|
|
|
| Interdisciplinarity, Temporal Diversity, and Scientific Impact: Perspective on References |
| Yang Alex J.1,2, Wang Zuorong1,2, Deng Sanhong1,2, Wang Hao1,2, 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 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Building on the concept of interdisciplinarity, this study proposes a measurement framework for temporal diversity, quantifying it into four dimensions: temporal richness, temporal imbalance, temporal disparity, and temporal depth. The study meticulously analyzes the temporal trends and distribution characteristics of interdisciplinarity and temporal diversity, as well as the career evolution patterns of high-level scientists, using 38,879,575 scientific papers from the Microsoft Academic Graph database spanning from 1950 to 2020. The relationship between interdisciplinarity, temporal diversity, and scientific impact is further explored. The findings reveal that: (1) The interdisciplinary and temporal diversity of papers exhibits a consistent growth trend that differs depending on the field. (2) Both interdisciplinarity and temporal diversity indicators show heterogeneous distribution characteristics, such as scale-free distribution, and a weak correlation exists between them. (3) In the careers of high-level scientists, both interdisciplinarity and temporal diversity show significant growth trends, largely attributable to an increase in the number of their referenced papers. (4) Interdisciplinarity and temporal diversity have opposite effects on scientific impact with interdisciplinarity significantly promoting scientific impact and temporal diversity significantly inhibiting it, suggesting that a combination of strong interdisciplinarity and weak temporal diversity has the highest probability of becoming a disruptive hotspot paper. The temporal diversity measurement framework proposed in this study enriches the theories of knowledge integration and interdisciplinarity, providing insights into science and technology policy and academic evaluation.
|
|
Received: 08 October 2023
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
