Exploring interdisciplinarity through the prism of research objects

Whereas articles about the rhetoric of interdisciplinarity abound, empirical evidence substantiating the value of its practices remains limited, at best conflicting. While most studies have focused on the natural and medical sciences, very few studies have focused on the social sciences and humanities. To better understand interdisciplinarity patterns observed in those disciplines, this paper explores how research objects can serve as a bridge between disciplines and specialties in the social sciences and humanities. Our results shows that certain social sciences disciplines, such as economics and management, and, to a lesser extent, education and literature, have objects, concepts and their own methods, that are not shared with other disciplines. In contrast, sociology and history have few specific objects, and are positioned at the heart of the network of undisciplined objects. On the whole, our results suggest that disciplines of the social sciences and humanities are not monolithic blocks and a strong interdisciplinarity is expressed through a wide selection of objects

Doctoral students’ access to non-academic support for mental health

Increased doctoral student numbers has led to a growth in studies dedicated to doctoral experience. These studies have raised a range of mental health concerns around workload, supervision processes and student well-being. Despite these challenges being well documented, few studies have looked at doctoral student’s experiences of accessing non-academic support services. This article presents the findings of a mixed-method study to investigate doctoral experiences of non-academic support, conducted at one British university with a large postgraduate research population. Drawing on focus groups and a student survey, the article concludes that many doctoral students are not accessing institutional support when they could benefit from it, with many turning to external support mechanisms including family, personal doctor and online resources. Five institutional recommendations are proposed to develop improved dedicated doctoral student mental health support: clear signposting, online self-help, workshops, parity of support and supervisor training

Do you cite what I mean? Assessing the semantic scope of bibliographic coupling in economics

Bibliographic Coupling is one of the earliest statistical methods used to analyze scientific production and map scientific structure at different granularity levels. While many authors consider it a measure of semantic similarity, the questions as to “when and to what extent bibliographic coupling can be considered a measure of semantic similarity has not still needs to be established theoretically. Based on an analysis of the correlation between coupling strength and semantic distances of all 2015 economics articles included in the Web of Science database, the present paper shows that the semantic scope of these articles is very limited, thus putting into question the use of bibliographic coupling as a semantic similarity measure

On the lack of women researchers in the Middle East and North Africa

Recent gender policies in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region have improved legal equality for women with noticeable effects in some countries. The implications of these policies on science, however, are not well-understood. This study applies a bibliometric lens to describe the landscape of gender disparities in scientific research in MENA. Specifically, we examine 1.7 million papers indexed in the Web of Science published by 1.1 million authors from MENA between 2008 and 2020. We used bibliometric indicators to analyze potential disparities between men and women in the share of authors, research productivity, and seniority in authorship. The results show that gender parity is far from being achieved in MENA. Overall, men authors obtain higher representation, research productivity, and seniority. But some countries stand out: Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria and Egypt have higher shares of women researchers compared to the rest of MENA countries. The UAE, Qatar, and Jordan have shown progress in terms of women participation in science, but Saudi Arabia lags behind. We find that women are more likely to stop publishing than men and that men publish on average between 11 and 51% more than women, with this gap increasing over time. Finally, men, on average, achieved senior positions in authorship faster than women. Our longitudinal study contributes to a better understanding of gender disparities in science in MENA which is catching up in terms of policy engagement and women representation. However, the results suggest that the effects of the policy changes have yet to materialize into distinct improvements in women’s participation and performance in science.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Stability and Longevity in the Publication Careers of U.S. Doctorate Recipients

Since the 1950s, the number of doctorate recipients has risen dramatically in the United States. In this paper, we investigate whether the longevity of doctorate recipients' publication careers has changed. This is achieved by matching 1951-2010 doctorate recipients with rare names in astrophysics, chemistry, economics, genetics and psychology in the dissertation database ProQuest to their publications in the publication database Web of Science. Our study shows that pre-PhD publication careers have changed: the median year of first publication has shifted from after the PhD to several years before PhD in most of the studied fields. In contrast, post-PhD publication career spans have not changed much in most fields. The share of doctorate recipients who have published for more than twenty years has remained stable over time; the shares of doctorate recipients publishing for shorter periods also remained almost unchanged. Thus, though there have been changes in pre-PhD publication careers, post-PhD career spans remained quite stable.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

“Service Encounter 2.0” : an investigation into the roles of technology, employees and customers

The service encounter – one of the foundational concepts in service research – is fundamentally changing due to rapid evolutions in technology. In this paper, we offer an updated perspective on what we label the “Service Encounter 2.0”. To this end, we develop a conceptual framework that captures the essence of the Service Encounter 2.0 and provides a synthesis of the changing interdependent roles of technology, employees, and customers. We find that technology either augments or substitutes service employees, and can foster network connections. In turn, employees and customers are taking on the role of enabler, innovator, coordinator and differentiator. In addition, we identify critical areas for future research on this important topic

A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices

This paper examines the proximity of authors to those they cite using degrees of separation in a co-author network, essentially using collaboration networks to expand on the notion of self-citations. While the proportion of direct self-citations (including co-authors of both citing and cited papers) is relatively constant in time and across specialties in the natural sciences (10% of citations) and the social sciences (20%), the same cannot be said for citations to authors who are members of the co-author network. Differences between fields and trends over time lie not only in the degree of co-authorship which defines the large-scale topology of the collaboration network, but also in the referencing practices within a given discipline, computed by defining a propensity to cite at a given distance within the collaboration network. Overall, there is little tendency to cite those nearby in the collaboration network, excluding direct self-citations. By analyzing these social references, we characterize the social capital of local collaboration networks in terms of the knowledge production within scientific fields. These results have implications for the long-standing debate over biases common to most types of citation analysis, and for understanding citation practices across scientific disciplines over the past 50 years. In addition, our findings have important practical implications for the availability of 'arm's length' expert reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts

Meta-Research: investigating disagreement in the scientific literature

Disagreement is essential to scientific progress but the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens remain poorly understood. Here we report the development of an approach based on cue phrases that can identify instances of disagreement in scientific articles. These instances are sentences in an article that cite other articles. Applying this approach to a collection of more than four million English-language articles published between 2000 and 2015 period, we determine the level of disagreement in five broad fields within the scientific literature (biomedical and health sciences; life and earth sciences; mathematics and computer science; physical sciences and engineering; and social sciences and humanities) and 817 meso-level fields. Overall, the level of disagreement is highest in the social sciences and humanities, and lowest in mathematics and computer science. However, there is considerable heterogeneity across the meso-level fields, revealing the importance of local disciplinary cultures and the epistemic characteristics of disagreement. Analysis at the level of individual articles reveals notable episodes of disagreement in science, and illustrates how methodological artifacts can confound analyses of scientific texts.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Meta-Research: investigating disagreement in the scientific literature

Disagreement is essential to scientific progress but the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens remain poorly understood. Here we report the development of an approach based on cue phrases that can identify instances of disagreement in scientific articles. These instances are sentences in an article that cite other articles. Applying this approach to a collection of more than four million English-language articles published between 2000 and 2015 period, we determine the level of disagreement in five broad fields within the scientific literature (biomedical and health sciences; life and earth sciences; mathematics and computer science; physical sciences and engineering; and social sciences and humanities) and 817 meso-level fields. Overall, the level of disagreement is highest in the social sciences and humanities, and lowest in mathematics and computer science. However, there is considerable heterogeneity across the meso-level fields, revealing the importance of local disciplinary cultures and the epistemic characteristics of disagreement. Analysis at the level of individual articles reveals notable episodes of disagreement in science, and illustrates how methodological artifacts can confound analyses of scientific texts.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen