ed in university CS departments; for
BIO, some non-CS faculty were hosted
in biology-related departments, for
MIS, in business and marketing departments, and for OR in applied math
and engineering departments. However, surprisingly, this pattern also
holds for IPCV researchers, with about
one-third affiliated with radiology and
medical departments. The quantity of
researchers in those areas not in CS departments may indicate those areas are
more “interdisciplinary.” 13
The number of students in the
sample may indicate, in a first ap-
proximation, the number of students
working in each area. That number
divided by the number of CS faculty in
the sample may likewise be an indica-
tor of the availability of students per CS
researcher. Thus, MM and ARCH had
the most students per CS researcher,
while MIS, DC, and TH had the fewest
students per CS researcher.
table 2. characteristics of the samples and the population in each area: stud. is number of
students: non-cs is number of non-cs faculty; cs is number of cs faculty in the sample;
Resea. is total number of researchers; and Papers is total number of papers (published
from 2006 to 2010) according to DBlP computer science Bibliography.
area
AI
ArCH
BIO
C+PL
COMM
DB
DC
grAPH
HCI
IPCv
MIs
ML
MM
Or
se
seC
TH
stud.
6
10
4
4
4
8
3
5
8
4
0
4
9
2
4
4
3
sample
non-cs cs
0 24
3 17
11 15
0 26
0 26
0 23
0 27
3 23
3 19
12 12
19 11
5 11
0 11
19 9
2 24
0 26
4 23
Resea.
2244
3662
8406
1001
4395
1716
1112
2176
3229
6826
1175
2619
3623
3103
2278
1527
1595
Population
Papers
4461
6666
8037
1244
6640
3066
1097
2913
5696
10959
1800
3728
4790
6051
4993
2690
5534
figure 1. Production per year (in order of total productivity); the percent in each bar is
the proportion of journal productivity to overall productivity.
conference
Journal
8
6
publications/year
4
2
20% 21% 22%
28% 26%
26%
33%
45%
26%
17% 19%
31%
24%
48%
70%
76% 69%
0
mIS or th Db c+Pl aIgraPh Sec ml bIo mm hcI Se arch IPcV Dc comm
dered by total productivity (the sum of
conference and journal productivity).
Table 3 lists the significant differences in total and journal productivity
as a “compact letter display,” a visualization tool showing nonsignificant
differences between two areas; that is,
the difference between the average total productivity of two areas is not statistically significant if the areas share
a letter in common. When comparing
any two areas, two or more letters in
common means the same as one letter
in common; that is, the areas are not
significantly different. Only when two
areas have no letters in common is the
difference between them statistically
significant. Each letter is an indicator
of a maximal subset of areas in which
differences are not statistically significant; for example, total production of
DC (“d”) is significantly different from
that of DB (“ab”), since they have no
common letter. However, DC (“d”) is
not significantly different from COMM
(“cd”) because they have the letter “d”
in common. The second column lists
the nonsignificant differences for journal productivity; for example, the OR
in the journal productivity column includes all four letters (“abcd”), meaning OR is not significantly different
from any other area, because OR has at
least one letter in common with each
other area.
Regarding total productivity, although the data seems to show three
groups—higher productivity (ARCH,
COMM, DC, and IPCV); middle; and
lower productivity (MIS and OR)—
almost all differences are not significant
at 95% confidence level, as in Table 3.
The only significant differences are, in
general, between MIS and OR and the
higher-productivity group. There are
also significant differences between
DB and TH and some of the higher-productivity areas but not all. Thus, one
cannot claim that in general there are
total productivity differences among
the CS areas except for a few cases covered earlier.
For journals, BIO has significantly
higher productivity ( 3. 44 papers per
year) than all other areas, except the
next four higher—COMM, MIS, ML,
and OR; COMM is significantly different from the lower journal productivity
areas—AI, C+PL, and DB—as in Table 3.
As for conferences, the highest two