-
Towards indicating interdisciplinarity: Characterizing interdisciplinary knowledge flow
Authors:
Hongyu Zhou,
Raf Guns,
Tim C. E. Engels
Abstract:
This study contributes to the recent discussions on indicating interdisciplinarity, i.e., going beyond catch-all metrics of interdisciplinarity. We propose a contextual framework to improve the granularity and usability of the existing methodology for interdisciplinary knowledge flow (IKF) in which scientific disciplines import and export knowledge from/to other disciplines. To characterize the kn…
▽ More
This study contributes to the recent discussions on indicating interdisciplinarity, i.e., going beyond catch-all metrics of interdisciplinarity. We propose a contextual framework to improve the granularity and usability of the existing methodology for interdisciplinary knowledge flow (IKF) in which scientific disciplines import and export knowledge from/to other disciplines. To characterize the knowledge exchange between disciplines, we recognize three aspects of IKF under this framework, namely, broadness, intensity, and homogeneity. We show how to utilize them to uncover different forms of interdisciplinarity, especially between disciplines with the largest volume of IKF. We apply this framework in two use cases, one at the level of disciplines and one at the level of journals, to show how it can offer a more holistic and detailed viewpoint on the interdisciplinarity of scientific entities than aggregated and context-unaware indicators. We further compare our proposed framework, an indicating process, with established indicators and discuss how such information tools on interdisciplinarity can assist science policy practices such as performance-based research funding systems and panel-based peer review processes.
△ Less
Submitted 17 July, 2023; v1 submitted 21 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.
-
Journal article publishing in the social sciences and humanities: a comparison of Web of Science coverage for five European countries
Authors:
Michal Petr,
Tim C. E. Engels,
Emanuel Kulczycki,
Marta Duskova,
Raf Guns,
Monika Sieberova,
Gunnar Sivertsen
Abstract:
This study compares publication pattern dynamics in the social sciences and humanities in five European countries. Three are Central and Eastern European countries that share a similar cultural and political heritage (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland). The other two are Flanders (Belgium) and Norway, representing Western Europe and the Nordics, respectively. We analysed 449,409 publication…
▽ More
This study compares publication pattern dynamics in the social sciences and humanities in five European countries. Three are Central and Eastern European countries that share a similar cultural and political heritage (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland). The other two are Flanders (Belgium) and Norway, representing Western Europe and the Nordics, respectively. We analysed 449,409 publications from 2013-2016 and found that, despite persisting differences between the two groups of countries across all disciplines, publication patterns in the Central and Eastern European countries are becoming more similar to those in their Western and Nordic counterparts. Articles from the Central and Eastern European countries are increasingly published in journals indexed in Web of Science and also in journals with the highest citation impacts. There are, however, clear differences between social science and humanities disciplines, which need to be considered in research evaluation and science policy.
△ Less
Submitted 1 October, 2020; v1 submitted 12 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Corrigendum to "Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: a quantitative approach based on barycenters" [Journal of Informetrics 9(4) (2015) 704-721]
Authors:
A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman,
Raf Guns,
Ronald Rousseaub,
Tim C. E. Engels
Abstract:
In Rahman, Guns, Rousseau, and Engels (2015) we described several approaches to determine the cognitive distance between two units. One of these approaches was based on what we called barycenters in N dimensions. This note corrects this terminology and introduces the more adequate term 'similarity-adapted publication vectors'.
In Rahman, Guns, Rousseau, and Engels (2015) we described several approaches to determine the cognitive distance between two units. One of these approaches was based on what we called barycenters in N dimensions. This note corrects this terminology and introduces the more adequate term 'similarity-adapted publication vectors'.
△ Less
Submitted 22 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
-
Measuring the match between evaluators and evaluees: Cognitive distances between panel members and research groups at the journal level
Authors:
A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman,
Raf Guns,
Loet Leydesdorff,
Tim C. E. Engels
Abstract:
When research groups are evaluated by an expert panel, it is an open question how one can determine the match between panel and research groups. In this paper, we outline two quantitative approaches that determine the cognitive distance between evaluators and evaluees, based on the journals they have published in. We use example data from four research evaluations carried out between 2009 and 2014…
▽ More
When research groups are evaluated by an expert panel, it is an open question how one can determine the match between panel and research groups. In this paper, we outline two quantitative approaches that determine the cognitive distance between evaluators and evaluees, based on the journals they have published in. We use example data from four research evaluations carried out between 2009 and 2014 at the University of Antwerp.
While the barycenter approach is based on a journal map, the similarity-adapted publication vector (SAPV) approach is based on the full journal similarity matrix. Both approaches determine an entity's profile based on the journals in which it has published. Subsequently, we determine the Euclidean distance between the barycenter or SAPV profiles of two entities as an indicator of the cognitive distance between them. Using a bootstrapping approach, we determine confidence intervals for these distances. As such, the present article constitutes a refinement of a previous proposal that operates on the level of Web of Science subject categories.
△ Less
Submitted 22 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
-
A note and a correction on measuring cognitive distance in multiple dimensions
Authors:
Ronald Rousseau,
A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman,
Raf Guns,
Tim C. E. Engels
Abstract:
In a previous article (Rahman, Guns, Rousseau, and Engels, 2015) we described several approaches to determine the cognitive distance between two units. One of these approaches was based on what we called barycenters in N dimensions. The present note corrects this terminology and introduces the more adequate term 'similarity-adapted publication vectors'. Furthermore, we correct an error in normaliz…
▽ More
In a previous article (Rahman, Guns, Rousseau, and Engels, 2015) we described several approaches to determine the cognitive distance between two units. One of these approaches was based on what we called barycenters in N dimensions. The present note corrects this terminology and introduces the more adequate term 'similarity-adapted publication vectors'. Furthermore, we correct an error in normalization and explain the importance of scale invariance in determining cognitive distance. We also consider weighted cosine similarity as an alternative approach to determine cognitive (dis)similarity. Overall, we find that the three approaches (distance between barycenters, distance between similarity-adapted publication vectors, and weighted cosine similarity) yield very similar results.
△ Less
Submitted 15 July, 2016; v1 submitted 16 February, 2016;
originally announced February 2016.
