组合新颖性和学科新颖性能否提升论文的技术影响？基于直接和间接技术影响力的双重视角

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2025.03.006

情报学报

2025, Vol. 44

Issue (3): 325-338 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2025.03.006

情报技术与应用

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

组合新颖性和学科新颖性能否提升论文的技术影响？基于直接和间接技术影响力的双重视角

杨杰¹, 柳美君², 步一³, 赵星^4,5, 邓三鸿¹

1.南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023
2.复旦大学全球公共政策研究院，上海 200433
3.北京大学信息管理系，北京 100871
4.复旦大学大数据研究院，上海 200433
5.复旦大学国家智能评价与治理实验基地，上海 200433

Can Combinative and Disciplinary Novelty Enhance the Technological Impact of Scientific Papers? A Dual Perspective of Direct and Indirect Technological Impact

Yang Alex J.¹, Liu Meijun², Bu Yi³, Zhao Star X.^4,5, Deng Sanhong¹

1.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.Institute for Global Public Policy, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433
3.Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871
4.Institute of Big Data (IBD), Fudan University, Shanghai 200433
5.National Institute of Intelligent Evaluation and Governance, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (3128 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要在发展新质生产力的背景下，理解新颖性的知识组合以及跨学科的知识融合能否提升论文的技术影响具有重要意义。为此，本文通过真实知识组合分布和模拟知识组合分布的相对高阶指标测度引文组合新颖性，基于学科共被引矩阵和距离分布测度学科新颖性。考虑“直接-间接”双重视角，通过融合“论文-专利”引用网络和“论文-论文”深层引用网络，提出论文的专利直接被引量和专利间接被引量等指标，以测度论文的直接技术影响和间接技术影响。通过对微软学术数据库中约3000万篇科学论文的固定效应回归分析，本文发现引文组合新颖性能够同时正向促进论文的直接技术影响和间接技术影响，并且对间接技术影响的促进效应更强；而学科新颖性仅能正向促进论文的间接技术影响。进一步地，本文还发现在STEM（science， technology， engineering， mathematics）领域和大型合作团队中，引文组合新颖性和学科新颖性能够更有效地提升论文的双重技术影响，且学科新颖性对论文的间接技术影响的促进效应随年份存在下降趋势。

	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
	柳美君
	步一
	赵星
	邓三鸿

关键词 ：新颖性, 跨学科性, 科学-技术, 技术影响

收稿日期: 2024-04-22

基金资助:国家自然科学基金青年学生基础研究项目（博士研究生）“融合创新测度和生成模型的科学技术知识空间预测研究”（#724B2015）。

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、创新评价、复杂网络分析；柳美君，女，1992年生，博士，青年副研究员，主要研究领域为创新评价、政策挖掘、大数据分析；步一，男，1994年生，博士，助理教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为信息计量、学术文本挖掘、科学评价、知识发现；赵星，男，1983年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为信息计量、科学评价、元宇宙技术；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；

引用本文:

杨杰, 柳美君, 步一, 赵星, 邓三鸿. 组合新颖性和学科新颖性能否提升论文的技术影响？基于直接和间接技术影响力的双重视角[J]. 情报学报, 2025, 44(3): 325-338.
Yang Alex J., Liu Meijun, Bu Yi, Zhao Star X., Deng Sanhong. Can Combinative and Disciplinary Novelty Enhance the Technological Impact of Scientific Papers? A Dual Perspective of Direct and Indirect Technological Impact. 情报学报, 2025, 44(3): 325-338.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2025.03.006 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2025/V44/I3/325

1 Azoulay P, Graff-Zivin J, Uzzi B, et al. Toward a more scientific science[J]. Science, 2018, 361(6408): 1194-1197.
2 刘伟. 科学认识与切实发展新质生产力[J]. 经济研究, 2024, 59(3): 4-11.
3 Yang A J. Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2024, 18(1): 101480.
4 Green J R, Scotchmer S. On the division of profit in sequential innovation[J]. The RAND Journal of Economics, 1995, 26(1): 20-33.
5 Lee F. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search[J]. Management Science, 2001, 47(1): 117-132.
6 Furman J L, Stern S. Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: the impact of institutions on cumulative research[J]. American Economic Review, 2011, 101(5): 1933-1963.
7 Fortunato S, Bergstrom C T, B?rner K, et al. Science of science[J]. Science, 2018, 359(6379): eaao0185.
8 Yin Y A, Dong Y X, Wang K S, et al. Public use and public funding of science[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2022, 6(10): 1344-1350.
9 Yin Y A, Gao J, Jones B F, et al. Coevolution of policy and science during the pandemic[J]. Science, 2021, 371(6525): 128-130.
10 Funk R J, Owen-Smith J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
11 Wang D S, Barabási A L. The science of science[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
12 Lane J, Bertuzzi S. Measuring the results of science investments[J]. Science, 2011, 331(6018): 678-680.
13 Baruffaldi S, Simeth M, Wehrheim D. Asymmetric information and R&D disclosure: evidence from scientific publications[J]. Management Science, 2023, 70(2): 1052-1069.
14 Ahmadpoor M, Jones B F. The dual frontier: patented inventions and prior scientific advance[J]. Science, 2017, 357(6351): 583-587.
15 Azoulay P, Graff Zivin J S, Manso G. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences[J]. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2011, 42(3): 527-554.
16 Schumpeter J A. Business cycles: a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939.
17 Hofstra B, Kulkarni V V, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, et al. The diversity-innovation paradox in science[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020, 117(17): 9284-9291.
18 Trapido D. How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: the role of consistent identities[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(8): 1488-1500.
19 Bush V. Science: the endless frontier[M]. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1945.
20 Evans J A. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship[J]. Science, 2008, 321(5887): 395-399.
21 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
22 Liu M J, Bu Y, Chen C Y, et al. Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: evidence from COVID-19[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73(8): 1065-1078.
23 Liu M J, Xie Z H, Yang A J, et al. The prominent and heterogeneous gender disparities in scientific novelty: evidence from biomedical doctoral theses[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2024, 61(4): 103743.
24 Kim D, Cerigo D B, Jeong H, et al. Technological novelty profile and invention’s future impact[J]. EPJ Data Science, 2016, 5(1): Article No.8.
25 Wu L F, Wang D S, Evans J A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
26 Park M, Leahey E, Funk R J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time[J]. Nature, 2023, 613(7942): 138-144.
27 Wang J, Veugelers R, Stephan P. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1416-1436.
28 Bornmann L, Tekles A, Zhang H H, et al. Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2019, 13(4): 100979.
29 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.
30 Fontana M, Iori M, Montobbio F, et al. New and atypical combinations: an assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity[J]. Research Policy, 2020, 49(7): 104063.
31 Foster J G, Rzhetsky A, Evans J A. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies[J]. American Sociological Review, 2015, 80(5): 875-908.
32 李茂林, 王子路, 何光辉, 等. 银行业金融科技创新、结构性普惠效应与创业活力[J]. 管理世界, 2024, 40(6): 195-224.
33 Krieger J, Li D, Papanikolaou D. Missing novelty in drug development[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2022, 35(2): 636-679.
34 Shi F, Evans J. Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines[J]. Nature Communications, 2023, 14(1): 1641.
35 Onodera N, Yoshikane F. Factors affecting citation rates of research articles[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(4): 739-764.
36 Wang D S, Song C M, Barabási A L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 127-132.
37 Azoulay P, Li D, Graff Zivin J S, et al. Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: evidence from NIH funding rules[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 2019, 86(1): 117-152.
38 Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(2): 365-391.
39 梁镇涛, 毛进, 李纲. 融合“科学-技术”知识关联的高颠覆性专利预测方法[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(6): 649-662.
40 Li D, Azoulay P, Sampat B N. The applied value of public investments in biomedical research[J]. Science, 2017, 356(6333): 78-81.
41 Williams H L. Intellectual property rights and innovation: evidence from the human genome[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, 2010, 121(1): 1-27.
42 Lee Y N, Walsh J P, Wang J. Creativity in scientific teams: unpacking novelty and impact[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(3): 684-697.
43 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.
44 Marx M, Fuegi A. Reliance on science by inventors: hybrid extraction of in-text patent-to-article citations[J]. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 2022, 31(2): 369-392.
45 Gates A J, Barabási A L. Reproducible science of science at scale: pySciSci[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2023, 4(3): 700-710.
46 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: 1-73.
47 Cimini G, Squartini T, Saracco F, et al. The statistical physics of real-world networks[J]. Nature Reviews Physics, 2019, 1: 58-71.
48 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.
49 Yang Y, Tian T Y, Woodruff T K, et al. Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022, 119(36): e2200841119.
50 孔嘉, 邓三鸿, 张佳锐, 等. 技术创新中的知识融合: “科学——技术”二元知识对专利影响研究[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(11): 1161-1173.
51 Lin Z H, Yin Y A, Liu L, et al. SciSciNet: a large-scale open data lake for the science of science research[J]. Scientific Data, 2023, 10: Article No.315.
52 Li J C, Yin Y A, Fortunato S, et al. A dataset of publication records for Nobel laureates[J]. Scientific Data, 2019, 6(1): 33.
53 Brogaard J, Engelberg J E, Eswar S K, et al. On the causal effect of fame on citations[J]. Management Science, 2024, 70(10): 7187.
54 Lin Y L, Frey C B, Wu L F. Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas[J]. Nature, 2023, 623(7989): 987-991.
55 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.
56 杨杰, 孔嘉, 张艺炜, 等. 融合论文颠覆性与巩固性的学者二元影响力测度[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(12): 1412-1423.