Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity

This article analyses the effect of degree of interdisciplinarity on the citation impact of individual publications for four different scientific fields. We operationalise interdisciplinarity as disciplinary diversity in the references of a publication, and rather than treating interdisciplinarity as a monodimensional property, we investigate the separate effect of different aspects of diversity on citation impact: i.e. variety, balance and disparity. We use a Tobit regression model to examine the effect of these properties of interdisciplinarity on citation impact, controlling for a range of variables associated with the characteristics of publications. We find that variety has a positive effect on impact, whereas balance and disparity have a negative effect. Our results further qualify the separate effect of these three aspects of diversity by pointing out that all three dimensions of interdisciplinarity display a curvilinear (inverted U-shape) relationship with citation impact. These findings can be interpreted in two different ways. On the one hand, they are consistent with the view that, while combining multiple fields has a positive effect in knowledge creation, successful research is better achieved through research efforts that draw on a relatively proximal range of fields, as distal interdisciplinary research might be too risky and more likely to fail. On the other hand, these results may be interpreted as suggesting that scientific audiences are reluctant to cite heterodox papers that mix highly disparate bodies of knowledge—thus giving less credit to publications that are too groundbreaking or challenging.     

Mapping Interdisciplinary Fields: Efficiencies,Gaps and Redundancies in HIV/AIDS Research

While interdisciplinarity continues to increase in popularity among funders and other scientific organizations, its potential to promote scientific advances remains under-examined. For HIV/AIDS research, we examine the dynamics of disciplinary integration (or lack thereof) providing insight into a field''s knowledge base and those questions that remain unresolved. Drawing on the complete histories of two interdisciplinary journals, we construct bibliographic coupling networks based on overlapping citations to identify segregation into research clusters and estimate topic models of research content. We then compare how readily those bibliographic coupling clusters account for the structuring of topics covered within the field as it evolves over two decades. These comparisons challenge one-dimensional and/or cross-sectional approaches to interdisciplinarity. Some topics are increasingly coordinated across disciplinary boundaries (e.g., vaccine development); others remain relatively segmented into disconnected disciplinary domains for the full period (e.g., drug resistance). This divergence indicates heterogeneity in interdisciplinarity and emphasizes the need for critical approaches to studying the organization of science.     

Community Structure and the Evolution of Interdisciplinarity in Slovenia's Scientific Collaboration Network

Interaction among the scientific disciplines is of vital importance in modern science. Focusing on the case of Slovenia, we study the dynamics of interdisciplinary sciences from to . Our approach relies on quantifying the interdisciplinarity of research communities detected in the coauthorship network of Slovenian scientists over time. Examining the evolution of the community structure, we find that the frequency of interdisciplinary research is only proportional with the overall growth of the network. Although marginal improvements in favor of interdisciplinarity are inferable during the 70s and 80s, the overall trends during the past 20 years are constant and indicative of stalemate. We conclude that the flow of knowledge between different fields of research in Slovenia is in need of further stimulation.     

Quantitative Analysis of the Interdisciplinarity of Applied Mathematics

The increasing use of mathematical techniques in scientific research leads to the interdisciplinarity of applied mathematics. This viewpoint is validated quantitatively here by statistical and network analysis on the corpus PNAS 1999–2013. A network describing the interdisciplinary relationships between disciplines in a panoramic view is built based on the corpus. Specific network indicators show the hub role of applied mathematics in interdisciplinary research. The statistical analysis on the corpus content finds that algorithms, a primary topic of applied mathematics, positively correlates, increasingly co-occurs, and has an equilibrium relationship in the long-run with certain typical research paradigms and methodologies. The finding can be understood as an intrinsic cause of the interdisciplinarity of applied mathematics.     

Characterizing interdisciplinarity of researchers and research topics using web search engines

Researchers' networks have been subject to active modeling and analysis. Earlier literature mostly focused on citation or co-authorship networks reconstructed from annotated scientific publication databases, which have several limitations. Recently, general-purpose web search engines have also been utilized to collect information about social networks. Here we reconstructed, using web search engines, a network representing the relatedness of researchers to their peers as well as to various research topics. Relatedness between researchers and research topics was characterized by visibility boost-increase of a researcher's visibility by focusing on a particular topic. It was observed that researchers who had high visibility boosts by the same research topic tended to be close to each other in their network. We calculated correlations between visibility boosts by research topics and researchers' interdisciplinarity at the individual level (diversity of topics related to the researcher) and at the social level (his/her centrality in the researchers' network). We found that visibility boosts by certain research topics were positively correlated with researchers' individual-level interdisciplinarity despite their negative correlations with the general popularity of researchers. It was also found that visibility boosts by network-related topics had positive correlations with researchers' social-level interdisciplinarity. Research topics' correlations with researchers' individual- and social-level interdisciplinarities were found to be nearly independent from each other. These findings suggest that the notion of "interdisciplinarity" of a researcher should be understood as a multi-dimensional concept that should be evaluated using multiple assessment means.     

Long-Distance Interdisciplinarity Leads to Higher Scientific Impact

Scholarly collaborations across disparate scientific disciplines are challenging. Collaborators are likely to have their offices in another building, attend different conferences, and publish in other venues; they might speak a different scientific language and value an alien scientific culture. This paper presents a detailed analysis of success and failure of interdisciplinary papers—as manifested in the citations they receive. For 9.2 million interdisciplinary research papers published between 2000 and 2012 we show that the majority (69.9%) of co-cited interdisciplinary pairs are “win-win” relationships, i.e., papers that cite them have higher citation impact and there are as few as 3.3% “lose-lose” relationships. Papers citing references from subdisciplines positioned far apart (in the conceptual space of the UCSD map of science) attract the highest relative citation counts. The findings support the assumption that interdisciplinary research is more successful and leads to results greater than the sum of its disciplinary parts.     

Evolution of interdisciplinarity in biodiversity science

The study of biodiversity has grown exponentially in the last thirty years in response to demands for greater understanding of the function and importance of Earth's biodiversity and finding solutions to conserve it. Here, we test the hypothesis that biodiversity science has become more interdisciplinary over time. To do so, we analyze 97,945 peer‐reviewed articles over a twenty‐two‐year time period (1990–2012) with a continuous time dynamic model, which classifies articles into concepts (i.e., topics and ideas) based on word co‐occurrences. Using the model output, we then quantify different aspects of interdisciplinarity: concept diversity, that is, the diversity of topics and ideas across subdisciplines in biodiversity science, subdiscipline diversity, that is, the diversity of subdisciplines across concepts, and network structure, which captures interactions between concepts and subdisciplines. We found that, on average, concept and subdiscipline diversity in biodiversity science were either stable or declining, patterns which were driven by the persistence of rare concepts and subdisciplines and a decline in the diversity of common concepts and subdisciplines, respectively. Moreover, our results provide evidence that conceptual homogenization, that is, decreases in temporal β concept diversity, underlies the observed trends in interdisciplinarity. Together, our results reveal that biodiversity science is undergoing a dynamic phase as a scientific discipline that is consolidating around a core set of concepts. Our results suggest that progress toward addressing the biodiversity crisis via greater interdisciplinarity during the study period may have been slowed by extrinsic factors, such as the failure to invest in research spanning across concepts and disciplines. However, recent initiatives such as the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may attract broader support for biodiversity‐related issues and hence interdisciplinary approaches to address scientific, political, and societal challenges in the coming years.     

“One Health” or Three? Publication Silos Among the One Health Disciplines

The One Health initiative is a global effort fostering interdisciplinary collaborations to address challenges in human, animal, and environmental health. While One Health has received considerable press, its benefits remain unclear because its effects have not been quantitatively described. We systematically surveyed the published literature and used social network analysis to measure interdisciplinarity in One Health studies constructing dynamic pathogen transmission models. The number of publications fulfilling our search criteria increased by 14.6% per year, which is faster than growth rates for life sciences as a whole and for most biology subdisciplines. Surveyed publications clustered into three communities: one used by ecologists, one used by veterinarians, and a third diverse-authorship community used by population biologists, mathematicians, epidemiologists, and experts in human health. Overlap between these communities increased through time in terms of author number, diversity of co-author affiliations, and diversity of citations. However, communities continue to differ in the systems studied, questions asked, and methods employed. While the infectious disease research community has made significant progress toward integrating its participating disciplines, some segregation—especially along the veterinary/ecological research interface—remains.     

Does Collocation Inform the Impact of Collaboration?

Background

It has been shown that large interdisciplinary teams working across geography are more likely to be impactful. We asked whether the physical proximity of collaborators remained a strong predictor of the scientific impact of their research as measured by citations of the resulting publications.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Articles published by Harvard investigators from 1993 to 2003 with at least two authors were identified in the domain of biomedical science. Each collaboration was geocoded to the precise three-dimensional location of its authors. Physical distances between any two coauthors were calculated and associated with corresponding citations. Relationship between distance of coauthors and citations for four author relationships (first-last, first-middle, last-middle, and middle-middle) were investigated at different spatial scales. At all sizes of collaborations (from two authors to dozens of authors), geographical proximity between first and last author is highly informative of impact at the microscale (i.e. within building) and beyond. The mean citation for first-last author relationship decreased as the distance between them increased in less than one km range as well as in the three categorized ranges (in the same building, same city, or different city). Such a trend was not seen in other three author relationships.

Conclusions/Significance

Despite the positive impact of emerging communication technologies on scientific research, our results provide striking evidence for the role of physical proximity as a predictor of the impact of collaborations.     

Weight loss, diet composition and cardiovascular risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Low-fat high-carbohydrate diets for weight loss have been challenged by alternative dietary approaches such as low-carbohydrate, high-protein or low glycaemic index. This review summarizes recent evidence on short-term metabolic effects and long-term adherence. RECENT FINDINGS: Very low carbohydrate freely fed diets containing less than 60 g carbohydrate per day appear more effective at inducing weight loss over 6 months than low-fat kilojoule-controlled diets although long-term compliance to both are equally poor. The LDL-cholesterol level did not increase in most studies and triglyceride levels fell dramatically in all studies, although none of the studies measured lipids in energy balance. Direct comparisons of the long-term efficacy and safety of low-fat and low-carbohydrate ad libitum diets are needed. High-protein diets with moderate levels of both fat and carbohydrate and diets low in glycaemic load are emerging dietary strategies, with medium-term benefits having been demonstrated in individuals with insulin resistance. Diets low in glycaemic index require larger studies to establish their efficacy for weight loss and cardiovascular disease risk reduction. SUMMARY: A variety of dietary approaches to achieve weight loss are consistent with metabolic improvements in cardiovascular risk in the short term. Long-term efficacy may depend on the intensity of education and frequency of follow-up more than the dietary composition per se.     

Contribution of case reports to brain metastases research: systematic review and analysis of pattern of citation

Research activity related to different aspects of prevention, prediction, diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases has increased during recent years. One of the major databases (Scopus) contains 942 scientific articles that were published during the 5-year time period 2006–2010. Of these, 195 (21%) reported on single patient cases and 12 (1%) were reports of 2 cases. Little is known about their influence on advancement of the field or scientific merits. Do brain metastases case reports attract attention and provide stimuli for further research or do they go largely unrecognized? Different measures of impact, visibility and quality of published research are available, each with its own pros and cons. For the present evaluation, article citation rate was chosen. The median number of citations overall and stratified by year of publication was 0, except for the year 2006 when it was 2. As compared to other articles, case reports remained more often without citation (p<0.05 except for 2006 data). All case reports with 10 or more citations (n = 6) reported on newly introduced anticancer drugs, which commonly are prescribed to treat extracranial metastases, and the responses observed in single patients with brain metastases. Average annual numbers of citations were also calculated. The articles with most citations per year were the same six case reports mentioned above (the only ones that obtained more than 2.0 citations per year). Citations appeared to gradually increase during the first two years after publication but remained on a generally low or modest level. It cannot be excluded that case reports without citation provide interesting information to some clinicians or researchers. Apparently, case reports describing unexpected therapeutic success gain more attention, at least in terms of citation, than others.     

Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines

Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011–2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.     

The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review,the Impact Factor,and the Number of Citations

The assessment of scientific publications is an integral part of the scientific process. Here we investigate three methods of assessing the merit of a scientific paper: subjective post-publication peer review, the number of citations gained by a paper, and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published. We investigate these methods using two datasets in which subjective post-publication assessments of scientific publications have been made by experts. We find that there are moderate, but statistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accrues. However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals with high impact factors. If we control for this bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, suggesting that scientists have little ability to judge either the intrinsic merit of a paper or its likely impact. We also show that the number of citations a paper receives is an extremely error-prone measure of scientific merit. Finally, we argue that the impact factor is likely to be a poor measure of merit, since it depends on subjective assessment. We conclude that the three measures of scientific merit considered here are poor; in particular subjective assessments are an error-prone, biased, and expensive method by which to assess merit. We argue that the impact factor may be the most satisfactory of the methods we have considered, since it is a form of pre-publication review. However, we emphasise that it is likely to be a very error-prone measure of merit that is qualitative, not quantitative.

Author summary

Subjective assessments of the merit and likely impact of scientific publications are routinely made by scientists during their own research, and as part of promotion, appointment, and government committees. Using two large datasets in which scientists have made qualitative assessments of scientific merit, we show that scientists are poor at judging scientific merit and the likely impact of a paper, and that their judgment is strongly influenced by the journal in which the paper is published. We also demonstrate that the number of citations a paper accumulates is a poor measure of merit and we argue that although it is likely to be poor, the impact factor, of the journal in which a paper is published, may be the best measure of scientific merit currently available.     

Bibliometric analysis of human–wildlife conflict: From conflict to coexistence

Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is a significant challenge for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Effective mitigation of HWC requires a multidisciplinary, holistic, and comprehensive approach. In the past two decades, scientific research has focused on HWC. It can be expected that in the next few years, the number of HWC literature will continue to increase. In this study, the VOSviewer version 1.6.16, and Bibliometrix packages in R were used to conduct a quantitative review of the HWC literature and investigate its social network and development trends. The results show that 2197 publications about HWC have been published in 320 journals from 128 countries in 2003–2021. The United States is the largest producer with 893. Among all journals, Biological Conservation ranked first in terms of total link strength, number of links, documents, and citations. The analysis of keywords, development trends, and development themes shows that the research on HWC mainly includes three aspects: the conflict between humans and carnivores, conflict between humans and herbivores, and protection of the human dimension. The main focus of the research has shifted from the conflict itself to the coexistence of humans and wild animals through the integration of natural and economic factors. It is expected that HWC research will play a key role in generating the interdisciplinary scientific knowledge needed to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.     

流域水热耦合过程及其对气候与下垫面变化响应的文献计量分析

生态水文学在水文过程与生态过程的交叉地带开展研究,现已成为水文学与生态学最为活跃的前沿领域之一,而流域水热耦合过程及其对气候与下垫面变化的响应则是其中的一个重要热点研究方向。以SCIE数据库为数据源,借助Thomson Data Analyzer （TDA）、Ucinet和Netdraw等工具,对1992-2015年间关于流域水热耦合过程及其对气候与下垫面变化的响应的研究论文进行数据挖掘,分析表明：（1）近24年来,该领域的论文数量总体呈显著增长态势,依据文章数量、研究主题、机构合作特点等划分为3个阶段：低产出探索期、拓展推进期和高产出活跃期。（2）气候变化、径流、水量平衡、水文模拟、土地利用与覆盖变化等是研究的核心主题,遥感与GIS技术的应用在不断得到加强,人类活动的水文效应及其时程变化等的研究逐渐受到更多的关注。（3）澳大利亚和美国在该研究方向表现突出。中国发文量高,论文质量不断提升。（4）国际合作范围不断扩大。近十年来,中国科学院、清华大学等国内多家科教机构逐渐加强了与国外同行的合作关系,研究工作取得长足进展。     

基于学科类别和富集分析的生物安全研究领域学科交叉研究*

随着合成生物学、基因编辑等典型两用性新兴生物技术的发展,生物安全作为一个具有显著交叉性的研究领域引起了国际各界的广泛关注。利用Web of Science数据库的论文数据,基于期刊学科类别分析了生物安全研究的学科交叉现状和时序演化,并采用富集分析方法研究了不同国家的学科交叉倾向差异。结果表明,20世纪以来,生物安全研究与其他学科的交叉融合日益广泛,动植物科学、环境和生态学、社会科学、微生物学、农业科学是其交叉融合最多的学科领域。不同国家生物安全研究的学科交融情况有所差异,欧美主要国家的学科交叉情况对我国有很好的借鉴之处。以期为生物安全特定研究领域的学科交叉研究提供一种新的方法探索,并为强化我国生物安全研究领域学科交叉和探索新的科研方向提供参考。     

Levels of citation of nonhuman animal studies conducted at a Canadian research hospital

The publication of scientific articles that receive few or no citations raises questions of the appropriate use of resources as well as ethics. In the case of animal research, the ethics issue extends beyond human patients to nonhuman animals, as the research subjects them to pain and, typically, to death. This study is a citation analysis of animal research conducted at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children (HSC). Of the 594 publications (1990 to 1995) on animal research by affiliates of HSC, 29% received fewer than 10 citations in a 10-year period. We compare the research history of 13 “best ”and 13 “worst ”HSC scientists. Worst researchers continue to do infrequently cited research. Recommendations indicate how institutions and researchers can become more effective and accountable.     

Using learning networks to understand complex systems: a case study of biological,geophysical and social research in the Amazon

Developing high‐quality scientific research will be most effective if research communities with diverse skills and interests are able to share information and knowledge, are aware of the major challenges across disciplines, and can exploit economies of scale to provide robust answers and better inform policy. We evaluate opportunities and challenges facing the development of a more interactive research environment by developing an interdisciplinary synthesis of research on a single geographic region. We focus on the Amazon as it is of enormous regional and global environmental importance and faces a highly uncertain future. To take stock of existing knowledge and provide a framework for analysis we present a set of mini‐reviews from fourteen different areas of research, encompassing taxonomy, biodiversity, biogeography, vegetation dynamics, landscape ecology, earth‐atmosphere interactions, ecosystem processes, fire, deforestation dynamics, hydrology, hunting, conservation planning, livelihoods, and payments for ecosystem services. Each review highlights the current state of knowledge and identifies research priorities, including major challenges and opportunities. We show that while substantial progress is being made across many areas of scientific research, our understanding of specific issues is often dependent on knowledge from other disciplines. Accelerating the acquisition of reliable and contextualized knowledge about the fate of complex pristine and modified ecosystems is partly dependent on our ability to exploit economies of scale in shared resources and technical expertise, recognise and make explicit interconnections and feedbacks among sub‐disciplines, increase the temporal and spatial scale of existing studies, and improve the dissemination of scientific findings to policy makers and society at large. Enhancing interaction among research efforts is vital if we are to make the most of limited funds and overcome the challenges posed by addressing large‐scale interdisciplinary questions. Bringing together a diverse scientific community with a single geographic focus can help increase awareness of research questions both within and among disciplines, and reveal the opportunities that may exist for advancing acquisition of reliable knowledge. This approach could be useful for a variety of globally important scientific questions.