Can epidemic models describe the diffusion of topics across disciplines?

This paper introduces a new approach to describe the spread of research topics across disciplines using epidemic models. The approach is based on applying individual-based models from mathematical epidemiology to the diffusion of a research topic over a contact network that represents knowledge flows over the map of science—as obtained from citations between ISI Subject Categories. Using research publications on the protein class kinesin as a case study, we report a better fit between model and empirical data when using the citation-based contact network. Incubation periods on the order of 4–15.5 years support the view that, whilst research topics may grow very quickly, they face difficulties to overcome disciplinary boundaries

Can epidemic models describe the diffusion of research topics across disciplines?

This paper introduces a new approach to describe the spread of research topics across disciplines using epidemic models. The approach is based on applying individual-based models from mathematical epidemiology to the diffusion of a research topic over a contact network that represents knowledge flows over the map of science –as obtained from citations between ISI Subject Categories. Using research publications on the protein class kinesin as a case study, we report a better fit between model and empirical data when using the citation-based contact network. Incubation periods on the order of 4 to 15.5 years support the view that, whilst research topics may grow very quickly, they face difficulties to overcome disciplinary boundaries

The Local Emergence and Global Diffusion of Research Technologies: An Exploration of Patterns of Network Formation

Grasping the fruits of "emerging technologies" is an objective of many government priority programs in a knowledge-based and globalizing economy. We use the publication records (in the Science Citation Index) of two emerging technologies to study the mechanisms of diffusion in the case of two innovation trajectories: small interference RNA (siRNA) and nano-crystalline solar cells (NCSC). Methods for analyzing and visualizing geographical and cognitive diffusion are specified as indicators of different dynamics. Geographical diffusion is illustrated with overlays to Google Maps; cognitive diffusion is mapped using an overlay to a map based on the ISI Subject Categories. The evolving geographical networks show both preferential attachment and small-world characteristics. The strength of preferential attachment decreases over time, while the network evolves into an oligopolistic control structure with small-world characteristics. The transition from disciplinary-oriented ("mode-1") to transfer-oriented ("mode-2") research is suggested as the crucial difference in explaining the different rates of diffusion between siRNA and NCSC

Interactive Overlays: A New Method for Generating Global Journal Maps from Web-of-Science Data

Recent advances in methods and techniques enable us to develop an interactive overlay to the global map of science based on aggregated citation relations among the 9,162 journals contained in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index 2009 combined. The resulting mapping is provided by VOSViewer. We first discuss the pros and cons of the various options: cited versus citing, multidimensional scaling versus spring-embedded algorithms, VOSViewer versus Gephi, and the various clustering algorithms and similarity criteria. Our approach focuses on the positions of journals in the multidimensional space spanned by the aggregated journal-journal citations. A number of choices can be left to the user, but we provide default options reflecting our preferences. Some examples are also provided; for example, the potential of using this technique to assess the interdisciplinarity of organizations and/or document sets

How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research. A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management

This study provides quantitative evidence on how the use of journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research in research evaluations. Using publication and citation data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of a number of Innovation Studies units with that of leading Business & Management schools in the UK. On the basis of various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) Innovation Studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary in their research than Business & Management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower-ranked journals; (iii) this results in a more favourable assessment of the performance of Business & Management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. This citation-based analysis challenges the journal ranking-based assessment. In short, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly 'excellence-based' journal rankings exhibit a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how the bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary research organisations, and may result in researchers becoming more compliant with disciplinary authority over time.Comment: 41 pages, 10 figure

How Journal Rankings can suppress Interdisciplinary Research – A Comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management

This study provides new quantitative evidence on how journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research during research evaluations. Using publication data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of innovation studies units with business and management schools in the UK. Using various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) innovation studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary than business and management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools’ rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower ranked journals; (iii) this pattern results in a more favourable performance assessment of the business and management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. Lastly, it demonstrates how a citation-based analysis challenges the ranking-based assessment. In summary, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly ‘excellence-based’ journal rankings have a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how resulting bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary organisations, and may encourage researchers to be more compliant with disciplinary authority.Interdisciplinary, Evaluation, Ranking, Innovation, Bibliometrics, REF

Macro-level Diffusion of a Methodological Knowledge Innovation: Research Synthesis Methods, 1972-2011

Use of research synthesis methods has contributed to changes in research practices. In disciplinary literatures, authors indicate motivations to use the methods include needs to (a) translate research-based knowledge to inform practice and policy decisions, and (b) integrate relatively large and diverse knowledge bases to increase the generality of results and yield novel insights or explanations. This review presents two histories of the diffusion of research synthesis methods: a narrative history based primarily in the health and social sciences; and a bibliometric overview across science broadly. Engagement with research synthesis was strongly correlated with evidence-based practice (EBP), and moderately with review prevalence. The social sciences were most diverse in terms of when research synthesis was adopted. Technology, physical sciences, and math appear to be relatively resistant though fields such as physics may be considered to have used similar methods long ago. Additional research is needed to assess the consequences of adoption within fields, including changes in how researchers engage with knowledge resources. This review demonstrates that particularistic histories of science and technology may be fruitfully augmented with informetrics to examine how disciplinary diffusion narratives coincide with patterns across science more broadly, thereby opening up disciplinary knowledge to inform future research