|
|
|
| Interdisciplinarity Measurement in Publications: From Full Reference Analysis to Sectional Reference Analysis |
| Zhang Lin1,2,3, Liu Dongdong1, Lyu Qi1, Sun Beibei2, Huang Ying2,3 |
1.Department of Management and Economics, North China University of Water Resource and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450046
2.School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
3.Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM) and Department of MSI, KU Leuven, Leuven B- 3000 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Quantitative measurement of interdisciplinarity of relevant research outputs is an important issue in interdisciplinary research (IDR), and is of great significance for detecting and understanding the interdisciplinary phenomenon and the law of discipline development. Diversity measurement based on cited references is a mainstream method of interdisciplinarity measurement. However, most previous studies treated all the references of the paper as a whole while applying interdisciplinarity measures and ignored the distribution of references in separate sections, the importance of different references, and the repetition of some citations. This study first analyzes the cited references in different sections by identifying the citation marking, then calculates the weighted interdisciplinarity according to the importance of different sections by detecting reference distribution in sections. Taking the scientific papers published in PLoS ONE during 2007-2016 as an example, we come to the followingconclusions First, the Introduction section has the highest interdisciplinary diversity on average, followed by Discussion, Method, and Results; second, compared with the previous approach, measuring weighted interdisciplinarity based on the occurrence of cited references in different sections shows relatively low values and a more concentrated distribution. Our proposed approach presents the potential for a deeper and more detailed interdisciplinarity measurement and provides a new perspective on measuring and identifying interdisciplinary outputs.
|
|
Received: 31 October 2019
|
|
|
|
1 张琳, 孙蓓蓓, 黄颖. 跨学科合作模式下的交叉科学测度研究——以ESI社会科学领域高被引学者为例[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(3): 231-242.
2 BammerG. Strengthening interdisciplinary research: what it is, what it does, how it does it and how it is supported[R]. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Melbourne, 2012: 1-29
3 张琳. 国内外“交叉科学”研究现状及评述[J]. 科技管理研究, 2013, 33(12): 251-254.
4 黄颖, 张琳, 孙蓓蓓, 等. 跨学科的三维测度——外部知识融合、内在知识会聚与科学合作模式[J]. 科学学研究, 2019, 37(1): 25-35.
5 GómezI, BordonsM, FernándezM T, et al. Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 35(2): 223-235.
6 PorterA L, RafolsI. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 81(3): 719-745.
7 StirlingA. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society[J]. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2007, 4(15): 707-719.
8 MacArthurR H. Patterns of species diversity[J]. Biological Reviews, 1965, 40(4): 510-533.
9 PorterA L, ChubinD E. An indicator of cross-disciplinary research[J]. Scientometrics, 1985, 8(3-4): 161-176.
10 ChenK, LiangC. Disciplinary interflow of library and information science in Taiwan[J]. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 2004, 2(2): 31-55.
11 HuangM H, ChangY W. A study of interdisciplinarity in information science: Using direct citation and co-authorship analysis[J]. Journal of Information Science, 2011, 37(4): 369-378.
12 TangR. Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2005, 41(1): 54-63.
13 SimpsonE H. Measurement of diversity[J]. Nature, 1949, 163(4148): 688-688.
14 HerfindahlO C. Concentration in the U.S. steel industry[D]. New York: Columbia University, 1950.
15 HirschmanA O. The paternity of an index[J]. American Economic Review, 1964, 54(5): 761-770.
16 BrillouinL, HellwarthR W. Science and information theory[J]. Physics Today, 1956, 9(12): 39-40.
17 PorterA L, CohenA S, David RoessnerJ, et al. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 72(1): 117-147.
18 徐庶睿, 卢超, 章成志. 术语引用视角下的学科交叉测度——以PLOS ONE上六个学科为例[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(8): 809-820.
19 BornmannL, DanielH D. Functional use of frequently and infrequently cited articles in citing publications. A content analysis of citations to articles with low and high citation counts[J]. European Science Editing, 2008, 1(2): 69-79.
20 BertinM, AtanassovaI, GingrasY, et al. The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(1): 164-177.
21 BertinM, AtanassovaI, LariviereV, et al. The distribution of references in scientific papers: An analysis of the IMRaD structure[C]// Proceedings of the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, 2013.
22 BoyackK W, van EckN J, ColavizzaG, et al. Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(1): 59-73.
23 ZhangL, RousseauR, Gl?nzelW. 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.
24 CassiL, ChampeimontR, MeschebaW, et al. Analysing institutions interdisciplinarity by extensive use of Rao-Stirling diversity index[J]. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12(1): e0170296.
25 LeydesdorffL, BornmannL, ZhouP. Construction of a pragmatic base line for journal classifications and maps based on aggregated journal-journal citation relations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(4): 902-918.
26 陆添超, 康凯. 熵值法和层次分析法在权重确定中的应用[J]. 电脑编程技巧与维护, 2009(22): 19-20.
27 韩婧. 《PLOS ONE》开放获取出版模式研究[J]. 编辑学报, 2014, 26(2): 202-204. |
|
|
|
