Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of interdisciplinarity in computer sciences: quantification, impact and life trajectory

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The crawling process was completed in August, 2013.

  2. https://academic.microsoft.com/#/faq.

  3. ACP is measured by counting all the citations given by a set of papers and normalizing it by the number of papers in that set.

References

  • 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).

  • 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).

  • Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Goyal, P., Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2015a). On the categorization of scientific citation profiles in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 58(9), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/2701412.

    Article  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.

  • Chakraborty, T., Sikdar, S., Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2014c). Citation interactions among computer science fields: A quantitative route to the rise and fall of scientific research. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • de Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, T. Z. J., Song, Q., & Chiu, D. M. (2014). The academic social network. Scientometrics, 101(1), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1356-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garlaschelli, D., & Loffredo, M. I. (2004). Patterns of link reciprocity in directed networks. Physical Review Letters, 93, 268701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y., Lariviere, V., Macaluso, B., & Robitaille, J. P. (2008). The effects of aging on researchers’ publication andcitation patterns. PLoS ONE, 3, e4048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larivire, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. JASIST, 61(1), 126–131.

    Article  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.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Metzger, N., & Zare, R. N. (1999). Scince policy: Interdisciplinary research—From belief to reality. Science, 283(5402), 642–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H., De Bruin, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51(1), 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(13), 1237–1249. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. (2001a). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 98(2), 404–409.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, R. K., Sinha, S., Kaski, K., & Saramäki, J. (2012). The evolution of interdisciplinarity in physics research. Nature Scientific Reports, 2, 551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan, D., Paul, P. S., Maheswari, U., Nandi, S., & Chakraborty, T. (2017). \(C^3\)-index: A pagerank based multi-faceted metric for authors’ performance measurement. Scientometrics, 110(1), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2168-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinia, E., Van Leeuwen, T., Bruins, E., Van Vuren, H., & Van Raan, A. (2001). Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics, 51(1), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010589300829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Bruins, E. E. W., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayama, H., & Akaishi, J. (2012). Characterizing interdisciplinarity of researchers and research topics using web search engines. CoRR, arXiv:1201.3592.

  • Schmidt, J. C. (2008). Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. Poiesis & Praxis, 5(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Urata, H. (1990). Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan. Scientometrics, 18(3–4), 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrettas, G., & Sanderson, M. (2015). Conferences versus journals in computer science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2674–2684. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23349.

    Article  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.

  • Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research: A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi (IIIT-D), New Delhi, India

    Tanmoy Chakraborty

Authors
  1. Tanmoy Chakraborty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanmoy Chakraborty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chakraborty, T. Role of interdisciplinarity in computer sciences: quantification, impact and life trajectory. Scientometrics 114, 1011–1029 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2628-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2628-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation