|
|
|
| Research on the Relationship between the Interdisciplinarity of Scholars and Its Impact on Citation in the Humanities and Social Sciences |
| Zhang Pei, Ruan Xuanmin, Lyu Dongqing, Cheng Ying, and Ke |
| School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Based on an analysis of the shortcomings of existing research methods, this paper studies the influence of interdisciplinarity on citation from the author s perspective. Considering that most of the existing research focuses on the natural sciences, this paper selects the humanities and social sciences to construct data sets. In order to control the quality of the thesis, this paper only utilizes source papers from first-class journals on various subjects from the CSSCI database. The paper uses the author's specialization and the Euclidean distance of the voting vector to quantify the interdisciplinarity of individual authors and co-authors, supplemented by interdisciplinary numbers to improve interdisciplinary measurements. The empirical results show that overall, interdisciplinarity is conducive to improving citations in papers; for monographs, the interdisciplinarity of an individual author using both measures has a significant positive impact on the quality of the paper s citations. In terms of the Euclidean distance, there is a significant positive correlation between the two, but interdisciplinary numbers display a curvilinear (inverted U shape) relationship with citation impact. In addition, the study also finds a significant effect stemming from the number of authors, their disciplines, and the quality of papers on the relationship between the interdisciplinarity of scholars and its citation impact.
|
|
Received: 13 September 2018
|
|
|
|
1 SchrageM. No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration[M]. New York: Currency and Doubleday, 1995: 7.
2 黄淑芳. 基于跨学科合作的团队异质性与高校原始性创新绩效的关系研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2016: 17-19.
3 DongK, XuH Y, LuoR, et al. An integrated method for interdisciplinary topic identification and prediction: A case study on information science and library science[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 115(2): 849-868.
4 McCainK W. Core journal literatures and persistent research themes in an emerging interdisciplinary field: Exploring the literature of evolutionary developmental biology[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2010, 4(2): 157-165.
5 PonziL J. The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of knowledge management: A bibliometric study of its early stage of development[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 55(2): 259-272.
6 RiniaE J, Van LeeuwenT N, BruinsE E W, et al. Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange[J]. Scientometrics, 2001, 51(1): 293-309.
7 GoldmanA W. Conceptualizing the interdisciplinary diffusion and evolution of emerging fields: The case of systems biology[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8(1): 43-58.
8 FujigakiY. Analysis on dynamics of research sub-domains in interdisciplinary fields: Analysis using personal distribution versus papers[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 54(1): 63-74.
9 PorterA L, RafolsI. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 81(3): 719-745.
10 RousseauR, DingJ L. Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary Journals?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(4): 1009-1013.
11 HaythornthwaiteC. Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 57(8): 1079-1092.
12 QinJ, LancasterF W, AllenB. Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1997, 48(10): 893-916.
13 LynnF B. Diffusing through disciplines: Insiders, outsiders, and socially influenced citation behavior[J]. Social Forces, 2014, 93(1): 355-382.
14 马翠嫦, 曹树金. 信息分散下的信息行为——基于国外图书情报学领域跨学科研究的回顾[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2014, 40(1): 60-72.
15 KarunanK, LathabaiH H, PrabhakaranT. Discovering interdisciplinary interactions between two research fields using citation networks[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1): 335-367.
16 LevittJ M, ThelwallM. The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 78(1): 45-67.
17 KwonS, SolomonG E A, YoutieJ, et al. A measure of knowledge flow between specific fields: Implications of interdisciplinarity for impact and funding[J]. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12(10): e0185583.
18 Ta?k?nZ, AydinogluA U. Collaborative interdisciplinary astrobiology research: A bibliometric study of the NASA Astrobiology Institute[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 103(3): 1003-1022.
19 ChenS J, ArsenaultC, GingrasY, et al. Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: The case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(2): 1307-1323.
20 韩普, 王东波. 跨学科性的理论与实践研究综述[J]. 情报学报, 2014, 33(11): 1222-1232.
21 WagnerC S, RoessnerJ D, BobbK, et al. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 14-26.
22 SchummerJ. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 59(3): 425-465.
23 ChangY W, HuangM 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.
24 BhatH S, HuangL H, RodriguezS, et al. Citation Prediction Using Diverse Features[C]// Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshop. New York: IEEE, 2016: 589-596.
25 AbramoG, D’AngeloC A, CostaF D. Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 111(1): 317-336.
26 LeaheyE, BeckmanC, StankoT. Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2017, 62(1): 105-139.
27 RiniaE J, Van LeeuwenT N, Van RaanA F J. Impact measures of interdisciplinary research in physics[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 53(2): 241-248.
28 PonomarevI V, LawtonB K, WilliamsD 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.
29 ChakrabortyT. Role of interdisciplinarity in computer sciences: quantification, impact and life trajectory[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(3): 1011-1029.
30 LarivièreV, GingrasY. On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1): 126-131.
31 李江. “跨学科性”的概念框架与测度[J]. 图书情报知识, 2014(3): 87-93.
32 LeaheyE. Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link[J]. Gender & Society, 2006, 20(6): 754-780.
33 PorterA L, CohenA S, RoessnerJ D, et al. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 72(1): 117-147.
34 ChenS J, ArsenaultC, LarivièreV. Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, 9(4): 1034-1046.
35 WangJ, ThijsB, Gl?nzelW. Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity[J]. PLoS ONE, 2015, 10(5): e0127298.
36 LevittJ M, ThelwallM. Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(12): 1973-1984.
37 EnduriM K, ReddyI V, JoladS. Does diversity of papers affect their citations? Evidence from American Physical Society journals[C]// Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems. New York: IEEE, 2016: 505-511.
38 Yegros-YegrosA, RafolsI, D’EsteP. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity[J]. PLoS ONE, 2015, 10(8): e0135095.
39 TahamtanI, AfsharA S, AhamdzadehK. Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(3): 1195-1225.
40 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.
41 刘雪立, 魏雅慧, 盛丽娜, 等. 期刊PR8指数: 一个新的跨学科期刊评价指标及其实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(11): 116-123.
42 王志楠, 汪雪锋, 黄颖, 等. 高被引学者论文跨学科特征分析——以经济与商业领域为例[J]. 科学学研究, 2016, 34(6): 807-813.
43 ArrowK j. Social choice and individual value (2nd edition)[M]. New York: Wiley, 1963: 1-8.
44 NeumanW L. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches[M]. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2010: 219-244.
45 卓可秋. 基于论文计量学的管理学学科半衰期研究[J]. 图书与情报, 2014(4): 55-60.
46 王迎军, 陆岚, 崔连广. 实践视角下的管理学学科属性[J]. 管理学报, 2015, 12(12): 1733-1740.
47 赵蓉英, 温芳芳. 科研合作与知识交流[J]. 图书情报工作, 2011, 55(20): 6-10, 27.
48 MingersJ, XuF. The drivers of citations in management science journals[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 205(2): 422-430.
49 DidegahF, DidegahF. Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University s publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 87(2): 251-265.
50 文科一流期刊目录[EB/OL]. [2019-07-06]. http://skch.nju.edu.cn/regulation/1979473540. |
|
|
|
