基于参考文献的论文跨学科性、跨时域性及其影响力研究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2024.09.001

情报学报

2024, Vol. 43

Issue (9): 1003-1014 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2024.09.001

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

基于参考文献的论文跨学科性、跨时域性及其影响力研究

杨杰^1,2, 王左戎^1,2, 邓三鸿^1,2, 王昊^1,2, 章学周³

1.南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023
2.数据工程与知识服务省高校重点实验室（南京大学），南京 210023
3.江苏省质量和标准化研究院，南京 210004

Interdisciplinarity, Temporal Diversity, and Scientific Impact: Perspective on References

Yang Alex J.^1,2, Wang Zuorong^1,2, Deng Sanhong^1,2, Wang Hao^1,2, Zhang Xuezhou³

1.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Services in Provincial Universities (Nanjing University), Nanjing 210023
3.Jiangsu Institute of Quality and Standardization, Nanjing 210004

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (13)

全文: PDF (4167 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要本文在跨学科性概念的基础上，提出了跨时域性的测度框架，并将其量化为时域丰富性、时域非均衡性、时域差异性和时域深度4个维度。本文对微软学术数据库中1950—2020年38879575篇论文的跨学科性和跨时域性的时间趋势、分布特征以及科学家的生涯演化模式进行了细致分析，并进一步研究了跨学科性、跨时域性与科学影响力的关系。研究发现：①论文的跨学科性和跨时域性呈现一致的增长趋势和不一致的领域分布；②跨学科性和跨时域性指标具有无标度分布等异质性分布特征，且跨学科性和跨时域性的相关性并不强；③科学家生涯中后期的跨学科性和跨时域性明显增强，这种趋势在很大程度上可以归因于其引用行为的变化；④跨学科性和跨时域性对科学影响力有着相反的作用效应，即跨学科性显著促进科学影响力，跨时域性显著抑制科学影响力，较强的跨学科性和较弱的跨时域性组合成为颠覆性热点论文的概率最高。本文提出的跨时域性测度框架丰富了知识融合和跨学科理论，并为科技政策和学术评价提供了启示。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	杨杰
	王左戎
	邓三鸿
	王昊
	章学周

关键词 ：跨学科性, 跨时域性, 引文网络, 科学家生涯

收稿日期: 2023-10-08

基金资助:科睿唯安创新评价开放基金项目“基于科学颠覆性的多层次学术实体评价研究”（CXPJ2024004）。

作者简介: 杨杰，男，2000年生，博士研究生，主要研究领域为科学计量、复杂网络、创新测度；王左戎，女，1998年生，博士研究生，主要研究领域为信息组织与检索、科学计量；邓三鸿，通信作者，男，1975年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为领域知识图谱、科学计量、信息分析与科学评价，E-mail：sanhong@nju.edu.cn；王昊，男，1981年生，博士，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为文本挖掘、知识图谱；章学周，男，1969年生，高级工程师，主要研究领域为标准分析、知识组织；

引用本文:

杨杰, 王左戎, 邓三鸿, 王昊, 章学周. 基于参考文献的论文跨学科性、跨时域性及其影响力研究[J]. 情报学报, 2024, 43(9): 1003-1014.
Yang Alex J., Wang Zuorong, Deng Sanhong, Wang Hao, Zhang Xuezhou. Interdisciplinarity, Temporal Diversity, and Scientific Impact: Perspective on References. 情报学报, 2024, 43(9): 1003-1014.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2024.09.001 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2024/V43/I9/1003

1 Gates A J, Ke Q, Varol O, et al. Nature’s reach: narrow work has broad impact[J]. Nature, 2019, 575(7781): 32-34.
2 Stirling A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society[J]. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2007, 4(15): 707-719.
3 Zhang Y, Wang Y, Du H F, et al. Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2024, 18(1): 101468.
4 Sheng L B, Lyu D Q, Ruan X M, et al. The association between prior knowledge and the disruption of an article[J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128(8): 4731-4751.
5 Zeng A, Shen Z S, Zhou J L, et al. The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems[J]. Physics Reports, 2017, 714-715: 1-73.
6 Wang D S, Song C M, Barabási A L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 127-132.
7 Yang A J, Zhao S X, Deng S H. Revisiting delayed recognition in science: a large-scale and comprehensive study[J/OL]. Journal of Information Science, (2024-05-29). https://doi.org/10.1177/016555 15241244462.
8 Liu L, Wang Y, Sinatra R, et al. Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers[J]. Nature, 2018, 559(7714): 396-399.
9 刘嘉明, 孙建军. 参考文献跨学科性与论文学术影响力的关系研究[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(5): 525-536.
10 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
11 Bloom N, Jones C I, van Reenen J, et al. Are ideas getting harder to find?[J]. American Economic Review, 2020, 110(4): 1104-1144.
12 Evans J A. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship[J]. Science, 2008, 321(5887): 395-399.
13 Fortunato S, Bergstrom C T, B?rner K, et al. Science of science[J]. Science, 2018, 359(6379): eaao0185.
14 章成志, 吴小兰. 跨学科研究综述[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(5): 523-535.
15 Leydesdorff L, Rafols I. Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: diversity, centrality, and citations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 87-100.
16 Rafols I, Meyer M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 263-287.
17 Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D. Measuring scholarly impact: methods and practice[M]. Cham: Springer, 2014.
18 Ren J J, Wang F, Li M L. Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years[J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128(8): 4383-4419.
19 Ke Q. Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine[J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128(4): 2035-2077.
20 Pan R K, Petersen A M, Pammolli F, et al. The memory of science: inflation, myopia, and the knowledge network[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(3): 656-678.
21 Ghaffari F, Wilson M C. A model for reference list length of scholarly articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128(9): 5335-5350.
22 Gupta B M. Analysis of distribution of the age of citations in theoretical population genetics[J]. Scientometrics, 1997, 40(1): 139-162.
23 Jari? I, Kne?evi?-Jari? J, Lenhardt M. Relative age of references as a tool to identify emerging research fields with an application to the field of ecology and environmental sciences[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 100(2): 519-529.
24 Stacey A G. Ages of cited references and growth of scientific knowledge: an explication of the gamma distribution in business and management disciplines[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(1): 619-640.
25 Reisz N, Servedio V D P, Loreto V, et al. Loss of sustainability in scientific work[J]. New Journal of Physics, 2022, 24(5): 053041.
26 Wang K S, Shen Z H, Huang C Y, et al. Microsoft academic graph: when experts are not enough[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020, 1(1): 396-413.
27 Lin Y L, Frey C B, Wu L F. Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas[J]. Nature, 2023, 623(7989): 987-991.
28 Chu J S G, Evans J A. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021, 118(41): e2021636118.
29 Sinatra R, Wang D S, Deville P, et al. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact[J]. Science, 2016, 354(6312): aaf5239.
30 Zeng A, Shen Z S, Zhou J L, et al. Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics[J]. Nature Communications, 2019, 10(1): Article No.3439.
31 Petersen A M, Fortunato S, Pan R K, et al. Reputation and impact in academic careers[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014, 111(43): 15316-15321.
32 Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008, 105(45): 17268-17272.
33 Yang A J, Wu L W, Zhang Q, et al. The k-step h-index in citation networks at the paper, author, and institution levels[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2023, 17(4): 101456.
34 Funk R J, Owen-Smith J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
35 Yang A J, Deng S H, Wang H, et al. Disruptive coefficient and 2-step disruptive coefficient: novel measures for identifying vital nodes in complex networks[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2023, 17(3): 101411.
36 Yang A J, Gong H C, Wang Y H, et al. Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science[J]. Scientometrics, 2024, 129(1): 561-580.
37 杨杰, 邓三鸿, 王昊. 科学研究的颠覆性创新测度——相对颠覆性指数[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(9): 1052-1064.
38 Leibel C, Bornmann L. What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature[J]. Scientometrics, 2024, 129(1): 601-639.
39 Jones B F, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science[J]. Science, 2008, 322(5905): 1259-1262.
40 Yang A J. Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2024, 18(1): 101480.
41 Park M, Leahey E, Funk R J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time[J]. Nature, 2023, 613(7942): 138-144.
42 Jones B F. The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: is innovation getting harder?[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 2009, 76(1): 283-317.
43 Bao H L, Teplitskiy M. A simulation-based analysis of the impact of rhetorical citations in science[J]. Nature Communications, 2024, 15: Article No.431.
44 Kuhn T S. Historical structure of scientific discovery[J]. Science, 1962, 136(3518): 760-764.
45 赵鼎新. 社会科学研究的困境: 从与自然科学的区别谈起[J]. 社会学评论, 2015, 3(4): 3-18.