Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences

Lyu, Dongqing; Gong, Kaile; Ruan, Xuanmin; Cheng, Ying; Li, Jiang

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03757-2

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the lack of in‐depth professional domain knowledge, interdisciplinary collaboration is difficult to make fundamental breakthrough innovations. Besides, the results show that there is a negative correlation between team size and disruption values, which also confirms the view that small teams are often more disruptive than big team (Wu et al, 2019; Lyu, Gong, Ruan, Cheng, & Li, 2021). There is also a negative correlation between the number of references and the length of the paper title and disruption values.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Interdisciplinary Collaboration Research More Disruptive Than Monodisciplinary Research?

Liu

et al. 2021

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an important pattern of scientific research, interdisciplinary collaboration is universally encouraged by science and technology policy makers. However, it remains a question whether interdisciplinary collaboration research is more disruptive than monodisciplinary research. To address this research question in this study, interdisciplinary collaboration is measured as whether the authors of a paper are from at least two disciplines, and the degree of "disruptive" is measured by the Disruption index proposed by Funk & Owen-Smith (2017). By using articles published in six journals from 1978 to 2019 in the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database, we constructed an OLS regression model with journal fixed effect and time fixed effect to analyze the influence of interdisciplinary collaboration on the Disruption values with different citation windows. The findings show that interdisciplinary collaboration research is less disruptive than monodisciplinary research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Number of authors: The number of authors reflects the size of the team. There is a difference in the D‐index between large teams and small teams (Wu et al, 2019), and the correlation between the two is negative (Lyu, et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Interdisciplinary Collaboration Research More Disruptive Than Monodisciplinary Research?

Liu

et al. 2021

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Number of authors : The number of authors reflects the size of the team. There is a difference in the D index between large teams and small teams (Wu et al, 2019), and the correlation between team size and D index is negative (Lyu et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration

Liu,

Bu,

et al. 2023

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.

show abstract

A construction and empirical research of the journal disruption index based on open citation data

Jiang

Liu

2023

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many years, the journal evaluation system has been centered on impact indicators, resulting in evaluation results that do not reflect the academic innovation of journals. To solve this issue, this study attempts to construct the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) from the perspective of measuring the disruption of each journal article. In the actual study, we measured the disruption of articles of 22 selected virology journals based on the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI) first. Then we calculated the JDI of 22 virology journals based on the absolute disruption index ( ) of the articles. Finally, we conducted an empirical study on the differences and correlations between the impact indicators and disruption indicators as well as the evaluation effect of the disruption index. The results of the study show: (1) There are large differences in the ranking of journals based on disruption indicators and impact indicators. Among the 22 journals, 12 are ranked higher by JDI than Cumulative Impact Factor for 5 years (CIF5), the Journal Index for PR6 (JIPR6) and average Percentile in Subject Area (aPSA). The ranking difference of 17 journals between the two kinds of indicators is greater than or equal to 5. (2) There is a medium correlation between disruption indicators and impact indicators at the level of journals and papers. JDI is moderately correlated with CIF5, JIPR6 and aPSA, with correlation coefficients of 0.486, 0.471 and − 0.448, respectively. was also moderately correlated with Cumulative Citation (CC), Percentile Ranking with 6 Classifications (PR6) and Percentile in Subject Area (PSA) with correlation coefficients of 0.593, 0.575 and − 0.593, respectively. (3) Compared with traditional impact indicators, the results of journal disruption evaluation are more consistent with the evaluation results of experts’ peer review. JDI reflects the innovation level of journals to a certain extent, which is helpful to promote the evaluation of innovation in sci-tech journals.

show abstract

Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences

Cited by 15 publications

References 87 publications

Is Interdisciplinary Collaboration Research More Disruptive Than Monodisciplinary Research?

Is Interdisciplinary Collaboration Research More Disruptive Than Monodisciplinary Research?

Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration

A construction and empirical research of the journal disruption index based on open citation data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About