Being a chemist working in the field of data science I appreciate the need -- and emphasis -- placed on analyzing data. The data analysis portion of a project often provides insight to the data not obvious at first glance and aids in decisions about future predictive modeling and analysis. Sometimes we forget the analysis of the data is not always the end goal and is often an initial and integral part of the project. While it is great to make plots colleagues and others admire and provide infographics to explain the data related to the question, we should be focused on providing data-based insight to answer the questions of interest and guide the discussion to solve the problems of interest.
 
A colleague of mine attended a day long symposium related to student performance at their institution. Data analytics groups from various student assistance programs presented the results of multiple-year studies illustrating how different student subgroups performed in core and major classes. The presenters showed informative plots, tables of summarized data, and indicated the students most at risk of poor performance (low grades, failing classes, or not graduating). The analytics groups’ ability to identify the at risk students is impressive. Unfortunately my colleague left the symposium dejected. While the analysts adeptly indicated the at risk students they did not provided methods of improving the possibility for student success other than “the instructors and professors need to do more.” The suggestion of “doing more” is not a solution. What the analytics groups did not put themselves in the position of the instructor and develop potential ways to better engage the students; the problem was identified (why some students do poorly) but a collection of viable solutions was not provided. 
 
Initially I shared by colleague’s frustration with the symposium. But slowly my frustration has shifted to the group leaders and symposium organizers. Each group’s analysis was spot-on. The indicated cohorts were struggling and the indicated reasons were plausible. Unfortunately suggestions were missing on how to improve students’ learning, comprehension, and retention by reallocate resources or develop new ways to engage the students. The analysts presenting their findings at the symposium were likely not provided with the ability -- or the requirement -- to develop solutions beyond those they provided or did not fully understand their audience (instructors and professors) and the constraints placed on them due to their teaching, administrative, and research obligations.
 
Data science -- and to some extent data analytics groups -- need to remember the goal of their projects is to provide insight to the questions posed along with probable and reliable solutions. Remember, analysis of the data is integral to solving a problem but the solution is paramount. 

​Using 14 years of COMP membership data (2002, 2004-2016), an understanding of the division’s historical demographics was established. Large reductions in membership density have occurred in numerous cities across the US with membership increases for national meeting (NM) cities for the year of or following a NM. Combining the membership data with Indianapolis NM (INM) attendance information – graciously provided by the American Chemical Society – gave the means to better understand the composition of the COMP members who attended a fall NM. Based on age, gender, and years of COMP service (duration of COMP membership) the COMP INM attendees mirrored the demographics of the COMP division yet attendees had more years of ACS service.

Membership Demographics
The 2015 demographics information is based on the November 2015 eRoster and historical values were culled from COMP’s eRosters archive. 

In November 2015 there were 2048 COMP members, representing a continued decline in membership. A subtle increase in the number of members (January 2016; n=2086) is likely the result of scientists joining COMP, and thus the ACS, to attend and present at the San Diego NM. The COMP division is gender imbalanced with 18.6% women and 81.4% men (based on 1400 responses) and this composition is similar to previous years. In 2002 57.5% of the 2167 responding COMP members were <45 years of age. This percentage has shifted to 39.6% (<45) versus 60.4% (≥45) for the 1264 responses in 2015. The reduced percentage of members providing birth year and gender information is likely the result of changes to how the ACS collects demographic information. The percentage of new COMP members providing birth year and gender information decreased from 74.4% (n=360) in 2005 to a low of 16.9% (n=248) in 2013 and increased to 25.4% (n=287) for 2015. Fifty-six (90.3%) of the 62 new COMP members joining in January 2016 shared their birth year and gender indicating a change in how the ACS collects this information for new members.

The number of COMP members belonging only to the COMP division has remained relatively constant since 2005; 987 members yet the percentage of COMP-only members has steadily grown from 40.3% to 47.8% (n=979) in 2015 due to the reduction in overall members. This can indicate COMP is viewed as a “big tent” division where all chemical areas are welcomed, represented, and given a voice. Almost a third of COMP members (31.8%; n=652) belong to one other division and 11.9% (n=244) belong to two other divisions. The CINF, MEDI, and PHYS divisions are the most popular divisions for COMP members.

In 2002 a majority (60.9%; n=1531) of members had 5-years-or-less of COMP service. This ratio has slowly shifted towards parity with 51.9% (n=1063) having  5-years-or-less of COMP service in 2015.

The three largest foreign residencies for COMP members in 2015 were: Great Britain (3.2%; n=65), Canada (2.4%; n=49), and Japan (2.2%; n=45).

Members Near National Meetings
It is common to see the number of COMP members increase near cities during years they host a NM; in some cases the increase in members is not realized until the following year. Spikes in COMP membership are observed for the noted subset of recent NM cities. Interestingly, cities with traditionally large numbers of COMP members have experienced a decline in COMP members over the past decade with exceptions for NM years. This is most evident in Philadelphia (including nearby Princeton, ~38 miles, and NYC, ~82 miles), Boston, and San Diego. Indianapolis is an extreme case of COMP membership increasing with approximately 20 new members corresponding to the INM.

The Indianapolis National Meeting
The INM attracted 10,803 registrants (9513 attendees and 1290 exhibitors & expo-only), 7123 presented abstracts with a 1.3 attendee to abstract ratio. There were 2235 COMP members in 2013 and 13.5% (n=302) attended the INM. The attending COMP members were primarily from academia (62.3%; n=188) with 32.8% (n=99) from industry, and 4.9% (n=15) employed by government laboratories.

A majority (55.6%, n=149) of COMP attendees resided within 500 miles of Indianapolis compared to 34.2% (n=628) of 2013 COMP members. Interestingly, the proportion of members from the west coast, ~1500 to 2000 miles from Indianapolis, mirrored COMP’s membership distribution for the west coast. COMP members in their first-year of ACS membership accounted for 18.3% (n=49) of COMP attendees yet  were 31.4% (n=11), 34.7% (n=17), and 22.8% (n=34) of attendees residing within 100, 150, and 500 miles, respectively, of the INM. These values are for COMP members residing within the United States.

Closing Thoughts
Retrospective analysis of national meetings provides divisions a way to understand how their membership behaves with respect to NM along with understanding where they reside to organize divisional activities outside of NM and at regional meetings. Because divisions do not have access to national and regional meeting attendee information, the divisions would benefit from the ACS providing the raw information to the divisions along with end-of-year membership datasets.

Acknowledgments
This analysis could not have been performed without the help of Mikal C Ankrah and Michele Hassanyeh of the American Chemical Society and Ed Sherer and Hanneke Jansen the past secretaries of the COMP division.

The American Chemical Society (ACS) graciously provided demographics information regarding COMP members attending the Indianapolis National Meeting (INM) during September 2013; commonly referred to as the fall 2013 national meeting (NM). The goal of this analysis was to better understand the types of COMP members attending the fall 2013 NM. Compared to other fall national meetings, the INM took place during the first week of September while a majority of fall NMs occur during the second through last week of August. An additional difference to the INM compared to other fall NMs is that it was held in a city that had not hosted an ACS NM with the last decade. While each NM has individual characteristics due to the time of year it is held and its location, they share overall features that can be assigned to all the meetings or only the fall and spring meetings respectively.

Indianapolis National Meeting Attendance
A total of 10,803 individuals registered for the Indianapolis ACS meeting with 2664 being “Students”, 6849 being “Professionals”, 872 being “Exhibitors”, and 418 people registering to attend only the Exposition; see Figure 1 “National Meeting Attendee Classification”. The classification of “Student” includes undergraduate and graduate students while “Professionals” includes post docs and professors from academia and scientists working in industrial settings such as biotechnology, pharmaceutical, petroleum, materials, or startup companies. Approximately 25% of the registrants were students and another 63% were considered professionals; chemists with at least a bachelor’s degree; those classified as “Regular” ACS members. The remaining 12% of registered INM attendees were related to the exposition. There were 7,123 abstracts presented at the INM resulting in a 1.3 attendee (excluding exhibitor and exposition only registrations) to abstract ratio and is similar to recent NMs.
​

Figure 1. Fall 2013 National Meeting Attendance (Indianapolis, Indiana)

Of the 10,803 registered attendees, 302 of them were COMP members. The number of COMP members in 2013 was 2235 thus 13.5% of the COMP division attended the INM. The 302 COMP members were divided into their employment sector based on ACS membership type and self-reporting during the INM registration process. One hundred and eighty-eight (62%) members indicated they were in academia, 99 (33%) members were employed in industry, and the US government employed 15 (5%); see Figure 1 “Employment Sector (COMP Members)”. The 99 scientists employed within the “Industry” sector includes 42 chemists that indicated their industry as “Other” along with those that self-classified as being part of the “Retail/Wholesale Trade”, “Engineering/Construction Firm”, along with attendees that did not provide a response. The 57 other chemists that are classified as “Industrial” include those that work as “Manufacturers” and “Independent Consultants and Laboratories”. 

COMP Member Demographics
The demographic information of the COMP members that attended the INM differs slightly from the 2013 COMP member demographics; see Table 1. The ratio of female-to-male attendees was slightly greater for females (18.1% compared to 17.5%) than that of the COMP division. The median age of the attendees was half-a-year less compared to the division, while the mean age of COMP attendees was almost a year greater for attendees. A three-and-half-year increase in the median number of years of ACS service is also seen while the median number of COMP service remains the same between attendees and the COMP division. Based on the gender and age information of the six-years-or-more (the “established”) subgroup, this portion of the COMP membership mirrors the complete COMP division with respect to age, gender, and years of ACS service while decreasing slightly for years of COMP service. Comparing attendees that reside in the US to those from other countries, it can be seen that those residing outside of the US and attending the INM are older based on median age – yet similar based on mean ± standard deviation – and have considerably fewer years of service to the ACS and COMP.
​

​The histograms and density plot of Figure 2 compares the Years of ACS Service for those that attended or missed the INM. Historically, approximately 50% of the COMP membership has been an ACS member for five-years-or-less. While only 34% of COMP INM attendees are part of the five-years-or-less (the “new”) COMP-subgroup, this discrepancy could be due to a portion of the subgroup attending only the spring or fall NM. Based on the Years of ACS Service, the COMP members that attended and missed the INM along with the entire COMP division have similar trends.

Figure 2. COMP Member Years of ACS Service. The orange dashed-line is the separation between the “new” and “established” COMP member subgroups.
​
The fall NMs are traditionally less-student focused due to when they are held (mid-to-late August) when the students may be working or not attending school. The INM demographics could be significantly different compared to other fall NM because it was held during early-September allowing students who performed summer research to attend the NM during the fall semester. The proportion of COMP undergraduate and graduate students – eight undergraduate and 47 graduate students – attending the INM compared to other NMs and divisions is hard to determine because access to this attendance data is not available. The number and type of ACS members that attended the INM compared to the COMP division’s members in 2013 indicates that only 6% of undergraduate members and 12% of graduate student members attended the INM; data provided in Table 2. Interestingly, the COMP division in 2013 had 201 new members use the “Free Year of COMP Membership” option provided by the ACS and almost 28% of them attended the INM; 18.5% of COMP members that attended the INM did not pay to be a COMP member in 2013.
​

​Member retention is a concern for the ACS and individual divisions. The information in Table 3 provides the age, gender, and retention of COMP members who attended the INM. Historically, by the second full year of COMP membership approximately 55% of COMP members have retained their COMP membership. Based on April 2015 COMP membership data, 70% of new 2013 COMP members are still COMP members. Care must be taken with interpreting this significantly larger retention percentage because the 2015 membership year has not concluded. Membership information from the end of 2015 or beginning of 2016 will provide a better view of COMP member retention. Only one undergraduate and first-year COMP member – during 2013 – attended the INM, they are currently listed as a Graduate Student COMP member in April 2015 and work as a Quality Assurance Associate at Schrödinger, Inc. The remaining four undergraduates, that were first-year COMP members at the INM, are undergraduate COMP members as of April 2015. If their class rank was sophomore during the fall of 2013 the membership type of these four individuals will likely change in the upcoming year. The 22 graduate student and 22 regular COMP members have retained their original COMP membership type as of April 2015. 

​COMP Member Country of Residence
There were 268 (89%) COMP members that attended the INM who resided within the United States (US). The 34 COMP attendees residing outside of the US were from: Great Britain (7 members), Canada (5), China (3), France (3), Japan (3), Israel (2), the Netherlands (2), Russia (2), Australia (1), Switzerland (1), Ecuador (1), Ireland (1), Kazakhstan (1), Portugal (1), and Taiwan (1). Part of the publicity campaign for the INM was its central location for a large portion of the ACS membership. 

COMP Member Geographic Distribution
The following analysis of COMP members attending the INM resided within the US. Of the 2235 COMP members in 2013, 48 lived within 100 miles of the Indianapolis Convention Center (ICC) while 96 and 353 of them lived within 150 and 350 miles, respectively, of the ICC. The “Attended INM” histogram in Figure 3 indicates the number of COMP members who attended the INM (fall 2013) meeting within a specific distance. The COMP members are binned into 50-mile increments of the ICC with the orange, purple, and green dashed vertical lines indicating 100, 150, and 350 miles, respectively, from the convention center.

Figure 3. Distance between COMP Members and Indianapolis NM

​The “Missed INM” histogram is the number of COMP members who did not attend the INM segmented into 50-mile increments from the convention center. A comparison between these two groups and the entire COMP membership is provided in the “Comparison” plot. Of the 268 COMP members who attended the meeting and resided within the US, 108 (40%) of them lived within 350 miles of the meeting site while more than half, 149 (56%) members, lived within 500 miles of Indianapolis. The information presented in the “Attended INM” and the “Comparison” plots illustrates that COMP members living close to Indianapolis attended, along with those on the East and West Coasts; see maps in Figure 5.
​

Figure 4. Distance between “New” and “Established” COMP Members and Indianapolis NM

​The idea that scientists join the ACS to present and/or attend the NM when it is held in their city of residence is intriguing. First-year COMP members comprised 20% of COMP attendees at INM yet were 31% of COMP attendees who lived within 100 miles of ICC, 35% within 150 miles, and 28% within 350 miles. While the five-year-or-less COMP member subgroup, which comprised a third of the COMP members who attended the INM, accounted for 46% of COMP attendees who resided within 100 miles of the ICC, 47% within 150 miles, and 43% within 350 miles. 

The four maps of Figure 5 illustrate where in the US COMP members lived who attended and missed the INM. 

Figure 5. Residence of US COMP Members

Conclusions
Based on age, gender, and years of COMP service (duration of COMP membership) the COMP INM attendees mirrored the demographics of the COMP division yet attendees had more years of ACS service. The cause for the difference between years of ACS and COMP service is likely changes in members’ careers after joining the ACS. The COMP division can be considered very similar to technology companies such as Facebook and Google due to the use of computers, programming, and math. Unfortunately, the COMP division’s gender demographic mirrors the tech-industry with only 18% of COMP members being female. It would be interesting to know the female to male ratio within the ACS and for individual divisions.

A majority of the COMP attendees were from academia and this could be a function of location. The Midwestern US is home to numerous educational institutions including 11 of the Big Ten Conference’s 12 universities; the University of Maryland and Rugters University – New Brunswick joined the Big Ten Conference in 2014. Given the location one could have expected a large proportion of academic attendees but since the meeting was held after of the traditional start of the academic year, many professors and students were not likely to attend. Of the 751 COMP members (for 2013) who lived within 350 miles of the ICC only 108 (14%) attended the INM. 

The proportion of “new” compared to “established” COMP member attendees follows a similar trend to the overall COMP division but without attendee information for the spring 2013 NM held in New Orleans, it is hard to determine how many and which first-year and “new” subgroup members attended a NM along with which NM they attended. With the current information, it is impossible to determine which attendees presented at the INM, or any NM, or whether they presented a poster or talk. The ability to match presenting author with registered attendee is possible using email addresses but this method will not match all attendees and presenters because it is likely that members will provide their institutional email address with their abstract but have their “home” email address associated with their ACS ID. Requiring everyone to submit their abstract and register for ACS meetings using their ACS ID will aid in being able to match attendee and presenter information, but this method will only be fully successful if the submitting and registering ACS IDs are the same. It is still common for administrative support to enter abstracts and register scientists.

With respect to all demographics information, it would be interesting to see how attendance for the INM compares to NM held in Boston, Philadelphia, San Diego, and San Francisco since these cities frequently host ACS NMs.

Serious concern is noted regarding the severely low percentage of members providing gender and year of birth information when becoming ACS members. This severe discrepancy between gender and age information provided by new and established COMP members is the result of the ACS no longer requiring new members to provide this information. Approximately 5% of new ACS members provide their gender and age when applying; only three (4.9%) first year COMP members attending INM provided gender and year of birth information. The recent lack of gender and age information for new ACS members hinders the ability to understand which services are likely of importance to the membership as a whole. Unfortunately, the more established COMP members overshadow the provided demographics information for the newer COMP members because the latter group does not provide this information at the same rate as the former. ​