Ingale, M., & Shekatkar, S. M. (2020). Resource dependency and survivability in complex networks. Physical Review E, 102(6), 062304. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.102.062304

Wang, Xiangrong, Alejandro Tejedor, Yi Wang, and Yamir Moreno. ‘Unique Superdiffusion Induced by Directionality in Multiplex Networks’. ArXiv:2011.00991 [Physics], 2 November 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00991.

Ghavasieh, A., Nicolini, C., & De Domenico, M. (2020). Statistical physics of complex information dynamics. ArXiv:2010.04014 [Cond-Mat, Physics:Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04014

Burda, Z., Kotwica, M., & Malarz, K. (2020). Ageing of complex networks. Physical Review E, 102(4), 042302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.102.042302

Perez, I. A., Di Muro, M. A., La Rocca, C. E., & Braunstein, L. A. (2020). Disease spreading with social distancing: A prevention strategy in disordered multiplex networks. Physical Review E, 102(2), 022310. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.102.022310

Young, J.-G., Cantwell, G. T., & Newman, M. E. J. (2020). Robust Bayesian inference of network structure from unreliable data. ArXiv:2008.03334 [Physics, Stat]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03334

West, D. K. & G. (2020, July 8). The Damage We’re Not Attending To. Nautilus. http://nautil.us/issue/87/risk/the-damage-were-not-attending-to

Chambon, M., Dalege, J., Elberse, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2020). A psychological network approach to factors related to preventive behaviors during pandemics: A European COVID-19 study [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/es45v

Murphy, C., Laurence, E., & Allard, A. (2020). Deep learning of stochastic contagion dynamics on complex networks. ArXiv:2006.05410 [Cond-Mat, Physics:Physics, Stat]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.05410

Jazayeri, A., & Yang, C. C. (2020). Motif Discovery Algorithms in Static and Temporal Networks: A Survey. ArXiv:2005.09721 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.09721

Parisi, F., Squartini, T., & Garlaschelli, D. (2020). A faster horse on a safer trail: Generalized inference for the efficient reconstruction of weighted networks. New Journal of Physics, 22(5), 053053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab74a7

Della Rossa, F., & DeLellis, P. (2020). Stochastic master stability function for noisy complex networks. Physical Review E, 101(5), 052211. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.101.052211

Iacopini, I. (2020, June 3). Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics. Iacopo Iacopini. https://iaciac.github.io/post/beyond/

Kraemer, M.U.G., Sadilek, A., Zhang, Q. et al. Mapping global variation in human mobility. Nat Hum Behav (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0875-0

Mariani, M. S., & Lü, L. (2020). Network-based ranking in social systems: Three challenges. Journal of Physics: Complexity, 1(1), 011001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-072X/ab8a61

Eroglu, D. (2020). Revealing Dynamics, Communities, and Criticality from Data. Physical Review X, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021047

Katz, D. M., Coupette, C., Beckedorf, J., & Hartung, D. (2020). Complex Societies and the Growth of the Law. ArXiv:2005.07646 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07646

Riolo, M. A., & Newman, M. E. J. (2020). Consistency of community structure in complex networks. Physical Review E, 101(5), 052306. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.101.052306

Vespignani, A., Tian, H., Dye, C. et al. Modelling COVID-19. Nat Rev Phys (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0178-4

Liu, L., Wang, X., Tang, S., & Zheng, Z. (2020). Complex social contagion induces bistability on multiplex networks. ArXiv:2005.00664 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00664

Pinto, S. F., & Ferreira, R. S. (2020). Analyzing course programmes using complex networks. ArXiv:2005.00906 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00906

Very nice review. Please note the reference [94] (Pantazatos et al.) is misplaced because they did not argue that spatial biases cannot entirely explain the putative links between CGE and functional segregation. Instead, they argued there was insufficient evidence in the original Richiardi et al. study linking elevated CGE with resting state functional networks, and that spatial biases may in fact entirely account for their findings. To describe the debate/exchange more accurately, I would suggest replacing the below sentence

“While spatial biases may contribute to these findings, as nodes belonging to the same module tend to be anatomically colocalized [7,8], they cannot explain these effects entirely [94,95].”

with the below paragraph:

“Spatial biases may contribute to these findings, as nodes belonging to the same module tend to be anatomically colocalized [7,8]. Pantazatos et al. argued that these findings are entirely explained by spatial biases [94]. They showed that elevated CGE, as defined in the original Richiardi et al. study, falls monotonically as longer distance edges are removed. Moreover, they showed that 1,000 sets of randomly spaced modules all have significantly high CGE when using the same null distribution defined in the original Richiardi et al. analyses. Therefore, elevated CGE is not specifically related to functional segregation as defined by resting state functional networks, which is in direct contradiction to the main conclusion of the original Richiardi et al. study. Since randomly placed modules do not align (spatially) with any distributed pattern of functional segregation, the finding of elevated CGE may instead be attributed entirely to anatomical colocalization of the nodes within each module. In their rebuttal to [94], Richiardi et al. argue spatial biases cannot explain their findings entirely [95]. However, the authors do not offer an explanation for significantly high CGE observed for randomly spaced sets of modules, other than to note that nodes tend to be closer on average compared to when modules are defined by resting state fMRI. Future work is required to dissociate the effects of spatially proximity on relationships between CGE and spatially distributed functional networks.”