Skip to main content

Few research fields play major role in interdisciplinary grant success


Interdisciplinary research is vital in addressing complex real-world problems. To understand how the scientific workforce is being engaged in the interdisciplinary research, it is important to track the involvement of different research fields over time and the grants that drive the research endeavour. Unfortunately, there has been very little work in this understanding of interdisciplinary research and grant success. In this paper, we analysed the contribution of different disciplines within multidisciplinary research that secured grants. We tracked these contributions over a 10-year period to understand how different research fields evolved over time and played roles in interdisciplinary grant success. We followed a basic statistical approach and proposed a network-based approach to understand relative participation of different disciplines. We found disparities within different disciplines which showed that only few research fields contributed more in the interdisciplinary research grant success.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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


  • Anonymous (2015). Why interdisciplinary research matters. Nature, 525(7569), 305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Research Council (2016). Discovery program. Accessed March 13, 2018.

  • Australian Research Council (2017). Linkage program Accessed March 13, 2018.

  • Australian Research Council (2018a). ARC statement of support for interdisciplinary research. Accessed May 5, 2018.

  • Australian Research Council (2018b). Classification codesFoR, RFCD, SEO and ANZSIC codes. Accessed March 13, 2018.

  • Australian Research Council (2018c). Excellence in Research for Australia. Accessed March 13, 2018.

  • Australian Research Council (2018d). Grants dataset. Accessed May 5, 2018.

  • Barthel, R., & Seidl, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences: Status and trends exemplified in groundwater research. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0170754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, K. (2006). Drilling into R&D expenditures: Chemistry research in perspective. Chemistry in Australia, 73(5), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceriani, L., & Verme, P. (2012). The origins of the Gini index: extracts from Variabilità e Mutabilità (1912) by Corrado Gini. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 10(3), 421–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, F. A. (2000). Measurement of inequality. Handbook of income Distribution, 1, 87–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagum, C. (1980). The generation and distribution of income, the Lorentz curve and the Gini ratio. Economie Appliquée, 33(2), 327–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gini, C. (1997). Concentration and dependency ratios. Rivista di politica economica, 87, 769–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hook, D. & Szomszor, M. (2016). Examining Implications of Brexit for the UK Research BaseAn analysis of the UK’s competitive research funding. Digital Research Reports, May.

  • Khan, A., et al. (2016). Longitudinal trends in global obesity research and collaboration: A review using bibliometric metadata. Obesity Reviews, 17, 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S116–S123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. C. (1999). Probabilistic analysis of global performances of diagnostic tests: interpreting the Lorenz curve-based summary measures. Statistics in Medicine, 18(4), 455–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, G. R., et al. (2012). Scientific Collaboration in Research Networks: A Quantification Method by Using Gini Coefficient. IJCSA, 9(2), 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, A., & Zhao, L. (2017). University library strategy development: A conceptual model of researcher performance to inform service delivery. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23, 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Sánchez, F. & Gray, K. (2014). Recognition of health informatics in Australian standard classifications for research, occupation and education. In HIC.

  • Osipov, I. A., et al. (2016). International arctic research: Analyzing global funding trends. A pilot report. Technical Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). Bibliometric mapping of the computational intelligence field. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(05), 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., et al. (2013). Experimental comparison of representation methods and distance measures for time series data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 26(2), 275–309.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2017). The inclusive growth and development report. Cologny: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, B., et al. (2012). Tourism knowledge domains: A keyword analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(4), 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



AK conducts majority of the data analysis and leads the writing of the manuscript. NC contributes in data analysis and writing. SU conceptualises the research problem, and contributes both in data analysis and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahadat Uddin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, A., Choudhury, N. & Uddin, S. Few research fields play major role in interdisciplinary grant success. Scientometrics 119, 237–246 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Interdisciplinary research
  • Field of research code
  • Grant success