, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 347–362 | Cite as

Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science

  • Ed J. Rinia
  • Thed N. van Leeuwen
  • Eppo E. W. Bruins
  • Hendrik G. van Vuren
  • Anthony F. J. van Raan


In this paper we report on the results of an exploratory study of knowledge exchange between disciplines and subfields of science, based on bibliometric methods. The goal of this analysis is twofold. Firstly, we consider knowledge exchange between disciplines at a global level, by analysing cross-disciplinary citations in journal articles, based on the world publication output in 1999. Among others a central position of the Basic Life Sciences within the Life Sciences and of Physics within the Exact Sciences is shown. Limitations of analyses of interdisciplinary impact at the journal level are discussed. A second topic is a discussion of measures which may be used to quantify the rate of knowledge transfer between fields and the importance of work in a given field or for other disciplines. Two measures are applied, which appear to be proper indicators of impact of research on other fields. These indicators of interdisciplinary impact may be applied at other institutional levels as well.


Knowledge Transfer Science Citation Index Publication Share Bibliometric Method Interdisciplinary Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Casimir, H. B. G., Haphazard Reality: Half a Century of Science, New York: Harper and Row, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mansfield, E., Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings, Research Policy, 26 (7–8) (1998) 773–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salter, A. J., B. R. Martin, The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review, Research Policy, 30 (3) (2001) 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Narin, F., K. S. Hamilton, D. OLIVASTRO, The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science, Research Policy, 26 (3) (1997) 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le Pair, C., Switching between academic disciplines in universities in the Netherlands, Scientometrics, 2 (1980) 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hargens, L. L., Migration Patterns of U.S. Ph.D.s among disciplines and specialties, Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Porter, A. L., D. E. Chubin, An indicator of cross-disciplinary research, Scientometrics 8 (3—4) (1985) 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urata, H., Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan, Scientometrics, 18 (3–4) (1990) 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steele, T. W., J. C. Stier, The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences: a forestry case study, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(5) (2000) 478–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morillo, F., M. Bordons, I. Gomez, An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics, 51(1) (2001) 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pierce, S. J., Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of information transfer, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3) (1999) 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Science Board, Science & Engineering Indicators — 2000, Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation, 2000, pp. 6–45.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kostoff, R. N., J. A. del Rio, The impact of physics research, Physics World, 14(6) (2001) 47–51.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rinia, E. J., Th. n. van Leeuwen, E. E. W. Bruins, H. G. van Vuren, A. F. J. Van Raan, Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange, Scientometrics, 51(1) (2001) 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Egghe, L., R. Rousseau, M. Yitzaki, The ‘own-language preference’: measures of ‘relative language self-citation’, Scientometrics, 45 (1999) 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egghe, L., R. Rousseau, Partial orders and measures for language preferences, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (12) (2000) 1123–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davidse, R. J., A. F. J. Van Raan, Out of particles: Impact of CERN, DESY and SLAC research to fields other than physics, Scientometrics, 40 (1997) 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publisher/Akadémiai Kiadó 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ed J. Rinia
    • 1
  • Thed N. van Leeuwen
    • 2
  • Eppo E. W. Bruins
    • 3
  • Hendrik G. van Vuren
    • 3
  • Anthony F. J. van Raan
    • 2
  1. 1.Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden UniversityLeiden(The Netherlands)
  3. 3.Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM)Utrecht(The Netherlands)

Personalised recommendations