How Boundary-spanning Paper Sparkles Citation: From Citation Count to Citation Network

Hou, Jianhua; Zheng, Bili; Wang, Dongyi; Zhang, Yang; Chen, Chaomei

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2023.101434

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, all studies concerned with the positional role of a body of research depends by the topological maps of scientific knowledge pioneered by authors as Boyack et al (2005); Leydesdorff and Rafols (2009); Porter and Rafols (2009); Börner et al (2012); Carusi and Bianchi (2020), and the notion of disciplinary position as relevant attribute of IDR primarily concerns dimensions like centrality/periphericity or the density of the close neighbourhood. Indeed, evolutionary theories of knowledge postulate the theory that the growth of IDR is primarily driven by a process tha of filling the most evident gaps in the development of scientific knowledge (Campbell, 2017;Hodgson, 2022;Hou et al, 2023). This immaterial process of that contrast hyper-specialised novelty in research with an integration of the whole scientific knowledge (opposed to a highly local integration aimed to present novel ideas) is the dimension of disciplinary Cohesion.…”

Section: Cohesion and Other Topological Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to measure Interdisciplinary Research? A `systemic' design for the model of measurement

Cantone

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdisciplinary research is defined as a trait of those research activities that integrate different disciplinary traditions with the aim of reaching novel forms of knowledge that are beyond the reach of a singular discipline. From this theory, a plurality of methods has been developed to measure IDR of a body of research. These methods lead to mutually contradicting results. In this review, the most relevant measures of interdisciplinary research are compared under a unified framework articulated in three steps: identification of an available stylisation of bibliometric facts, elicitation of a formula, and definition of an estimator for the collective unit of analysis.In particular, it is discussed how the concept of integration can be measured when the unit of analysis is an atomic and static entity like a paper, as opposed to journals and authors, which are collective and dynamic agents. In the conclusive section, an isometric view is shown that combines different units of analysis and conceptualisations. A pluralistic yet pragmatic approach is advocated for the operational definition of interdisciplinarity.

show abstract

Section: Cohesion and Other Topological Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to measure Interdisciplinary Research? A `systemic' design for the model of measurement

Cantone

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement

Cantone

2024

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdisciplinarity is a polysemous concept with multiple, reasoned and intuitive, interpretations across scholars and policy-makers. Historically, quantifying the interdisciplinarity of research has been challenging due to the variety of methods used to identify metadata, taxonomies, and mathematical formulas. This has resulted in considerable uncertainty about the ability of quantitative models to provide clear insights for policy-making. This study proposes a systemic design, grounded in an advanced literature review, to demonstrate that the quantification of the interdisciplinarity of research can be treated as a process of decision-making in mathematical modelling, where alternatives choices are evaluated based on how closely their mathematical properties align with the theoretical objectives of the research design. The study addresses modeling choices regarding the stylisation of metadata into units of observation, and the operational definition of the conceptual dimensions of interdisciplinarity, presenting both established and novel methods and formulas. The final section discusses advanced topics in modelling the measurement, including a dedicated discussion on the difference in analysing the status of papers versus collective bodies of research; and distinguishing between reflective, formative, and inferential causal models of interdisciplinary research.

show abstract

Research status and future focus on Codonopsis pilosula: A bibliometric analysis of past and present studies

Yang,

Zhang,

et al. 2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How Boundary-spanning Paper Sparkles Citation: From Citation Count to Citation Network

Cited by 6 publications

References 62 publications

How to measure Interdisciplinary Research? A `systemic' design for the model of measurement

How to measure Interdisciplinary Research? A `systemic' design for the model of measurement

How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement

Research status and future focus on Codonopsis pilosula: A bibliometric analysis of past and present studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About