Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science

Wu, Lingfei; Kittur, Aniket; Youn, Hyejin; Milojević, Staša; Leahey, Erin; Fiore, Stephen M.; Ahn, Yong Yeol

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2022.101290

Cited by 23 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientometrics is a broad term for various approaches which are used to analyse and illustrate relations and structures among researchers, institutions, or scientific knowledge, and to identify and track the dynamics of scientific publications through published ideas, concepts, citations, and keywords (Fortunato et al, 2018). The scientometric analyses of scientific works resulted in many influential works within the research community, including those by Börner et al, (2003), Clauset et al, (2017), Garfield, (1970), Lotka, (1926), Merton, (1968), Price, (1965, Uzzi et al, (2013), Wang et al, (2013), Wu et al, (2022) and Zipf, (1949). One of the most used tools in the scientometric literature are science maps, which spatially and/or temporally represent individual authors, their research groups, or the knowledge concepts they have written about.…”

Section: Scientometric Exploration and Mapping The Knowledge Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Scientometric exploration of responsible innovation: mapping the knowledge landscape

Fain,

Vukašinović,

Kastrin

2024

Proc. Des. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While research into responsible innovation is not new, there have been recent calls to explore responsible product development, across different development stages and pillars of responsible innovation. In this paper, we use scientometric analysis to explore how the responsible innovation knowledge structure has evolved over the past 50 years. Our aim is to explore the relevance of the topic and propose future research orientations. Findings show that responsible innovation is an emerging topic warranting further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Scientometric Exploration and Mapping The Knowledge Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Scientometric exploration of responsible innovation: mapping the knowledge landscape

Fain,

Vukašinović,

Kastrin

2024

Proc. Des. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has also been noted that the hard sciences will show stronger group bias, that is, it is more inclined to refer to other hard disciplines than soft disciplines. On the contrary, soft sciences may have some shared theories, research objectives, methodologies, etc., which leads to more communications among them (Wu et al, 2022).…”

Section: Major Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing structure of cross-disciplinary impact of global disciplines: A perspective of the Hierarchy of Science

Liu,

Mao,

et al. 2024

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Interdisciplinary fields have become the driving force of modern science and a significant source of scientific innovation. However, there is still a paucity of analysis about the essential characteristics of disciplines’ cross-disciplinary impact. Design/methodology/approach In this study, we define cross-disciplinary impact on one discipline as its impact to other disciplines, and refer to a three-dimensional framework of variety-balance-disparity to characterize the structure of cross-disciplinary impact. The variety of cross-disciplinary impact of the discipline was defined as the proportion of the high cross-disciplinary impact publications, and the balance and disparity of cross-disciplinary impact were measured as well. To demonstrate the cross-disciplinary impact of the disciplines in science, we chose Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) as the data source, and investigated the relationship between disciplines’ cross-disciplinary impact and their positions in the Hierarchy of Science (HOS). Findings Analytical results show that there is a significant correlation between the ranking of cross-disciplinary impact and the HOS structure, and that the discipline exerts a greater cross-disciplinary impact on its neighboring disciplines. Several bibliometric features that measure the hardness of a discipline, including the number of references, the number of cited disciplines, the citation distribution, and the Price index have a significant positive effect on the variety of cross-disciplinary impact. The number of references, the number of cited disciplines, and the citation distribution have significant positive and negative effects on balance and disparity, respectively. It is concluded that the less hard the discipline, the greater the cross-disciplinary impact, the higher balance and the lower disparity of cross-disciplinary impact. Research limitations In the empirical analysis of HOS, we only included five broad disciplines. This study also has some biases caused by the data source and applied regression models. Practical implications This study contributes to the formulation of discipline-specific policies and promotes the growth of interdisciplinary research, as well as offering fresh insights for predicting the cross-disciplinary impact of disciplines. Originality/value This study provides a new perspective to properly understand the mechanisms of cross-disciplinary impact and disciplinary integration.

show abstract

“…If we may paraphrase Ebbinghaus' famous statement, we could say that the field of scientometrics has a long past but a short history [7]. The study of scientific knowledge itself has been the subject of many famous works with great impact on the research community, including contributions by Lotka [8], Zipf [9], Price [10], Merton [11], Garfield [12], and later by Borner [13], Uzzi [14], Wang [15], Clauset [5], and Milojević [16]. Formally, scientometrics is an umbrella term for a set of approaches that aim to describe and understand the (relational) structure between researchers, their institutions, and scientific knowledge-operationalized through ideas, concepts, citations, and keywords-in order to identify and track the driving mechanisms of science [6].…”

Section: Background and Related Work 21 Science Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Knowledge Landscape of Escherichia coli Research: A Scientometric Overview

Kastrin¹,

Erjavec²

2023

Escherichia Coli - Old and New Insights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Escherichia coli (E. coli) has the hallmark of being the most extensively studied organism. This is shown by the thousands of articles published since its discovery by T. Escherich in 1885. On the other hand, very little is known about the intellectual landscape in E. coli research. For example, how the trend of publications on E. coli has evolved over time and which scientific topics have been the focus of interest for researchers. In this chapter, we present the results of a large-scale scientometric analysis of about 100,000 bibliographic records from PubMed over the period 1981–2021. To examine the evolution of research topics over time, we divided the dataset into four intervals of equal width. We created co-occurrence networks from keywords indexed in the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary and systematically examined the structure and evolution of scientific knowledge about E. coli. The extracted research topics were visualized in strategic diagrams and qualitatively characterized in terms of their maturity and cohesion.

show abstract

Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science

Cited by 23 publications

References 110 publications

Scientometric exploration of responsible innovation: mapping the knowledge landscape

Scientometric exploration of responsible innovation: mapping the knowledge landscape

Characterizing structure of cross-disciplinary impact of global disciplines: A perspective of the Hierarchy of Science

Exploring the Knowledge Landscape of Escherichia coli Research: A Scientometric Overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About