Role of interdisciplinarity in computer sciences: quantification, impact and life trajectory
- 344 Downloads
The tremendous advances in computer science in the last few decades have provided the platform to address and solve complex problems using interdisciplinary research. In this paper, we investigate how the extent of interdisciplinarity in computer science domain (which is further divided into 24 research fields) has changed over the last 50 years. To this end, we collect a massive bibliographic dataset with rich metadata information. We start with quantifying interdisciplinarity of a field in terms of the diversity of topics and citations. We then analyze the effect of interdisciplinary research on the scientific impact of individual fields and observe that highly disciplinary and highly interdisciplinary papers in general have a low scientific impact; remarkably those that are able to strike a balance between the two extremes eventually land up having the highest impact. Further, we study the reciprocity among fields through citation interactions and notice that links from one field to related and citation-intensive fields (fields producing large number of citations) are reciprocated heavily. A systematic analysis of the citation interactions reveals the life trajectory of a research field, which generally undergoes three phases—a growing phase, a matured phase and an interdisciplinary phase. The combination of metrics and empirical observations presented here provides general benchmarks for future studies of interdisciplinary research activities in other domains of science.
KeywordsInterdisciplinarity Computer science Reciprocity Life cycle
- Carayol, N., & Thi, T. U. N. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154405781776355. http://rev.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/70.abstract.
- Chakraborty, T., Ganguly, N. & Mukherjee, A. (2014a). Rising popularity of interdisciplinary research: An analysis of citation networks. In Sixth international conference on communication systems and networks (COMSNETS), Bangalore, India (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
- Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Goyal, P., Ganguly, N. & Mukherjee, A. (2014b). Towards a stratified learning approach to predict future citation counts. In ACM/IEEE-CS JCDL, Piscataway, NJ, USA (pp. 351–360).Google Scholar
- Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Reddy, M.D., Kumar, S., Ganguly, N. & Mukherjee, A. (2013). Automatic classification and analysis of interdisciplinary fields in computer sciences. In SocialCom (pp. 180–187). IEEE. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/socialcom/socialcom2013.html#0002KRKGM13.
- Chakraborty, T., Modani, N., Narayanam, R. & Nagar, S. (2015b). Discern: A diversified citation recommendation system for scientific queries. In 2015 IEEE 31st international conference on data engineering (pp. 555–566). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2015.7113314.
- Chin, W. S., Juan, Y. C., Zhuang, Y., Wu, F., Tung, H. Y., Yu, T., et al. (2013). Effective string processing and matching for author disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 2013 KDD cup 2013 workshop, KDD Cup ’13 (pp. 7:1–7:9). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517288.2517295.
- Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
- Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. JASIST, 59(12), 1973–1984. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/jasis/jasis59.html#LevittT08.
- Li, C. L., Su, Y. C., Lin, T. W., Tsai, C. H., Chang, W. C., Huang, K. H., et al. (2013). Combination of feature engineering and ranking models for paper-author identification in kdd cup 2013. In Proceedings of the 2013 KDD cup 2013 workshop, KDD Cup ’13 (pp. 2:1–2:7). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517288.2517290.
- Liu, J., Lei, K. H., Liu, J. Y., Wang, C., & Han, J. (2013). Ranking-based name matching for author disambiguation in bibliographic data. In Proceedings of the 2013 KDD cup 2013 workshop, KDD Cup ’13 (pp. 8:1–8:8). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517288.2517296.
- Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3–4), 161–176. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/scientometrics/scientometrics8.html#PorterC85.
- Sayama, H., & Akaishi, J. (2012). Characterizing interdisciplinarity of researchers and research topics using web search engines. CoRR, arXiv:1201.3592.
- Singh, M., Chakraborty, T., Mukherjee, A., & Goyal, P. (2015). Confassist: A conflict resolution framework for assisting the categorization of computer science conferences. In ACM/IEEE-CS JCDL (pp. 257–258). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Sinha, A., Shen, Z., Song, Y., Ma, H., Eide, D., Hsu, B. J. P., et al. (2015). An overview of microsoft academic service (MAS) and applications. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’15 companion (pp. 243–246). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2740908.2742839.
- Steele, T. W., & Stier, J. C. (2000). The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences: A forestry case study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 51(5), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:5%3c476::AID-ASI8%3e3.3.CO;2-7.Google Scholar
- Wade, A. D., Wang, K., Sun, Y., & Gulli, A. (2016). Wsdm cup 2016: Entity ranking challenge. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, WSDM ’16 (pp. 593–594). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2835776.2855119.
- Wallace, M. L., Lariviére, V., & Gingras, Y. (2009). Modeling a century of citation distributions. Journal of Informetrics 3(4), 296–303. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/joi/joi3.html#WallaceLG09.