Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science?

The present paper takes its place in the stream of studies that analyze the effect of interdisciplinarity on the impact of research output. Unlike previous studies, in this study the interdisciplinarity of the publications is not inferred through their citing or cited references, but rather by identifying the authors' designated fields of research. For this we draw on the scientific classification of Italian academics, and their publications as indexed in the WoS over a five-year period (2004-2008). We divide the publications in three subsets on the basis the nature of co-authorship: those papers coauthored with academics from different fields, which show high intensity of inter-field collaboration ("specific" collaboration, occurring in 110 pairings of fields); those papers coauthored with academics who are simply from different "non-specific" fields; and finally co-authorships within a single field. We then compare the citations of the papers and the impact factor of the publishing journals between the three subsets. The results show significant differences, generally in favor of the interdisciplinary authorships, in only one third (or slightly more) of the cases. The analysis provides the value of the median differences for each pair of publication subsets

The effect of multidisciplinary collaborations on research diversification

This work verifies whether research diversification by a scientist is in some measure related to their collaboration with multidisciplinary teams. The analysis considers the publications achieved by 5300 Italian academics in the sciences over the period 2004-2008. The findings show that a scientist's outputs resulting from research diversification are more often than not the result of collaborations with multidisciplinary teams. The effect becomes more pronounced with larger and particularly with more diversified teams. This phenomenon is observed both at the overall level and for the disciplinary macro-areas

Authorship analysis of specialized vs diversified research output

The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author's dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines

Fostering Interdisciplinarity: Implications for Social Sciences

At a time when interdisciplinarity is encouraged, the aim of this article is to analyse some of its implications in contexts of teaching, research and professional practice. For this purpose, and through a literature review, the concept of interdisciplinarity is discussed. Subsequently, the paper discusses its importance and the implications of its promotion, focusing on the following aspects: scientific disciplinary identity, institutional consequences, and professional consequences. It is concluded that interdisciplinary collaboration, while being, in general, difficult to achieve, can, provided that it is controlled, be both a source of recognition and scientific and/or professional opportunities for social sciences. However, there are also potential risks not to be overlooked, being important to be aware of them

Money, time, or saving the world: Balancing valuations of ‘good’ interdisciplinary research

This paper analyses valuations of ‘good’ interdisciplinary research that manifest in research planning workshops. We use ethnographic case data from an interdisciplinary research project on vertical farming to build insight on how differing registers in the valuing of ‘good’ interdisciplinary research are balanced. The vertical farming project we use as a case includes researchers from sub-disciplines of the life sciences, technology, data science, and human sciences in a Finnish university of applied science (UAS). We use thematic content analysis to identify four core registers of valuing the ‘goodness’ of research and tensions between the following registers: money, sustainability, scientific value, and academic identity. These registers largely conform to a statistical-economical regime of academic evaluation, while sustainability draws on RRI principles and the interdisciplinary emphasis on societal problem-solving. The registers are balanced mainly through temporal and conceptual compartmentalisations. Throughout three workshop encounters over the course of a six-month period, a perpetual negotiation of the different registers of valuing ‘good’ research was taking place, with attempts to avoid exclusionary choices between “money, time, or saving the world”.Peer reviewe

Machine Learning Applications in Renewable Energy (MLARE) Research: A Publication Trend and Bibliometric Analysis Study (2012-2021)

This study examines the research climate on machine learning applications in renewable energy (MLARE). Therefore, the publication trends (PT) and bibliometric analysis (BA) on MLARE research published and indexed in the Elsevier Scopus database between 2012 and 2021 were examined. The PT was adopted to deduce the major stakeholders, top-cited publications, and funding organizations on MLARE, whereas BA elucidated critical insights into the research landscape, scientific developments, and technological growth. The PT revealed 1218 published documents comprising 46.9% articles, 39.7% conference papers, and 6.0% reviews on the topic. Subject area analysis revealed MLARE research spans the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics among others, which indicates it is a broad, multidisciplinary, and impactful research topic. The most prolific researcher, affiliations, country, and funder are Ravinesh C. Deo, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, respectively. The most prominent journals on the top are Applied Energy and Energies, which indicates that journal reputation and open access are critical considerations for the author’s choice of publication outlet. The high productivity of the major stakeholders in MLARE is due to collaborations and research funding support. The keyword co-occurrence analysis identified four (4) clusters or thematic areas on MLARE, which broadly describe the systems, technologies, tools/technologies, and socio-technical dynamics of MLARE research. Overall, the study showed that ML is critical to the prediction, operation, and optimization of renewable energy technologies (RET) along with the design and development of RE-related materials