The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Loet Leydesdorff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the measurement of Interdisciplinarity and synergy in scientific and extra scientific collaborations
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2021Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga IvanovaAbstract:Abstract Problem solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy‐makers call for “Interdisciplinarity,” however, they often mean “synergy.” Synergy is gen...
-
the measurement of Interdisciplinarity and synergy in scientific and extra scientific collaborations
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga IvanovaAbstract:JASIST (in print) Problem-solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy-makers call for “Interdisciplinarity,” however, they often mean “synergy.” Synergy is generated when the whole offers more possibilities than the sum of its parts. An increase in the number of options above the sum of the options in subsets can be measured as redundancy; that is, the number of not-yet-realized options. The number of options available to an innovation system for realization can be as decisive for the system’s survival as the historically already-realized innovations. Unlike “Interdisciplinarity,” “synergy” can also be generated in sectorial or geographical collaborations. The measurement of “synergy,” however, requires a methodology different from the measurement of “Interdisciplinarity.” In this study, we discuss recent advances in the operationalization and measurement of “Interdisciplinarity,” and propose a methodology for measuring “synergy” based on information theory. The sharing of meanings attributed to information from different perspectives can increase redundancy. Increasing redundancy reduces the relative uncertainty; for example, in niches. The operationalization of the two concepts—”Interdisciplinarity” and “synergy”—as different and partly overlapping indicators allows for distinguishing between the effects and the effectiveness of science-policy interventions in research priorities.
-
Interdisciplinarity and synergy in the œuvre of judit bar ilan
Scientometrics, 2020Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Both “Interdisciplinarity” and “synergy” are desirable features from a policy perspective: can surplus be found in the interactions among (disciplinary) bodies of knowledge? We have recently developed measures for “Interdisciplinarity” and distinguished these measurements from those of “synergy.” In this study, we analyze three review papers by Judit Bar-Ilan (Scientometrics 50(1):7–32, 2001, Ann Rev Inf Sci Technol (ARIST) 38:231–288, 2004, J Informetr 2(1):1–52, 2008a) in terms of whether they rank high on Interdisciplinarity and synergy values among the 130 papers of her œuvre. Review papers can be expected to fulfill a synergetic and perhaps also interdisciplinary function in scientific literature more than research articles, since the literature is considered from a broader perspective. Both the Interdisciplinarity and synergy indicators point to Bar-Ilan (2004). The three reviews have high synergy scores. Whereas Bar-Ilan (2008a) contributed to the redefinition and shaping of the discipline of “information science,” Bar-Ilan (2004) added the broader perspective of the theoretical and practical relevance of the discipline. Bar-Ilan (2001) reviews various methods for data collection at the Internet. An article of Bar-Ilan and Peritz (2002) in Library Trends scores also high on synergy.
-
Interdisciplinarity and synergy in the œuvre of judit bar ilan
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Both “Interdisciplinarity” and “synergy” are desirable features from a policy perspective: can surplus be found in the interactions among (disciplinary) bodies of knowledge? We have recently developed measures for “Interdisciplinarity” and distinguished these measurements from those of “synergy.” In this study, we analyze three review papers by Judit Bar-Ilan (2001, 2004, and 2008a) in terms of whether they rank high on Interdisciplinarity and synergy values among the 130 papers of her œuvre. Review papers can be expected to fulfill a synergetic and perhaps also interdisciplinary function in scientific literature more than research articles, since the literature is considered from a broader perspective. Both the Interdisciplinarity and synergy indicators point to Bar-Ilan (2004). Whereas Bar-Ilan (2008a) contributed to the redefinition and shaping of the discipline of “information science,” Bar-Ilan (2004) added the broader perspective of the theoretical and practical relevance of the discipline. Bar-Ilan (2001) may have been mis-classified as a review by the provider of the Web-of-Science because the word “review” appears in the title. An article of Bar-Ilan (2002) in Library Trends scores also high on synergy.
-
betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of Interdisciplinarity a tribute to eugene garfield
Scientometrics, 2018Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Caroline S Wagner, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Journals were central to Eugene Garfield’s research interests. Among other things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus. In addition to providing a basis for disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of Interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of disciplines; the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration, but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary—that is, non-disciplined—variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be considered as diffusion or differentiation of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of Interdisciplinarity at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can therefore be decomposed; differences among (sub)sets can be tested for statistical significance. In the appendix, a general-purpose routine for measuring diversity in networks is provided.
Lutz Bornmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Interdisciplinarity and synergy in the œuvre of judit bar ilan
Scientometrics, 2020Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Both “Interdisciplinarity” and “synergy” are desirable features from a policy perspective: can surplus be found in the interactions among (disciplinary) bodies of knowledge? We have recently developed measures for “Interdisciplinarity” and distinguished these measurements from those of “synergy.” In this study, we analyze three review papers by Judit Bar-Ilan (Scientometrics 50(1):7–32, 2001, Ann Rev Inf Sci Technol (ARIST) 38:231–288, 2004, J Informetr 2(1):1–52, 2008a) in terms of whether they rank high on Interdisciplinarity and synergy values among the 130 papers of her œuvre. Review papers can be expected to fulfill a synergetic and perhaps also interdisciplinary function in scientific literature more than research articles, since the literature is considered from a broader perspective. Both the Interdisciplinarity and synergy indicators point to Bar-Ilan (2004). The three reviews have high synergy scores. Whereas Bar-Ilan (2008a) contributed to the redefinition and shaping of the discipline of “information science,” Bar-Ilan (2004) added the broader perspective of the theoretical and practical relevance of the discipline. Bar-Ilan (2001) reviews various methods for data collection at the Internet. An article of Bar-Ilan and Peritz (2002) in Library Trends scores also high on synergy.
-
Interdisciplinarity and synergy in the œuvre of judit bar ilan
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Both “Interdisciplinarity” and “synergy” are desirable features from a policy perspective: can surplus be found in the interactions among (disciplinary) bodies of knowledge? We have recently developed measures for “Interdisciplinarity” and distinguished these measurements from those of “synergy.” In this study, we analyze three review papers by Judit Bar-Ilan (2001, 2004, and 2008a) in terms of whether they rank high on Interdisciplinarity and synergy values among the 130 papers of her œuvre. Review papers can be expected to fulfill a synergetic and perhaps also interdisciplinary function in scientific literature more than research articles, since the literature is considered from a broader perspective. Both the Interdisciplinarity and synergy indicators point to Bar-Ilan (2004). Whereas Bar-Ilan (2008a) contributed to the redefinition and shaping of the discipline of “information science,” Bar-Ilan (2004) added the broader perspective of the theoretical and practical relevance of the discipline. Bar-Ilan (2001) may have been mis-classified as a review by the provider of the Web-of-Science because the word “review” appears in the title. An article of Bar-Ilan (2002) in Library Trends scores also high on synergy.
-
betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of Interdisciplinarity a tribute to eugene garfield
Scientometrics, 2018Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Caroline S Wagner, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Journals were central to Eugene Garfield’s research interests. Among other things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus. In addition to providing a basis for disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of Interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of disciplines; the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration, but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary—that is, non-disciplined—variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be considered as diffusion or differentiation of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of Interdisciplinarity at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can therefore be decomposed; differences among (sub)sets can be tested for statistical significance. In the appendix, a general-purpose routine for measuring diversity in networks is provided.
-
Betweenness and Diversity in Journal Citation Networks as Measures of Interdisciplinarity -- A Tribute to Eugene Garfield --
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2017Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Caroline S Wagner, Lutz BornmannAbstract:Journals were central to Eugene Garfield's research interests. Among other things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic databases such as the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. In addition to disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of Interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of disciplines, the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration, but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary--that is, non-disciplined--variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be considered as diffusion of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of Interdisciplinarity at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can therefore be decomposed, differences among (sub)sets can be tested for statistical significance. In an appendix, a general-purpose routine for measuring diversity in networks is provided.
Ismael Rafols - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact the different effect of proximal and distal Interdisciplinarity
PLOS ONE, 2015Co-Authors: Alfredo Yegrosyegros, Ismael Rafols, Pablo DesteAbstract: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.
-
Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues evidence from a developing country
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Diego Chavarro, Puay Tang, Ismael RafolsAbstract:This paper examines the role of Interdisciplinarity on research pertaining to local issues. Using Colombian publications from 1991 until 2011 in the Web of Science, we investigate the relationship between the degree of Interdisciplinarity and the local orientation of the articles. We find that a higher degree of Interdisciplinarity in a publication is associated with a greater emphasis on local issues. In particular, our results support the view that research that combines cognitively disparate disciplines, what we refer to as distal Interdisciplinarity, is associated with more local focus of research. We discuss the policy implications of these results in the context of national research assessments targeting excellence and socio-economic impact.
-
Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues evidence from a developing country
arXiv: Physics and Society, 2013Co-Authors: Diego Chavarro, Puay Tang, Ismael RafolsAbstract:This paper explores the relationship between Interdisciplinarity and research pertaining to local issues. Using Colombian publications from 1991 until 2011 in the Web of Science, we investigate the relationship between the degree of Interdisciplinarity and the local orientation of the articles. We find that a higher degree of Interdisciplinarity in a publication is associated with a greater emphasis on Colombian issues. In particular, our results suggest that research that combines cognitively disparate disciplines, what we refer to as distal Interdisciplinarity, tends to be associated with more local focus of research. We discuss the implications of these results in the context of policies aiming to foster the local socio-economic impact of research in developing countries.
-
Diversity and network coherence as indicators of Interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience
Scientometrics, 2010Co-Authors: Ismael Rafols, Martin MeyerAbstract:The multidimensional character and inherent conflict with categorisation of Interdisciplinarity makes its mapping and evaluation a challenging task. We propose a conceptual framework that aims to capture Interdisciplinarity in the wider sense of knowledge integration, by exploring the concepts of diversity and coherence. Disciplinary diversity indicators are developed to describe the heterogeneity of a bibliometric set viewed from predefined categories, i.e. using a top-down approach that locates the set on the global map of science. Network coherence indicators are constructed to measure the intensity of similarity relations within a bibliometric set, i.e. using a bottom-up approach, which reveals the structural consistency of the publications network. We carry out case studies on individual articles in bionanoscience to illustrate how these two perspectives identify different aspects of Interdisciplinarity: disciplinary diversity indicates the large-scale breadth of the knowledge base of a publication; network coherence reflects the novelty of its knowledge integration. We suggest that the combination of these two approaches may be useful for comparative studies of emergent scientific and technological fields, where new and controversial categorisations are accompanied by equally contested claims of novelty and Interdisciplinarity.
-
is science becoming more interdisciplinary measuring and mapping six research fields over time
Scientometrics, 2009Co-Authors: Alan L Porter, Ismael RafolsAbstract:In the last two decades there have been studies claiming that science is becoming ever more interdisciplinary. However, the evidence has been anecdotal or partial. Here we investigate how the degree of Interdisciplinarity has changed between 1975 and 2005 over six research domains. To do so, we compute well-established bibliometric indicators alongside a new index of Interdisciplinarity (Integration score, aka Rao-Stirling diversity) and a science mapping visualization method. The results attest to notable changes in research practices over this 30 year period, namely major increases in number of cited disciplines and references per article (both show about 50% growth), and co-authors per article (about 75% growth). However, the new index of Interdisciplinarity only shows a modest increase (mostly around 5% growth). Science maps hint that this is because the distribution of citations of an article remains mainly within neighboring disciplinary areas. These findings suggest that science is indeed becoming more interdisciplinary, but in small steps — drawing mainly from neighboring fields and only modestly increasing the connections to distant cognitive areas. The combination of metrics and overlay science maps provides general benchmarks for future studies of interdisciplinary research characteristics.
Wolfgang Glanzel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
diversity of references as an indicator of the Interdisciplinarity of journals taking similarity between subject fields into account
Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Wolfgang Glanzel, Lin Zhang, Ronald RousseauAbstract:The objective of this article is to further the study of journal Interdisciplinarity, or, more generally, knowledge integration at the level of individual articles. Interdisciplinarity is operationalized by the diversity of subject fields assigned to cited items in the article's reference list. Subject fields and subfields were obtained from the Leuven-Budapest ECOOM subject-classification scheme, while disciplinary diversity was measured taking variety, balance, and disparity into account. As diversity measure we use a Hill-type true diversity in the sense of Jost and Leinster-Cobbold. The analysis is conducted in 3 steps. In the first part, the properties of this measure are discussed, and, on the basis of these properties it is shown that the measure has the potential to serve as an indicator of Interdisciplinarity. In the second part the applicability of this indicator is shown using selected journals from several research fields ranging from mathematics to social sciences. Finally, the often-heard argument, namely, that interdisciplinary research exhibits larger visibility and impact, is studied on the basis of these selected journals. Yet, as only 7 journals, representing a total of 15,757 articles, are studied, albeit chosen to cover a large range of Interdisciplinarity, further research is still needed.
-
Interdisciplinarity and impact distinct effects of variety balance and disparity
PLOS ONE, 2015Co-Authors: Jian Wang, Bart Thijs, Wolfgang GlanzelAbstract:Interdisciplinary research is increasingly recognized as the solution to today’s challenging scientific and societal problems, but the relationship between interdisciplinary research and scientific impact is still unclear. This paper studies the association between the degree of Interdisciplinarity and the number of citations at the paper level. Different from previous studies compositing various aspects of Interdisciplinarity into a single indicator, we use factor analysis to uncover distinct dimensions of Interdisciplinarity corresponding to variety, balance, and disparity. We estimate Poisson models with journal fixed effects and robust standard errors to analyze the divergent relationships between these three factors and citations. We find that long-term (13-year) citations (1) increase at an increasing rate with variety, (2) decrease with balance, and (3) increase at a decreasing rate with disparity. Furthermore, Interdisciplinarity also affects the process of citation accumulation: (1) although variety and disparity have positive effects on long-term citations, they have negative effects on short-term (3-year) citations, and (2) although balance has a negative effect on long-term citations, its negative effect is insignificant in the short run. These findings have important implications for interdisciplinary research and science policy.
-
Interdisciplinarity and impact distinct effects of variety balance and disparity
Research Papers in Economics, 2014Co-Authors: Jian Wang, Bart Thijs, Wolfgang GlanzelAbstract:Interdisciplinary research is increasingly recognized as the solution to today’s challenging scientific and societal problems, but the relationship between interdisciplinary research and scientific impact is still unclear. This paper studies the relationship between Interdisciplinarity and citations at the paper level. Different from previous literature compositing various aspects of Interdisciplinarity into a single indicator, this paper uses factor analysis to uncover distinct aspects of Interdisciplinarity and investigates their independent dynamics with scientific impact. Three uncovered factors correspond to variety, balance and disparity respectively. Subsequently, we estimate Poisson models with journal fixed effects and robust standard errors to investigate the relationship between these three factor and citations. We find that long-term (13-year) citations (1) increase at an increasing rate with variety, (2) decrease with balance, and (3) increase at a decreasing rate with disparity. Furthermore, Interdisciplinarity also affects the process of citation accumulation: (1) although variety and disparity have positive effects on long-term citations, they have negative effects on short-term (3-year) citations, and (2) although balance has a negative effect on long-term citations, its negative effect is insignificant in the short run. These findings have important implications for Interdisciplinarity research and science policy.
Inga Ivanova - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the measurement of Interdisciplinarity and synergy in scientific and extra scientific collaborations
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2021Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga IvanovaAbstract:Abstract Problem solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy‐makers call for “Interdisciplinarity,” however, they often mean “synergy.” Synergy is gen...
-
the measurement of Interdisciplinarity and synergy in scientific and extra scientific collaborations
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga IvanovaAbstract:JASIST (in print) Problem-solving often requires crossing boundaries, such as those between disciplines. When policy-makers call for “Interdisciplinarity,” however, they often mean “synergy.” Synergy is generated when the whole offers more possibilities than the sum of its parts. An increase in the number of options above the sum of the options in subsets can be measured as redundancy; that is, the number of not-yet-realized options. The number of options available to an innovation system for realization can be as decisive for the system’s survival as the historically already-realized innovations. Unlike “Interdisciplinarity,” “synergy” can also be generated in sectorial or geographical collaborations. The measurement of “synergy,” however, requires a methodology different from the measurement of “Interdisciplinarity.” In this study, we discuss recent advances in the operationalization and measurement of “Interdisciplinarity,” and propose a methodology for measuring “synergy” based on information theory. The sharing of meanings attributed to information from different perspectives can increase redundancy. Increasing redundancy reduces the relative uncertainty; for example, in niches. The operationalization of the two concepts—”Interdisciplinarity” and “synergy”—as different and partly overlapping indicators allows for distinguishing between the effects and the effectiveness of science-policy interventions in research priorities.
