Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A set of scientometric indicators of interdisciplinary links between advancing fields of biomedicine is suggested. Twenty jounals listed in theJCR of theSCI for 1988 are analyzed. An index of interdisciplinarity for a given journal is calculated as the sum of ratios between the numbers of journals from all other disciplines (except for general-scientific and miscellaneous journals) and from the same discipline cited by that journal or citing it, and of ratios between the numbers of citations to and by these journals. Some interdisciplinary patterns of 20 andrology journal articles are scientometrically assessed, too. The combined usage of this method with co-classification and co-citation methodology can optimize interdisciplinarity evaluation and promotion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

And:

Andrology

Bioc:

Biochemistry

Biol:

Biology

Der:

Dermatology

Endo:

Endrocrinology

Imm:

Immunology

Mis:

Miscellaneous

Mor:

Morphology

Obst:

Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Onc:

Oncology

Oth:

Other

Phys:

Physiology

Repr:

Reproduction

Urol:

Urology

References

  1. M. Callon, J.-P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, S. Bauin, From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis,Social Science Information, 22 (1983) 191–123.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Rip, J.-P. Courtial, Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics,Scientometrics, 6 (1984) 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. H. Small, E. Sweeney, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations. I. Comparison of methods,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. H. Small, E. Sweeney, E. Greenlee, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations. II. Mapping science,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. A. F. J. Van Raan, H. P. F. Peters, Dynamics of a scientific field analysed by co-subfield structures,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 607–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. R. R. Braam, H. F. Moed, A. F. J. Van Raan, Comparison and combination of co-citation and co-word clustering, In:Science and Technology Indicators: Theis Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies.A. F. J. Van Raan, A. J. Nederhof, H. F. Moed (Eds.), DSWO Press, Leiden 1989, pp. 307–337.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Todorov, Representing a scientific field: A bibliometric approach,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R. J. W. Tijssen, A qantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research.Research Policy, 21 (1992) 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. H. P. F. Peters, D. Hartmann, A. F. J. Van Raan,Monitoring advances in chemical engineering: A multi-database approach, Research report to the Netherlands Technological Research Council (STW), research report SSU-87-01, Science Studies Unit, University of Leiden, Leiden 1987, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Todorov, Co-classification analysis for science mapping: An example from superconductivity, In:Science and Technology Indicators: Their Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies.A. F. J. Van Raan, A. J. Nederhof, H. F. Moed (Eds.), DSWO Press, Leiden 1989, pp. 261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  11. E. C. Engelsman, A. J. F. Van Raan,Mapping of technology: A first exploration of knowledge diffusion amongst fields of technology. Policy studies on technology and economy series No 15, Ministry of Economics Affairs, The Hague, 1991, p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. King, A Review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation,Journal of Information Science, 13 (1987) 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. Vinkler, An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes,Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. E. C. M. Noyons, A. F. J. Van Raan, Monitoring scientific performance in a dynamic perspective, In:Fourth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Performance at the National, Regional and Institutional Level, Antwerp, October 5–7, 1995, Abstracts, pp. 29–32.

  15. D. Tomov, A method for scientometric analysis of international scientific communications,Sotsiologicheski Pregled, (1986) No 7, 67–72 (in Bulgarian).

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Tomov, Z. Nanov, International scientific communications in Morphological Journals. I. Publication activity,Verhandlungen der Anatomischen Gesellschaft, 82 (1989) 1019–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. Tomov, Z. Nanov, International scientific communications in Morphological Journals. II. Reviewing, secondary abstracting and citation analysis,Verhandlungen der Anatomischen Gesellschaft, 82 (1989) 1023–1024.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Tomov, International communication patterns in an interdisciplinary field: Contrast media research, In:Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Rosary College, June 7–10, 1995, Learned Information, Inc., Medford, NJ, Proceedings, p. 697.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Tomov, S. Popova, N. Feschieva, Institutionalization of modern research in an interdisciplinary field: Disability and ageing (Submitted for Publication).

  20. B. Simon, Criteria for evaluating interdisciplinary papers for the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 41 (1993) 1199–1204.

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. J. W. Tijssen,Cartography of science: Scientometric mapping with multidimensional scalling methods, DSWO Press, Leiden 1992, p. 307.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. L. Porter, F. A. Rossini, Interdisciplinary research redefined: Multi-skill, problem-focused research in the STRAP framework,R & D Management, 14 (1984) 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. L. Porter, D. E. Chubin, An indicator of cross-disciplinary research,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. F. W. Lancaster, User education: The next major thrust in information science?Journal of Education for Librarianship, 11 (1970) 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Library and Information Service, Medical University of Varna, 55 Marin Drinov Street, BG-9002, Varna, Bulgaria

    D. T. Tomov

  2. Centre for Medical Information, 1 Sv. Georgi Sofijski Street, BG-1431, Sofia, Bulgaria

    H. G. Mutafov

Authors
  1. D. T. Tomov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. G. Mutafov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tomov, D.T., Mutafov, H.G. Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science. Scientometrics 37, 267–278 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093624

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093624

Keywords

Search

Navigation