Abstract
Current scientometrics and indices are a way to map and evaluate key research topics and researchers’ performance, which facilitate networking and innovations. However, several studies have raised concerns regarding the impact of scientometrics on the development of emerging and interdisciplinary fields.
Algorithms and scientometrics help develop and understand scientific networks, but they would become roadblocks for the participation of early career researchers or scientists working in geographic or epistemological peripheries, like Latin American countries and emerging fields like Science and Religion. Scientometrics would accelerate collaborations or increase the risk of epistemic bubbles where relevant ideas and results are left out.
This study presents an analysis of the role of scientometrics in developing scientific networks within the context of interdisciplinary social research and their limitations for social research evaluation. Focused on the Latin American scientific networks in an emerging field, we propose and test an alternative framework and methodology: the Field Networking Index (FNI). The FNI considers the semantic relationships of published work within an interdisciplinary domain of knowledge and the scholars’ citations and co-authorships, facilitating the identification and mapping of the field’s most relevant research topics and agents. It allows the classification of authors and network hubs based on the importance of their contribution to the study of the field’s critical issues.
This study’s contribution will help develop scientific metrics for funders, policymakers, researchers and universities (especially those interested in emerging fields) to identify, map, and evaluate researchers working in an interdisciplinary field, their interests and theoretical contribution to it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbasi, A. (2016). A longitudinal analysis of link formation on collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 3(10), 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.05.001
Adams, J. (2012). The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), Article 7420. https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a
Aistleitner, M., Kapeller, J., & Steinerberger, S. (2018). The power of scientometrics and the development of economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 52(3), 816–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2018.1498721
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Barabási, A.-L., & Frangos, J. (2014). Linked: how everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. Hachette.
Blidstein, M., & Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M. (2022). Towards a new generic framework for citation network generation and analysis in the humanities. Scientometrics, 127(7), 4275–4297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04438-y
Burdett, M. S. (2017). Assessing the field of science and religion: Advice from the next generation. Zygon®, 52(3), 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12352
Chapple, W., Russon, J.-A., & Ozolina, A. (2020). Disciplinary conversations on sustainability impact: epistemic bubbles and silent spaces. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 21020. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2020.21020abstract
Cheng, Q., Wang, J., Lu, W., Huang, Y., & Bu, Y. (2020). Keyword-citation-keyword network: A new perspective of discipline knowledge structure analysis. Scientometrics, 124(3), 1923–1943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03576-5
Coccia, M., & Bozeman, B. (2016). Allometric models to measure and analyze the evolution of international research collaboration. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1065–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2027-x
Collins, H. M. (1974). The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies, 4(2), 165–185.
D’Este, P., & Robinson-García, N. (2023). Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields. Research Policy, 52(2), 104609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104609
Elsevier. (2017). Snowball Metrics Recipe Book. https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/snowball-metrics-recipe-book
Findlen, P. (2019). Empires of knowledge: Scientific networks in the early modern world. Routledge.
Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy, 20(5), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90072-X
Fuhse, J. A., & Gondal, N. (2022). Networks from culture: Mechanisms of tie-formation follow institutionalized rules in social fields. Social Networks. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.12.005
Goffman, W. (1971). A mathematical method for analyzing the growth of a scientific discipline. JACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/321637.321640
Gunthe, S. S., & Gettu, R. (2022). A new index for assessing faculty research performance in higher educational institutions of emerging economies such as India. Scientometrics, 127(8), 4959–4976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04460-0
Hannigan, T. R., Briggs, A. R., Valadao, R., Seidel, M.-D.L., & Jennings, P. D. (2022). A new tool for policymakers: Mapping cultural possibilities in an emerging AI entrepreneurial ecosystem. Research Policy, 51(9), 104315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104315
Hansen, T. N., Agapitova, N., Holm-Nielsen, L., & Vukmirovic, O. G. (2002). The evolution of science and technology: Latin america and the Caribbean in comparative perspective. Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office. Human Development Department, LCSHD Paper Series No. 80 (p. 103). The World Bank.
Hennemann, S., Rybski, D., & Liefner, I. (2012). The myth of global science collaboration—Collaboration patterns in epistemic communities. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.002
Horowitz, D., & Kamvar, S. D. (2010). The anatomy of a large-scale social search engine. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772735
Huang, Y., Zhu, D., Lv, Q., Porter, A. L., Robinson, D. K. R., & Wang, X. (2017). Early insights on the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI): An overlay map-based bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 111(3), 2041–2057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2349-3
Jelen, T. G., & Lockett, L. A. (2014). Religion, partisanship, and attitudes toward science policy. SAGE Open, 4(1), 2158244013518932. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013518932
Jones, S. H., Catto, R., & Kaden, T. (Eds.). (2019). Science, belief and society: International perspectives on religion Non-Religion and the Public Understanding of Science. University of Bristol Press.
Kok, M. O., & Schuit, A. J. (2012). Contribution mapping: A method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact. Health Research Policy and Systems, 10(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-10-21
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. OUP Oxford.
Le, Q., and Mikolov, T. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 32 (ICML'14). JMLR.org, II–1188–II–1196
Lei, T. E. V. D., Bekebrede, G., & Nikolic, I. (2010). Critical infrastructures: A review from a complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCIS.2010.037454
Leone Sciabolazza, V., Vacca, R., & McCarty, C. (2020). Connecting the dots: Implementing and evaluating a network intervention to foster scientific collaboration and productivity. Social Networks, 61, 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2019.11.003
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003
Lyu, X., & Costas, R. (2021). Studying the characteristics of scientific communities using individual-level bibliometrics: The case of Big Data research. Scientometrics, 126(8), 6965–6987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04034-6
Marginson, S. (2016). The Dream Is Over: The Crisis of Clark Kerr’s California Idea of Higher Education
McGrath, A. E. (2020). Science & religion: A new introduction. Wiley.
Miranda, A. S., & Claudel, M. (2021). Spatial proximity matters: A study on collaboration. PLoS ONE, 16(12), e0259965. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259965
Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An introduction. OUP Oxford.
Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32
Nicholas, D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Xu, J., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Herman, E., & Świgoń, M. (2017). Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information. Learned Publishing, 30(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1087
Norberg, J., & Cumming, G. (2008). Complexity theory for a sustainable future (p. 312). Columbia University Press.
Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., Fortunato, S., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012). World citation and collaboration networks: Uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00902
Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015
Rolston, H. (2006). Science and religion: A critical survey. Templeton Foundation Press.
Saurwein, F. (2019). Emerging structures of control for algorithms on the Internet: Distributed agency—distributed accountability. Routledge.
Schreiber, M. (2018). A skeptical view on the Hirsch index and its predictive power. Physica Scripta, 93(10), 102501. https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/aad959
Siciliano, M. D., Welch, E. W., & Feeney, M. K. (2018). Network exploration and exploitation: Professional network churn and scientific production. Social Networks, 52, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.07.003
Siler, K., & Larivière, V. (2022). Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation. Research Policy, 51(10), 104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608
Silva, I. (2015). Science and religion in latin America: Development and prospects. Zygon, 50(2), 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12176
Solarino, S. (2012). Impact Factor, Citation Index, H-Index: Are researchers still free to choose where and how to publish their results? Annals of Geophysics, 55(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5518
Valencia-Hernandez, D. S., Robledo, S., Pinilla, R., Duque-Méndez, N. D., & Olivar-Tost, G. (2020). SAP Algorithm for Citation Analysis: An improvement to Tree of Science. Ingeniería e Investigación, 40(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.v40n1.77718
van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society. SAGE.
Weismayer, C., & Pezenka, I. (2017). Identifying emerging research fields: A longitudinal latent semantic keyword analysis. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1757–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2555-z
Wilhite, A., Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, S. (2019). The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors. Research Policy, 48(6), 1513–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.003
Acknowledgements
This project/publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the Templeton Religion Trust, awarded via the International Research Network for the Study of Science and Belief in Society (INSBS). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton Religion Trust or the INSBS.
Funding
This work was partially supported by the International Research Network for the Study of Science and Belief in Society Regional Networks Grant Scheme 2021–2023 (Grant number RNF/01/103). The International Research Network for the Study of Science and Belief in Society did not have any role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Rivera, Reynaldo Gustavo; Orellana Fantoni, Carlos; Gálvez, Eunice; Jimenez-Pazmino, Priscilla; Vaca Ruiz, Carmen Karina. The first and second draft of the manuscript were written by Rivera, Reynaldo Gustavo; and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Rivera, R.G., Orellana Fantoni, C., Gálvez, E. et al. Using scientometrics to mapping Latin American research networks in emerging fields: the field networking index. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04970-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04970-z