Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience &amp; Nanotechnology by citation analysis

Yu, Guang; Wang, Mingyang; Yu, Daren

doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0090-2

Cited by 30 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries (Jacobs 2014;Jacobs and Frickel 2009). An enormous volume of bibliometric evidence supports this position, from maps of science highlighting connections within and across disciplines (Boyack, Klavans, and Börner 2005;Börner, Chen, and Boyack 2003;Börner et al 2012;Chen and Hicks 2004;Leydesdorff and Rafols 2009;Moody and Light 2006;Skupin, Biberstine, and Börner 2013) to quantitative research on diffusion, collaboration, and the exponential growth of science (Coccia and Bozeman 2016;Coccia and Wang 2016;Crane 1972;Liu et al 2015;Price 1963;Yu et al 2010;Zhu and Yan 2015). Theories, measures, and models of disciplinary knowledge diffusion (Bettencourt et al 2008;Gao and Guan 2011;Herrera, Roberts, and Gulbahce 2010;Vitanov and Ausloos 2012;Yan 2014;Yan et al 2013) and interdisciplinarity (Chen et al 2014(Chen et al , 2015Cronin and Sugimoto 2014;Larivière et al 2014;Light and Adams 2016) are increasingly common.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two fundamentally different perspectives on knowledge diffusion dominate debates about academic disciplines. On the one hand, critics of disciplinary research and education have argued that disciplines are isolated silos, within which specialists pursue inward-looking and increasingly narrow research agendas. On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries. These perspectives have different implications for how knowledge diffuses, how intellectuals gain and lose status within their disciplines, and how intellectual reputations evolve within and across disciplines. We argue that highly general claims about the nature of disciplinary boundaries are counterproductive, and that research on the nature of specific disciplinary boundaries is more useful. To that end, this paper uses a novel publication and citation network dataset and statistical models of citation networks to test hypotheses about the boundaries between philosophy of science and 11 disciplinary clusters. Specifically, we test hypotheses about whether engaging with and being cited by scientific communities outside philosophy of science has an impact on one's position within philosophy of science. Our results suggest that philosophers of science produce interdisciplinary scholarship, but they tend not to cite work by other philosophers when it is published in journals outside of their discipline. Furthermore, net of other factors, receiving citations from other disciplines has no meaningful impact-positive or negative-on citations within philosophy of science. We conclude by considering this evidence for simultaneous interdisciplinarity and insularity in terms of scientific trading theory and other work on disciplinary boundaries and communication.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2: for disciplines such as biology, medicine and economics, the two values differ greatly, while for psychology and biochemistry, they do not. 4 As many bibliometric indices are especially sensitive to highly successful articles (e.g., total number of citations, average number of citations per paper, journal impact factors), understanding the dynamics of highly cited articles is also important in order to better understand the potential drawbacks associated with the use of these indices. In Fig.…”

Section: Life-cycle Of Scholarly Articles Across Fields Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…policymaking, as it is considered to be a key driver of economic growth and prosperity [1,2,3]. When the area of knowledge under consideration is narrowed to that of scientific knowledge, interest is usually centered on its flow within and between scientific areas, which is traced through citations in scientific publications [4,5,6]. In this sense, citations serve to document the collective and cumulative nature of knowledge production [7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles across Fields of Research

Galiani¹,

Gálvez²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aggregate citation behavior plays a key role in scientific knowledge diffusion, as citations document the collective and cumulative nature of knowledge production. Additionally, citations are commonly taken as input for several influential evaluative metrics used to assess researchers' performance. Nevertheless, little effort has been devoted to understanding and quantifying how article citations evolve over the years following an article's publication and how these trends vary across fields of research. By collecting and analyzing a dataset consisting of more than five million citations to 59,707 research articles from 12 dissimilar fields of research, we quantify how citations evolve across fields of research as articles grow older. Analyzing raw citation data spanning different periods poses several methodological challenges; to tackle them, we employ quantile regression, a technique that makes it possible to control for citation inflation (the fact that citations have become more common nowadays) and to take into consideration the well-known asymmetry in the distribution of citations. We find that citations follow a life-cycle pattern. In the first years after publication, articles generally receive a small but growing number of citations until, eventually, they reach a peak from which they then decline. Importantly, the shape of these life cycles varies greatly from one field to the next. Given that several influential metrics restrict their input to a certain range in terms of the number of years since publication, these differences are by no means neutral and should be taken into account when evaluating researchers or their institutions.Aggregate citation behavior plays a key role in scientific knowledge diffusion, as citations document the collective and cumulative nature of knowledge production. Additionally, citations are commonly taken as input for several influential evaluative metrics used to assess researchers' performance. Nevertheless, little effort has been devoted to understanding and quantifying how article citations evolve over the years following an article's publication and how these trends vary across fields of research. By collecting and analyzing a dataset consisting of more than five million citations to 59,707 research articles from 12 dissimilar fields of research, we quantify how citations evolve across fields of research as articles grow older. Analyzing raw citation data spanning different periods poses several methodological challenges; to tackle them, we employ quantile regression, a technique that makes it possible to control for citation inflation (the fact that citations have become more common nowadays) and to take into consideration the well-known asymmetry in the distribution of citations. We find that citations follow a life-cycle pattern. In the first years after publication, articles generally receive a small but growing number of citations until, eventually, they reach a peak from which they then decline. Importantly, the shape of these life cycles varies greatly from on...

show abstract

“…Patent citation analyses have found that knowledge embedded in public research patents tends to diffuse more quickly than knowledge embedded in corporate patents (Bacchiocchi and Montobbio 2009). Similar studies also find that the knowledge diffusion process is asymmetric in that it tends to occur more rapidly within, than between, fields (Yu et al 2010). However, a 2010 study suggests that a number of research areas are converging, and the diffusion of knowledge across fields is a major force facilitating this process (Liu and Rousseau 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

A forward diversity index

Carley

Porter

2011

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce an indicator to measure the diffusion of scientific research. Consistent with Stirling's 3-factor diversity model, the diffusion score captures not only variety and balance, but also disparity among citing article cohorts. We apply it to benchmark article samples from six 1995 Web of Science subject categories (SCs) to trace trends in knowledge diffusion over time since publication. Findings indicate that, for most SCs, diffusion scores steadily increase with time. Mathematics is an outlier. We employ a typology of citation trends among benchmark SCs and correlate this with diffusion scores. We also find that self-cites do not, in most cases, significantly influence diffusion scores.

show abstract

Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis

Cited by 30 publications

References 46 publications

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

The Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles across Fields of Research

A forward diversity index

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About