NetSci 2018, the flagship conference of the Network Science Society, aims to bring together leading researchers and practitioners working in the emerging area of network science. The conference fosters interdisciplinary communication and collaboration in network science research across computer and information sciences, physics, mathematics, statistics, the life sciences, neuroscience, environmental sciences, social sciences, finance and business, arts and design.
NetSci 2018 in Paris, France will be a combination of:
* An International School for students and non-experts (June 11-12, 2018)
* Satellite Symposia (June 11-12, 2018)
* A 3-day Conference (June 13-15, 2018) featuring research in a wide range of topics and in different formats, including keynote and invited talks, oral presentations, posters, and lightning talks.
February 8: Registration opens.
March 20: Registration for presenters of accepted contributions ends.
April 10: Early registration ends.
May 28: Online registration ends.
Neuroengineering is faced with unique challenges in repairing or replacing complex neural systems that are composed of many interacting parts. These interactions form intricate patterns over large spatiotemporal scales, and produce emergent behaviors that are difficult to predict from individual elements. Network science provides a particularly appropriate framework in which to study and intervene in such systems, by treating neural elements (cells, volumes) as nodes in a graph and neural interactions (synapses, white matter tracts) as edges in that graph. Here, we review the emerging discipline of network neuroscience, which uses and develops tools from graph theory to better understand and manipulate neural systems, from micro- to macroscales. We present examples of how human brain imaging data is being modeled with network analysis and underscore potential pitfalls. We then highlight current computational and theoretical frontiers, and emphasize their utility in informing diagnosis and monitoring, brain-machine interfaces, and brain stimulation. A flexible and rapidly evolving enterprise, network neuroscience provides a set of powerful approaches and fundamental insights critical to the neuroengineer's toolkit.
17 pages, 6 figures. Manuscript accepted to the journal Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 
D. Bassett S., A. Khambhati N., and S. Grafton T., “Emerging Frontiers of Neuroengineering: A Network Science of Brain Connectivity,” arXiv, 23-Dec-2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08059. [Accessed: 03-Jan-2017]
I ran across a link to this textbook by way of a standing Google alert, and was excited to check it out. I was immediately disappointed to think that I would have to wait another month and change for the physical textbook to be released, but made my pre-order directly. Then with a bit of digging around, I realized that individual chapters are available immediately to quench my thirst until the physical text is printed next month.
During decades the study of networks has been divided between the efforts of social scientists and natural scientists, two groups of scholars who often do not see eye to eye. In this review I present an effort to mutually translate the work conducted by scholars from both of these academic fronts hoping to continue to unify what has become a diverging body of literature. I argue that social and natural scientists fail to see eye to eye because they have diverging academic goals. Social scientists focus on explaining how context specific social and economic mechanisms drive the structure of networks and on how networks shape social and economic outcomes. By contrast, natural scientists focus primarily on modeling network characteristics that are independent of context, since their focus is to identify universal characteristics of systems instead of context specific mechanisms. In the following pages I discuss the differences between both of these literatures by summarizing the parallel theories advanced to explain link formation and the applications used by scholars in each field to justify their approach to network science. I conclude by providing an outlook on how these literatures can be further unified.