Abstract
The paper investigates interdisciplinarity of scientific fields based on graph of collaboration between the researchers. A new measure for interdisciplinarity is proposed that takes into account graph content and structure. Similarity between science categories is estimated based on text similarity between their descriptions. The proposed new measure is applied in exploratory analysis of research community in Slovenia. We found that Biotechnology and Natural sciences are the most interdisciplinary in their publications and collaborations on research projects. In addition evolution of interdisciplinarity of scientific fields in Slovenia is observed, showing that over the last decade interdisciplinarity increases the fastest in Medical sciences mainly due to collaborations with Natural and Technical sciences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The list of keywords is available at: http://scienceatlas.ijs.si/interdisciplinarity/keywords.pdf.
References
Adams, J., Jackson, L., & Marshall, S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Leeds: Evidence.
Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 35–41.
Grupp, H. (1990). The concept of entropy in scientometrics and innovation research. Scientometrics, 18, 219–239.
Klein, T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplines, and interdisciplinarities. Chralottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2012). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90, 631–647.
Leydesdorff, L. (2007a). “Betweenness Centrality” as an Indicator of the “Interdisciplinarity” of Scientific Journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1327–1336.
Leydesdorff, L. (2007b). Mapping Interdisciplinarity at the Interfaces between the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 71, 391–405.
Mali, F., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2010). Co-authoring trends and collaboration patterns in the Slovenian sociological community. Corvinus. Journal of sociology and social policy, 1, 29–50.
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 1237–1249.
Porter, A., Cohen, A., Roessner, D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring research interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72, 117–147.
Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81, 719–745.
Porter, A. L., Roessner, D. J., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research evaluation, 17, 273–282.
Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity measures and network centralities as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82, 263–287.
Rao, R. (1982). Diversity and Dissimilarity Coefficients: A Unified Approach. Theoretical population biology, 21, 24–43.
Rosenfield, P. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Sciences and Medicine, 35, 1343–1357.
Salton, G., & McGill, M. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425–465.
Stirling, A. (1998). On the Economics and Analysis of Diversity. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, 28, 1.
Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity. J. R. Soc. Interface, 4, 707–719.
Stokols, D., Juliana, F., Jennifer, G., Richard, H., Kimari, P., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Jennifer, U., Paula, P., Melissa, A. C., Suzanne, M. C., Glen, M., & William, T. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 21–39.
The National Academies. (2005). Facilitatnig interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342, 468–472.
van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary: Concepts and Indicators. Paper for the 8th conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics—ISSI2001. Sydney. Australia.
Wagner, C., Roessner, D., Bobb, K., Klein, J., Boyack, K., Keyton, J., et al. (2010). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of informetrics, 5, 14–26.
Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahany, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005). Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63, 373–401.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency, the IST Programme of the EC under XLike (ICT-STREP-288342).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karlovčec, M., Mladenić, D. Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring. Scientometrics 102, 433–454 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1355-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1355-y