论文跨学科性与科学突破的关系研究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2024.12.002

情报学报

2024, Vol. 43

Issue (12): 1386-1398 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2024.12.002

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

论文跨学科性与科学突破的关系研究

刘嘉明^1,2, 孙建军^1,3

1.南京大学数据智能与交叉创新实验室，南京 210023
2.南京大学数据管理创新研究中心，苏州 215163
3.南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023

Research on the Relationship between the Interdisciplinarity of Papers and Scientific Breakthroughs

Liu Jiaming^1,2, Sun Jianjun^1,3

1.Laboratory of Data Intelligence and Interdisciplinary Innovation, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.Research Institute for Data Management & Innovation, Nanjing University, Suzhou 215163
3.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (6)

全文: PDF (2195 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要跨学科研究对实现科学创新具有重要意义。本文以2001—2020年Science杂志年度突破作为科学突破数据集，基于参考文献视角，通过学科多样性的3个维度测度了科学突破论文的跨学科性，探讨了论文跨学科性与科学突破的关系，并比较了其在不同学科下的差异。研究结果表明，综合性指标Rao-Stirling指数与科学突破存在倒U形关系；学科丰富性与跨学科大组数负向影响科学突破，学科差异性正向影响科学突破；不同学科大组中，论文跨学科性与科学突破的关系存在差异。因此，本文建议，跨学科科研活动应在少数差异性较大的学科中进行；基础学科应避免与过多学科交叉，应用型学科应均衡而广泛地吸收各学科知识；政府和科研机构应积极搭建交叉创新平台。

	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
	刘嘉明
	孙建军

关键词 ：跨学科性, 科学突破, 参考文献, 学科差异

收稿日期: 2024-03-04

基金资助:国家社会科学基金重大项目“前沿交叉领域识别与融合创新路径预测方法研究”（23&ZD225）。

作者简介: 刘嘉明，女，1997年生，博士研究生，主要研究方向为科学计量、创新管理等，E-mail：602022000038@smail.nju.edu.cn；孙建军，男，1962年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究方向为网络信息资源管理、信息分析研究等；

引用本文:

刘嘉明, 孙建军. 论文跨学科性与科学突破的关系研究[J]. 情报学报, 2024, 43(12): 1386-1398.
Liu Jiaming, Sun Jianjun. Research on the Relationship between the Interdisciplinarity of Papers and Scientific Breakthroughs. 情报学报, 2024, 43(12): 1386-1398.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2024.12.002 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2024/V43/I12/1386

1 刘仲林. 交叉科学时代的交叉研究[J]. 科学学研究, 1993, 11(2): 9-16.
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 Rafols I, Meyer M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 263-287.
4 Porter A L, Chubin D E. An indicator of cross-disciplinary research[J]. Scientometrics, 1985, 8(3-4): 161-176.
5 Porter A L, Rafols I. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 81(3): 719-745.
6 Leydesdorff L, Rafols I. Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: diversity, centrality, and citations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 87-100.
7 Hamers L, Hemeryck Y, Herweyers G, et al. Similarity measures in scientometric research: the Jaccard index versus Salton’s cosine formula[J]. Information Processing & Management, 1989, 25(3): 315-318.
8 Chen K H, Liang C F. Disciplinary interflow of library and information science in Taiwan[J]. Journal of Library & Information Studies, 2004, 2(2): 31-55.
9 Shannon C E. A mathematical theory of communication[J]. Bell System Technical Journal, 1948, 27(3): 379-423.
10 Simpson E H. Measurement of diversity[J]. Nature, 1949, 163(4148): 688.
11 Brillouin L, Hellwarth R W. Science and information theory[J]. Physics Today, 1956, 9(12): 39-40.
12 Grant R M, Jammine A P, Thomas H. Diversity, diversification, and profitability among British manufacturing companies, 1972-1984[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1988, 31(4): 771-801.
13 Montgomery C A, Wernerfelt B. Diversification, ricardian rents, and Tobin’s Q[J]. RAND Journal of Economics, 1988, 19(4): 623.
14 Porter A L, Cohen A S, David Roessner J, et al. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 72(1): 117-147.
15 Zhang L, Rousseau R, Gl?nzel W. Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: taking similarity between subject fields into account[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(5): 1257-1265.
16 Bromham L, Dinnage R, Hua X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success[J]. Nature, 2016, 534(7609): 684-687.
17 Leydesdorff L, Wagner C S, Bornmann L. Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2019, 13(1): 255-269.
18 Leydesdorff L. Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(9): 1303-1319.
19 李长玲, 纪雪梅, 支岭. 基于E-I指数的学科交叉程度分析——以情报学等5个学科为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2011, 55(16): 33-36.
20 Egghe L, Rousseau R. BRS-compactness in networks: theoretical considerations related to cohesion in citation graphs, collaboration networks and the Internet[J]. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2003, 37(7-8): 879-899.
21 陈赛君, 陈智高. 领域交叉性分析指标与方法新探及其实证研究[J]. 情报学报, 2013, 32(11): 1184-1195.
22 JrKoshland D E. Philosophy of science. the Cha-Cha-Cha theory of scientific discovery[J]. Science, 2007, 317(5839): 761-762.
23 Winnink J. Early-stage detection of breakthrough-class scientific research: using micro-level citation dynamics[D]. Leiden: Leiden University, 2017.
24 龚旭. 科学基金与创新性研究——美国国家科学基金会支持变革性研究的相关政策分析[J]. 中国科学基金, 2011, 25(2): 105-110.
25 杜建, 孙轶楠, 张阳, 等. 变革性研究的科学计量学特征与早期识别方法[J]. 中国科学基金, 2019, 33(1): 88-98.
26 任晓亚, 张志强. 主要科技领域国际权威奖项规律及其驱动因素分析[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(9): 881-893.
27 任晓亚, 张志强, 陈云伟. 杰出科学家的科研产出规律——以拉斯克医学研究奖得主为例[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(9): 894-906.
28 Schilling M A, Green E. Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: an analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences[J]. Research Policy, 2011, 40(10): 1321-1331.
29 Ponomarev I V, Lawton B K, Williams D E, et al. Breakthrough paper indicator 2.0: can geographical diversity and interdisciplinarity improve the accuracy of outstanding papers prediction?[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 100(3): 755-765.
30 Hu X J, Rousseau R. Nobel Prize winners 2016: igniting or sparking foundational publications?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(2): 1053-1063.
31 Klosik D F, Bornholdt S. The citation wake of publications detects Nobel laureates' papers[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(12): e113184.
32 Huang Y H, Hsu C N, Lerman K. Identifying transformative scientific research[C]// Proceedings of 13th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. Piscataway: IEEE, 2013: 291-300.
33 Winnink J J, Tijssen R J W, van Raan A F J. Searching for new breakthroughs in science: how effective are computerised detection algorithms?[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2019, 146: 673-686.
34 Min C, Bu Y, Wu D, et al. Identifying citation patterns of scientific breakthroughs: a perspective of dynamic citation process[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2021, 58(1): 102428.
35 Min C, Bu Y, Sun J J. Predicting scientific breakthroughs based on knowledge structure variations[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021, 164: 120502.
36 Funk R J, Owen-Smith J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
37 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.
38 Bornmann L, Devarakonda S, Tekles A, et al. Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020, 1(3): 1242-1259.
39 Sebastian Y, Chen C M. The boundary-spanning mechanisms of Nobel Prize winning papers[J]. PLoS One, 2021, 16(8): e0254744.
40 Savov P, Jatowt A, Nielek R. Identifying breakthrough scientific papers[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2020, 57(2): 102168.
41 罗瑞, 许海云, 刘亚辉. 基于结构熵的科学突破主题识别——以基因工程疫苗领域为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(5): 106-114, 99.
42 Wang S Y, Ma Y X, Mao J, et al. Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2023, 74(2): 150-167.
43 Pennington D D, Simpson G L, McConnell M S, et al. Transdisciplinary research, transformative learning, and transformative science[J]. BioScience, 2013, 63(7): 564-573.
44 吕冬晴, 阮选敏, 李江, 等. 跨学科知识融合对D指数的影响[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(3): 263-274.
45 Zhang H H, Wang R W, Zhang R J, et al. Characterizing interdisciplinarity of Nobel laureates’ key publications[J]. Current Science, 2019, 117(7): 1148-1152.
46 Li X, Rousseau R, Liang L M, et al. Is low interdisciplinarity of references an unexpected characteristic of Nobel Prize winning research?[J]. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(4): 2105-2122.
47 Chen S J, Arsenault C, Larivière V. Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, 9(4): 1034-1046.
48 Steele T W, Stier J C. The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences: a forestry case study[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2000, 51(5): 476-484.
49 刘雪立, 赵俊玲. 图书情报学期刊和论文的跨学科强度与其学术影响力的关系[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2021, 32(3): 411-417.
50 张雪, 刘昊, 张志强. 不同合作模式下的学科交叉程度与文献学术影响力关系研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2021, 40(8): 164-172.
51 张培, 阮选敏, 吕冬晴, 等. 人文社会科学学者的跨学科性对被引的影响研究[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(7): 675-687.
52 Larivière V, Gingras Y. On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1): 126-131.
53 Yegros-Yegros A, Rafols I, D’Este P. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? the different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(8): e0135095.
54 Chang Y W, Huang M H. A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: using three bibliometric methods[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(1): 22-33.
55 Chakraborty T. Role of interdisciplinarity in computer sciences: quantification, impact and life trajectory[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(3): 1011-1029.
56 王菲菲, 贾晨冉, 刘俊婉, 等. 交叉学科中文献学术价值的成长与老化研究——以医学信息学为例[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2018, 39(2): 11-22.
57 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.
58 Wang J, Thijs B, Gl?nzel W. Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(5): e0127298.
59 李东, 童寿传, 李江. 学科交叉与科学家学术影响力之间的关系研究[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2018, 2(12): 1-11.
60 Wuestman M, Hoekman J, Frenken K. A typology of scientific breakthroughs[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020, 1(3): 1203-1222.
61 Mugabushaka A M, Sadat J, Faria J C D. In search of outstanding research advances: prototyping the creation of an open dataset of “editorial highlights”[OL]. (2020-11-16) [2023-09-30]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.07910.
62 Jin C, Ma Y F, Uzzi B. Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics[J]. Nature Communications, 2021, 12: Article No.5619.
63 Journal Citation Reports[DB/OL]. [2023-09-30]. https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr/browse-category-list.
64 张雪, 张志强. 学科交叉研究系统综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(14): 112-125.
65 Leydesdorff L. A method for generating overlay maps on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citation relations in 2015 (update based on JCR 2019 data)[EB/OL]. (2021-01-14) [2023-09-30]. http://www.leydesdorff.net/wc15/wc19/index.htm.
66 梁春慧, 孙艳, 万跃华. 高被引论文的参考文献特征研究——以化学领域为例的实证分析[J]. 科技与出版, 2014(7): 119-122.
67 Mukherjee S, Romero D M, Jones B, et al. The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: the hotspot[J]. Science Advances, 2017, 3(4): e1601315.
68 Card D, DellaVigna S. Page limits on economics articles: evidence from two journals[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2014, 28(3): 149-168.
69 Lind J T, Mehlum H. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship[J]. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2010, 72(1): 109-118. 责任编辑王克平）