between GDP and total number of publications.\\

\subsection*{The impact of gross domestic
product}\label{the-impact-of-gross-domestic-product}

Plotting publications vs population reveals an interesting trend. There
seems to be two distinct groups of countries: one with a steep linear
correlation between population size and scientific output (e.g. USA,
Japan, UK, Italy, France), and one with a much more shallow linear
correlation (e.g. India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico). Since the size of the
symbols is proportional to the country's GDP, it appears that the first
group of countries is relatively richer, which in-turn suggests an
advantage in research resources. An interesting outlier seems to be
\textbf{China}, which seemingly is in transition between the two groups
and not yet ready to take a lead in the publications ranking.~\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/interactive-figure-1471573370135/static.png}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Mens Sana in Corpore Sano}\label{mens-sana-in-corpore-sano}

The ancient Romans used to say, ``A healthy mind in a healthy body'' to
express a correlation between physical and mental health. Is that really
true? Looking at the raw numbers, publications and medals do seem to
correlate, although there are a few outliers.~\textbf{Russia, UK,
Australia, Ukraine,~}and~\textbf{Hungary~}all perform notably better in
sports compared to scientific productivity. Meanwhile the opposite is
true for~\textbf{India}~and~\textbf{Taiwan}, where they appear to be
strong publishers but weak in the Games (Olympic, not tenure).\\

~\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/interactive-figure-1471547724729/static.png}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

As before, taking into account the role of population size changes the
story substantially. When we plot the number of medals per million
citizens vs the number of publications per thousand citizens, we see
that during an olympic year there is roughly \emph{one Olympic medal for
every 1000 papers published}. Top right quadrant of the graph below is
useful to identify~the true overachievers of the `research olympics',
with a very high specific output of both medals and publications:
\textbf{New Zealand}, \textbf{Denmark}, \textbf{Australia} and
\textbf{The Netherlands}.\\\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/interactive-figure-1471572950996/static.png}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section*{And the Winner of the Research Games
is\ldots{}}\label{and-the-winner-of-the-research-games-is}

Okay, there are no ``winners'' in research. ~Although research can be
hyper-competitive like sports, they have very different goals. ~The
information presented here gives a very superficial overview as to how
countries would fare if research were an academic sport. Measuring
research in terms of ``products'' may be problematic for many reasons,
especially given that understanding and using research is far more
complex than individual metrics like counting publications. ~As they say
around the office: ``Science is for the surprises, not the prizes.'' ~\\

\emph{Want to write your surprises with Authorea?
\href{https://www.authorea.com/product}{Try us} out! ~}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{CJK}\end{document}

