Web Impact Factors for Australasian universities

In this paper we report on the results of an exploratory study of knowledge exchange between disciplines and subfields of science, based on bibliometric methods. The goal of this analysis is twofold. Firstly, we consider knowledge exchange between disciplines at a global level, by analysing cross-disciplinary citations in journal articles, based on the world publication output in 1999. Among others a central position of the Basic Life Sciences within the Life Sciences and of Physics within the Exact Sciences is shown. Limitations of analyses of interdisciplinary impact at the journal level are discussed. A second topic is a discussion of measures which may be used to quantify the rate of knowledge transfer between fields and the importance of work in a given field or for other disciplines. Two measures are applied, which appear to be proper indicators of impact of research on other fields. These indicators of interdisciplinary impact may be applied at other institutional levels as well. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange

As part of a larger project to investigate knowledge flows between fields of science, westudied the differences in speed of knowledge transfer within and across disciplines. The agedistribution of references in three selections of articles was analysed, including almost 800.000references in journal publications of the United Kingdom in 1992, 700.000 references inpublications of Germany in 1992, and more than 11 million references in the world total ofpublications in 1998.The rate of citing documented knowledge from other disciplines appears to differ sharplyamong disciplines. For most of the disciplines the same ratio's are found in the three data sets.Exceptions show interesting differences in the interdisciplinary nature of a field in a country. Wefind a general tendency of a citation delay in case of knowledge transfer between different fieldsof science: citations to work of the own discipline show less of a time lag than citations to work ina foreign discipline. Between disciplines typical differences in the speed of incorporatingknowledge from other disciplines are observed, which appear to be relatively independent of timeand place: for each discipline the same pattern is found in the three data sets. The disciplinespecific characteristics found in the speed of interdisciplinary knowledge transfer may be point ofdeparture for further investigations. Results may contribute to explanations of differences incitation rates of interdisciplinary research.     

Emphasis on Validation in Research: A Meta-Analysis

The emphasis of validity as a publication content was investigated in dissertations and journal articles. The time of first publication, longitudinal publication profile, ratio of articles to dissertations, and time lag between dissertations and articles emphasizing validity were compared within and among various fields. A three-decade gap separated the first field adopting validity-related contents in its dissertations from the latest fields that did so. The longitudinal data suggested three groups of fields (Agricultural Sciences, Applied Sciences and Social Sciences) which showed consistent differences among groups and consistent similarities within groups in their emphasis on validity-related content. Adoption of validity-related content in dissertations always preceded adoption of validity-related content in journal articles. On average, less than 4% of journal articles included validity-related content across fields. These findings support the hypothesis that validity has been introduced and disseminated within fields following patterns predicted by diffusion of innovations theory. It is argued that this pattern is inconsistent with an efficient and interdisciplinary utilization of available knowledge. Policy recommendations are made for developing strategic communication and education programs for academicians and journal reviewers.     

Defining the intellectual structure of information systems and related college of business disciplines: a bibliometric analysis

Information systems permeate every business function, thereby requiring holistic Information Systems (IS) approaches. Much academic research is still discipline specific. More interdisciplinary research is needed to inform both industry and academe. Interdisciplinary research has been positively associated with increased levels of innovation, productivity and impact. IS research contributes to the knowledge creation and innovation within IS and other College of Business (COB) disciplines. This research defines the intellectual structures within IS and between IS and other COB disciplines. We use a large scale, diachronic bibliometric analysis of COB journals to assess reciprocal knowledge exchange and also to identify potential intra- and interdisciplinary publication outlets. Our findings show an increase in IS knowledge contributions to other COB disciplines, which supports the discussion that IS is a reference discipline. Our research also visually depicts the intellectual structures within IS and between IS and other COB disciplines. Anyone exploring research in IS and allied COB disciplines can peruse the proximity maps to identify groups of similar journals. The findings from this research inform decisions related to which journals to read, target as publication outlets, and include on promotion and tenure lists.     

Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science

A set of scientometric indicators of interdisciplinary links between advancing fields of biomedicine is suggested. Twenty jounals listed in theJCR of theSCI for 1988 are analyzed. An index of interdisciplinarity for a given journal is calculated as the sum of ratios between the numbers of journals from all other disciplines (except for general-scientific and miscellaneous journals) and from the same discipline cited by that journal or citing it, and of ratios between the numbers of citations to and by these journals. Some interdisciplinary patterns of 20 andrology journal articles are scientometrically assessed, too. The combined usage of this method with co-classification and co-citation methodology can optimize interdisciplinarity evaluation and promotion.     

Indicators of disciplinary differentiation: Interdisciplinary linkages and adoption rate of biological innovations

Two indicators regarded to reflect the status of disciplinary differentiation were assessed through citation analysis. Adoption of scientific innovations (publications utilizing new scientific information) and interdisciplinary linkages (percentage of total publications of single disciplines which are cross-referenced by other disciplines) were investigated in selected biological professions. Findings indicated: 1) a significant delay in the use of innovations and a significant difference in the emphasis of interdisciplinary linkages in several professions and disciplines; 2) faster adoption of innovations and greater interdisciplinary linkages in areas with broader disciplinary contents; 3) an inter-personal communication pattern; and 4) slower adoption in applied than in basic fields.     

A hierarchical approach to analyzing knowledge integration between two fields—a case study on medical informatics and computer science

As a driver in modern science, interdisciplinary research has attracted a lot of attention. Major foci are laid on exploring the relations of multiple involved disciplines as well as the knowledge structure in interdisciplinary field. However, there is still a lack of decomposing the knowledge structure of interdisciplinary field to investigate how knowledge from relevant disciplines is integrated in the field. This study proposes an approach to investigating knowledge integration relationships between two research fields from a perspective of hierarchy. Medical Informatics (MI) and its most relevant field of Computer Science (CS) are chosen in the case study. This study decomposed each keyword network of the two fields into four layers by using the K-core method, then quantified the knowledge integration relationships between different layers of the two fields together. The results present that the MI basic layer shows the strongest knowledge integration with CS, followed by the middle layer, with the detail layer the weakest. And all MI layers have the greatest breadth and strength of knowledge integration with the CS middle layer, followed by the CS marginal layer and detail layer, but with the CS basic layer the weakest. A time series analysis shows that the integration of new CS knowledge into MI is a gradual process without explosive growth and the path of knowledge integration between the two fields were identified. The proposed approach could be applied to deeply understanding the integration of one discipline knowledge by an interdisciplinary field.

     

Comparisons of content and scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: gender studies can do better

The field of gender studies has faced criticism for poor scholarship and methodology, both from within and outside academia. Here, we compare indicators of scientific quality across three samples of peer-reviewed journal articles with more, less and no gender perspective, on the assumption that gender studies tend to apply a gender perspective. The statements in the articles were content-analysed with respect to subject matter, their level of support in surrounding text, and other indicators of scientific quality. The higher the level of gender perspective, the lower was the scientific quality for seven out of nine indicators. Support was higher for the no gender perspective group, but did not differ across the two higher levels. We suggest that the impact of the field can be increased by implementing established research methods employed in other disciplines, especially in terms of bringing about desired social and societal change.     

Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads

Several studies have examined the relationships between citation and download data. Some have also analyzed disciplinary differences in the relationships by comparing a few subject areas or a few journals. To gain a deeper understanding of the disciplinary differences, we carried out a comprehensive study investigating the issue in five disciplines of science, engineering, medicine, social sciences, and humanities. We used a systematic method to select fields and journals ensuring a very broad spectrum and balanced representation of various academic fields. A total of 69 fields and 150 journals were included. We collected citation and download data for these journals from China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database, the largest Chinese academic journal database in the world. We manually filtered out non-research papers such as book reviews and editorials. We analyzed the relationships both at the journal and the paper level. The study found that social sciences and humanities are different from science, engineering, and medicine and that the pattern of differences are consistent across all measures studied. Social sciences and humanities have higher correlations between citations and downloads, higher correlations between downloads per paper and Journal Impact Factor, and higher download-to-citation ratios. The disciplinary differences mean that the accuracy or utility of download data in measuring the impact are higher in social sciences and humanities and that download data in those disciplines reflect or measure a broader impact, much more than the impact in citing authors.     

Quality is in the eye of the beholder? An evaluation of impact factors and perception of journal prestige in the UK

A number of proxy measures have been used as indicators of journal quality. The most recent and commonly employed are journal impact factors. These measures are somewhat controversial, although they are frequently referred to in establishing the impact of published journal articles. Within psychology, little is known about the relationship between the ‘objective’ impact factors of journals and the ‘subjective’ ratings of prestige and perceived publishing difficulty amongst academics. In order to address this, a cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in the UK to investigate research activity and academics’ views of journals within three fields of psychology; cognitive, health and social. Impact factors for each journal were correlated with individual academic’s perceptions of prestige and publishing difficulty for each journal. A number of variables pertaining to the individual academic and their place of work were assessed as predictors of these correlation values, including age, gender, institution type, and a measure of departmental research activity. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to perceptions of journal prestige and publishing difficulty, higher education in general and the assessment of research activity within academic institutions.     

Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence

Many different measures are used to assess academic research excellence and these are subject to ongoing discussion and debate within the scientometric, university-management and policy-making communities internationally. One topic of continued importance is the extent to which citation-based indicators compare with peer-review-based evaluation. Here we analyse the correlations between values of a particular citation-based impact indicator and peer-review scores in several academic disciplines, from natural to social sciences and humanities. We perform the comparison for research groups rather than for individuals. We make comparisons on two levels. At an absolute level, we compare total impact and overall strength of the group as a whole. At a specific level, we compare academic impact and quality, normalised by the size of the group. We find very high correlations at the former level for some disciplines and poor correlations at the latter level for all disciplines. This means that, although the citation-based scores could help to describe research-group strength, in particular for the so-called hard sciences, they should not be used as a proxy for ranking or comparison of research groups. Moreover, the correlation between peer-evaluated and citation-based scores is weaker for soft sciences.     

Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in citation and reference dimensions: knowledge importation and exportation taxonomy of journals

This work proposes an entropy-based disciplinarity indicator (EBDI) which allows the classification of scientific journals in four classes: knowledge importer, knowledge exporter, disciplinary and interdisciplinary with regards to the discipline(s) in which they are classified. Assuming that the set references in the papers published in a journal represent a significant part of their knowledge basis, the diversity (measured with Shannon’s entropy) and ratio between internal and external (to the discipline in which the journal is classified) references can provide a measure of the disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity of the journal in the reference dimension. The homologous analysis can be applied to the set of citations received by the papers published in the journal. In this article, an entropy-based indicator for the measurement of the disciplinarity of scientific journals is developed, applied (to the cited and citing dimensions) and discussed. The indicator can take finite values and it is found to be theoretically consistent when tested against two definitions for bibliometric indicators. The combinations of disciplinarity values in the citing and cited dimensions permits the classification of journals according to their knowledge importing/exporting profile (separately, with regards to the social sciences or the sciences), providing a taxonomy of the role of journals according to their importing, exporting, interdisciplinary or specialized profile with regards to the subject category in which they are classified. The indicator, EBDI and the resulting taxonomy is proposed and tested for the set of journals in LIS subject category in JCR 2013 and for the sets of journals in Andrology and Legal Medicine in JCR 2015. Evidence of concurrent validity with journal co-classification patterns is found in the three sets of journals.     

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

Two fundamentally different perspectives on knowledge diffusion dominate debates about academic disciplines. On the one hand, critics of disciplinary research and education have argued that disciplines are isolated silos, within which specialists pursue inward-looking and increasingly narrow research agendas. On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries. These perspectives have different implications for how knowledge diffuses, how intellectuals gain and lose status within their disciplines, and how intellectual reputations evolve within and across disciplines. We argue that highly general claims about the nature of disciplinary boundaries are counterproductive, and that research on the nature of specific disciplinary boundaries is more useful. To that end, this paper uses a novel publication and citation network dataset and statistical models of citation networks to test hypotheses about the boundaries between philosophy of science and 11 disciplinary clusters. Specifically, we test hypotheses about whether engaging with and being cited by scientific communities outside philosophy of science has an impact on one’s position within philosophy of science. Our results suggest that philosophers of science produce interdisciplinary scholarship, but they tend not to cite work by other philosophers when it is published in journals outside of their discipline. Furthermore, net of other factors, receiving citations from other disciplines has no meaningful impact—positive or negative—on citations within philosophy of science. We conclude by considering this evidence for simultaneous interdisciplinarity and insularity in terms of scientific trading theory and other work on disciplinary boundaries and communication.     

Die „Stimmung“ im Spannungsfeld zwischen Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften

The Use of Stimmung in the Sciences and Humanities. Looking at the History of the Division between the “Two Cultures” from the Perspective of a Figure of Thought This article questions the existence of a schism between the 'two cultures' (C.P. Snow) by showing that the dichotomy between the sciences and the humanities is part of a narrative that developed in the 19th century. By focusing on the historical usage of Stimmung as specific figure of thought in the discourses of physiology, psychology, psychiatry, and aesthetics, the notion of a divorce between the sciences and the humanities is replaced by one of continuous exchange between various fields of knowledge. Stimmung, a term originally referring to the musical praxis of tuning instruments, was used extensively in German publications between 1770 and 1890 in all the fields of knowledge mentioned above. Its circulation between these fields both before and during the formation of independent disciplines in the late 19th century illustrates the continuity of exchange, even in those cases where the actors themselves use Stimmung as an argument for positioning their specific area of research within one of the “two cultures”.     

The many dimensions of laboratories’ interdisciplinarity

Interdisciplinarity is as trendy as it is difficult to define. Instead of trying to capture a multidimensional object with a single indicator, we propose six indicators, combining three different operationalizations of a discipline, two levels (article or laboratory) of integration of these disciplines and two measures of interdisciplinary diversity. This leads to a more meaningful characterization of the interdisciplinarity of laboratories’ publication practices. Thanks to a statistical analysis of these indicators on 600 CNRS laboratories, we suggest that, besides an average value of interdisciplinarity, different laboratories can be mainly distinguished by the “distance” between the disciplines in which they publish and by the scale at which interdisciplinary integration is achieved (article or laboratory).     

Reconsidering the gold open access citation advantage postulate in a multidisciplinary context: an analysis of the subject categories in the Web of Science database 2009–2014

Since Lawrence in 2001 proposed the open access (OA) citation advantage, the potential benefit of OA in relation to citation impact has been discussed in depth. The methodology to test this postulate ranges from comparing the impact factors of OA journals versus traditional ones, to comparing citations of OA versus non-OA articles published in the same non-OA journals. However, conclusions are not entirely consistent among fields, and two possible explications have been suggested in those fields where a citation advantage has been observed for OA: the early view and the selection bias postulates. In this study, a longitudinal and multidisciplinary analysis of gold OA citation advantage is developed. All research articles in all journals for all subject categories in the multidisciplinary database Web of Science are considered. A total of 1,138,392 articles—60,566 (5.3%) OA articles and 1,077,826 (94.7%) non-OA articles—published in 2009 are analysed. The citation window considered goes from 2009 to 2014, and data are aggregated for the 249 disciplines (subject categories). At journal level, we also study the evolution of journal impact factors for OA and non-OA journals in those disciplines whose OA prevalence is higher (top 36 subject categories). As the main conclusion, there is no generalizable gold OA citation advantage, neither at article nor at journal level.     

Facebook in educational research: a bibliometric analysis

Facebook has become the object of research in different areas. The present study presents a bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature related to the use of this social network in educational research. To this end, bibliometric techniques were applied in the analysis of scientific articles indexed at the Web of Science Core Collection, from Thomson Reuters, and linked to the research areas of Education/Educational Research. This resulted in the identification of, among others, developments in scientific production, the most important journals that publish papers on the topic, the main authors and the main articles published in the area. The results indicate the growth of scientific production in the area from 2008 onwards, pointing to Computers and Education as the most relevant journal by number of publications (22) and impact factor and indicate that authors from the United States, Australia, Taiwan, United Kingdom and South Africa stand out in the construction of knowledge on educational research applying Facebook. Moreover, the ego-network of the Educational Research area shows that this area coexists with other areas of knowledge in the use of social networking, such as Computer Science, Linguistics and Health Sciences, indicating an interdisciplinary and transversal nature in different areas of research.     

Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX

More than 5 years after their emergence, altmetrics are still seen as a promise to complement traditional citation-based indicators. However, no study has focused on their potential usefulness to capture the impact of scholarly books. While recent literature shows that citation indicators cannot fully capture the impact of books, other studies have suggested alternative indicators such as usage, publishers’ prestige or library holdings. In this paper, we calculate 18 indicators which range from altmetrics to library holdings, views, downloads or citations to the production of monographs of a Spanish university using the bibliometric suite PlumX from EBSCO. The objective of the study is to adopt a multidimensional perspective on the analysis of books and understand the level of complementarity between these different indicators. Also, we compare the overview offered by this range of indicators when applied to monographs with the traditional bibliometric perspective focused on journal articles and citation impact. We observe a low presence of altmetric indicators for monographs, even lower than for journal articles and a predominance of library holdings, confirming this indicator as the most promising one towards the analysis of the impact of books.     

Disciplinary dimensions and social relevance in the scientific communications on biofuels

The disciplinary structure of research on complex problems related to human activities is supported by the fundaments of the social, life, and hard sciences. In this work, we looked at the development of scientific research in the field of biofuels, as a sustainable source of energy, searching for references regarding its scientific roots and social relevance. Scientific communications on biofuels published between 1998 and 2007 were analyzed using a combination of bibliometric methods and text mining techniques. This field of research was characterized as interdisciplinary, with marked social relevance. Our bibliometric analysis shows that, in this research subject, 132 different, interacting fields of knowledge overlap, with dominance of Chemistry, Engineering and Agricultural Sciences. Through the use of text mining techniques, this field was configured into three groups of Disciplinary Dimensions. The first and most influential group includes the Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Environmental Sciences. The second group, which gives the field its technological basis, includes Chemistry, Engineering, and Microbiology. The third group includes disciplines with emerging involvement in the field of biofuels: Biology and Biochemistry, Animal and Plant Sciences, Molecular Biology and Genetics, Economics, Material Sciences, Nanosciences and Nanotechnology, Geosciences, Physics, Humanities, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Sciences. This study suggests that the first group of Disciplinary Dimensions conforms to the elements that socially validate the progress of research in the field of biofuels. This study also proposes a metric that can be used to measure the interdisciplinarity and the social framing of any other research field.