Complex Systems Science: Dreams of Universality, Reality of Interdisciplinarity

Using a large database (~ 215 000 records) of relevant articles, we empirically study the "complex systems" field and its claims to find universal principles applying to systems in general. The study of references shared by the papers allows us to obtain a global point of view on the structure of this highly interdisciplinary field. We show that its overall coherence does not arise from a universal theory but instead from computational techniques and fruitful adaptations of the idea of self-organization to specific systems. We also find that communication between different disciplines goes through specific "trading zones", ie sub-communities that create an interface around specific tools (a DNA microchip) or concepts (a network).Comment: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2012) 10.1002/asi.2264

Modeling and Analysis of Scholar Mobility on Scientific Landscape

Scientific literature till date can be thought of as a partially revealed landscape, where scholars continue to unveil hidden knowledge by exploring novel research topics. How do scholars explore the scientific landscape , i.e., choose research topics to work on? We propose an agent-based model of topic mobility behavior where scholars migrate across research topics on the space of science following different strategies, seeking different utilities. We use this model to study whether strategies widely used in current scientific community can provide a balance between individual scientific success and the efficiency and diversity of the whole academic society. Through extensive simulations, we provide insights into the roles of different strategies, such as choosing topics according to research potential or the popularity. Our model provides a conceptual framework and a computational approach to analyze scholars' behavior and its impact on scientific production. We also discuss how such an agent-based modeling approach can be integrated with big real-world scholarly data.Comment: To appear in BigScholar, WWW 201

Quantifying the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and fields

There is an overall perception of increased interdisciplinarity in science, but this is difficult to confirm quantitatively owing to the lack of adequate methods to evaluate subjective phenomena. This is no different from the difficulties in establishing quantitative relationships in human and social sciences. In this paper we quantified the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and science fields by using an entropy measurement based on the diversity of the subject categories of journals citing a specific journal. The methodology consisted in building citation networks using the Journal Citation Reports database, in which the nodes were journals and edges were established based on citations among journals. The overall network for the 11-year period (1999-2009) studied was small-world and scale free with regard to the in-strength. Upon visualizing the network topology an overall structure of the various science fields could be inferred, especially their interconnections. We confirmed quantitatively that science fields are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, with the degree of interdisplinarity (i.e. entropy) correlating strongly with the in-strength of journals and with the impact factor.Comment: 23 pages, 6 figure

Quantifying the consistency of scientific databases

Science is a social process with far-reaching impact on our modern society. In the recent years, for the first time we are able to scientifically study the science itself. This is enabled by massive amounts of data on scientific publications that is increasingly becoming available. The data is contained in several databases such as Web of Science or PubMed, maintained by various public and private entities. Unfortunately, these databases are not always consistent, which considerably hinders this study. Relying on the powerful framework of complex networks, we conduct a systematic analysis of the consistency among six major scientific databases. We found that identifying a single "best" database is far from easy. Nevertheless, our results indicate appreciable differences in mutual consistency of different databases, which we interpret as recipes for future bibliometric studies.Comment: 20 pages, 5 figures, 4 table