|
|
|
| Research on the Relationship between the Interdisciplinarity of Papers and Scientific Breakthroughs |
| Liu Jiaming1,2, Sun Jianjun1,3 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Interdisciplinary research is of great significance for realizing scientific innovation. Based on annual breakthroughs reported in Science magazine from 2001 to 2020, this study measures the interdisciplinarity of scientific breakthroughs through three dimensions of discipline diversity from the perspective of references. Furthermore, it discusses and compares the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific breakthroughs in different disciplines. The results reveal an inverted U-shaped relationship between the Rao-Stirling index and scientific breakthroughs. Disciplinary variety and the number of discipline groups negatively affect scientific breakthroughs, and disciplinary disparity positively affects scientific breakthroughs. The relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific breakthroughs differs depending on discipline groups. Therefore, we suggest that interdisciplinary research activities should be conducted in a few disciplines with large differences. Basic sciences should avoid being combined with too many disciplines, and applied sciences should absorb knowledge from various disciplines in a balanced and extensive manner. Furthermore, governments and research institutions should actively build cross-innovation platforms.
|
|
Received: 04 March 2024
|
|
|
|
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） |
|
|
|
