Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is interdisciplinarity more likely to produce novel or disruptive research?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although many studies suggest that interdisciplinary research fosters creativity and breakthroughs, there has been no quantitative study to confirm this belief. In recent years, several indicators have been developed to measure novelty or disruption in research. Compared with the citation impact, this type of indicator can more directly characterize research quality and contribution. Based on the F1000 Prime database and Scopus datasets accessed via ICSR Lab, F1000 novelty tags and two disruption indices (DI1 and DI5) were used in this study for the assessment of research quality and contribution, and it was explored whether interdisciplinarity is more likely to produce novel or disruptive research. Interestingly, DI1 and DI5 exhibit different relationships with F1000 novelty tags; the reason for this may be that DI5 highlights disruptive research within a given discipline and amplifies the disruptive signal within that discipline. Furthermore, it is found that interdisciplinarity (RS and LCDiv) is positively associated with F1000 novelty tags and the disruption indices (DI1 and DI5). As a result, it is demonstrated that interdisciplinarity helps to produce novel or disruptive research.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J., Jackson, L., & Marshall, S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  • Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, É., Beauchesne O. H., & J. Caruso, J. (2011). Towards a Multilingual, Comprehensive and Open Scientific Journal Ontology. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Durban, South Africa.

  • Arthur, W. B. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What it Is and How it Evolves. New York, Free Press.

  • Bordons, M., Morillo, F., & Gómez, I. (2005). Analysis of cross-disciplinary research through bibliometric tools. In M. Bordons, F. Morillo, & I. Gómez (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 437–456). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 262–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Devarakonda, S., Tekles, A., & Chacko, G. (2020). Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1242–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Tekles, A. (2021). Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Tekles, A., Zhang, H. H., & Ye, F. Y. (2019). Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data. Journal of Informetrics, 13(4), 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. & R. Klavans (2014). Atypical combinations are confounded by disciplinary effects. 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden, The Netherlands

  • Bu, Y., Waltman, L., & Huang, Y. (2021). A multi-dimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 155–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., Llopis, O., & Lahatte, A. (2016). Capturing scientific novelty through paper keyword combinations. Proceedings of the 21 ST International Conference on science and technology indicator. València, Spain

  • Cassi, L., Champeimont, R., Mescheba, W., & de Turckheim, E. (2017). Analysing institutions interdisciplinarity by extensive use of rao-stirling diversity index. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Arsenault, C., & Larivière, V. (2015). Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary? Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 1034–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, M., Iori, M., Montobbio, F., & Sinatra, R. (2020). New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity. Research Policy, 49(7), 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Science, 63(3), 791–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooch, D., Vasalou, A., & Benton, L. (2017). Impact in interdisciplinary and cross-sector research: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, Y. S., & Hartley, J. (2017). Sleeping beauties in psychology. Scientometrics, 110(1), 301–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R. (2009). A path-dependent perspective on institutional and organizational factors shaping major scientific discoveries. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, science, and institutional change (pp. 423–442). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, D., She, M. Y., Ye, L. F., & Wang, Z. W. (2021). The more the merrier? Inventor team size, diversity, and innovation quality. Science and Public Policy, 48(4), 508–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, Q., Ferrara, E., Radicchi, F., & Flammini, A. (2015). Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachance, C., & Lariviere, V. (2014). On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 863–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2014). Measuring interdisciplinarity. In V. Larivière & Y. Gingras (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 187–200). MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Börner, K. (2015). Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0122565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E., Lee, J., & Funk, R. J. (2023). What types of novelty are most disruptive? American Sociological Review, 88(3), 562–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44(3), 684–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinster, T., & Cobbold, C. A. (2012). Measuring diversity: The importance of species similarity. Ecology, 93(3), 477–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1973–1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2009). The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, 78(1), 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2018). Diversity and interdisciplinarity: How can one distinguish and recombine disparity, variety, and balance? Scientometrics, 116(3), 2113–2121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Alkemade, F., Heimeriks, G., & Hoekstra, R. (2015). Patents as instruments for exploring innovation dynamics: Geographic and technological perspectives on “photovoltaic cells.” Scientometrics, 102(1), 629–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2021). Disruption indices and their calculation using web-of-science data: Indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics? Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Rafols, I., & Chen, C. (2013). Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2573–2586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2019a). Diversity measurement: Steps towards the measurement of interdisciplinarity? Journal of Informetrics, 13(3), 904–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2019b). Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyu, D. Q., Gong, K. L., Ruan, X. M., Cheng, Y., & Li, J. (2021). Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03757-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, C., Sun, J. J., Pei, L., & Ding, Y. (2016). Measuring delayed recognition for papers: Uneven weighted summation and total citations. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1153–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, Md. C. C., & Danowitz, M. A. (2016). Becoming an interdisciplinary scientist: an analysis of students’ experiences in three computer science doctoral programmes. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(4), 448–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugabushaka, A.-M., Kyriakou, A., & Papazoglou, T. (2016). Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: The potential of the Leinster-Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity. Scientometrics, 107(2), 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, R. (2022). Diversity and interdisciplinarity: Should variety, balance and disparity be combined as a product or better as a sum? An information-theoretical and statistical estimation approach. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04336-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponomarev, I. V., Lawton, B. K., Williams, D. E., & Schnell, J. D. (2014a). Breakthrough paper indicator 2.0: Can geographical diversity and interdisciplinarity improve the accuracy of outstanding papers prediction? Scientometrics, 100(3), 755–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomarev, I. V., Williams, D. E., Hackett, C. J., Schnell, J. D., & Haak, L. L. (2014b). Predicting highly cited papers: A method for early detection of candidate breakthroughs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3–4), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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. J., Leeuwen, T. N. V., Bruins, E. E. W., Vuren, H. G. V., & Raan, A. F. J. V. (2001). Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics, 51, 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinia, E. J. (2007). Measurement and evaluation of interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer. PhD, Leiden University.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibayama, S., & Wang, J. (2020). Measuring originality in science. Scientometrics, 122(1), 409–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 4(15), 707–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references? Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 906–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin, S., & Khan, A. (2016). The impact of author-selected keywords on citation counts. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1166–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden, R. (2015). Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature, 525(7569), 306–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2016). Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: Effects of tie configuration. Research Policy, 45(1), 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., & Schneider, J. W. (2020). Consistency and validity of interdisciplinarity measures. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 239–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warman, L., Bradford, M. G., & Moles, A. T. (2013). A broad approach to abrupt boundaries: looking beyond the boundary at soil attributes within and across tropical vegetation types. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2016). Effects of relative team size on teams with innovative tasks: An understaffing theory perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(4), 324–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winnink, J. J., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2015). Early stage identification of breakthroughs at the interface of science and technology: Lessons drawn from a landmark publication. Scientometrics, 102(1), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y., Tian, S. W., & Zhang, J. J. (2020). The impact of a paper’s new combinations and new components on its citation. Scientometrics, 122(2), 895–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & D’Este, P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0135095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yong, K., Sauer, S. J., & Mannix, E. A. (2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45(3), 266–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glänzel, W. (2016). Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1257–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author acknowledges support from the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 20BTQ083) and the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72174016)

Funding

This work was funded by National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 20BTQ083).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chinese Academy of Science and Education Evaluation (CASEE), Hangzhou Dianzi University, Xiasha, Hangzhou, 310018, Zhejiang, China

    Shiji Chen

  2. School of Management, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Xiasha, Hangzhou, 310018, Zhejiang, China

    Yanan Guo & Yanhui Song

  3. International Center for the Study of Research, Elsevier, No.1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing, 100738, China

    Alvin Shijie Ding

  4. École de Bibliothéconomie et Des Sciences de L’information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada, H3C 3J7

    Shiji Chen

Authors
  1. Shiji Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanan Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alvin Shijie Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanhui Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanhui Song.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, S., Guo, Y., Ding, A.S. et al. Is interdisciplinarity more likely to produce novel or disruptive research?. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04981-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04981-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation