On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact (0908.1776v1)

Abstract: This paper analyzes the effect of interdisciplinarity on the scientific impact of individual papers. Using all the papers published in Web of Science in 2000, we define the degree of interdisciplinarity of a given paper as the percentage of its cited references made to journals of other disciplines. We show that, although for all disciplines combined there is no clear correlation between the level of interdisciplinarity of papers and their citation rates, there are nonetheless some disciplines in which a higher level of interdisciplinarity is related to a higher citation rates. For other disciplines, citations decline as interdisciplinarity grows. One characteristic is visible in all disciplines: highly disciplinary and highly interdisciplinary papers have a low scientific impact. This suggests that there might be an optimum of interdisciplinarity beyond which the research is too dispersed to find its niche and under which it is too mainstream to have high impact. Finally, the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact is highly determined by the citation characteristics of the disciplines involved: papers citing citation intensive disciplines are more likely to be cited by those disciplines and, hence, obtain higher citation scores than papers citing non citation intensive disciplines.

Analyzing Interdisciplinarity and Its Impact on Scientific Influence

The paper "On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact" by Vincent Larivière and Yves Gingras provides a meticulous examination of the influence interdisciplinarity has on the citation impact of scientific papers. This paper employs the bibliometric analysis of articles indexed in the Web of Science for the year 2000, aiming to explore the degree to which interdisciplinarity affects citation metrics across various scientific disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity for a given paper is quantified as the percentage of its cited references directed towards journals from other disciplines than its primary one.

Key Findings

1. Disciplinary Variance: The paper reveals that the relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact is discipline-specific. For some fields, higher interdisciplinarity correlates with increased citation rates. Conversely, other disciplines experience a decline in citations as their interdisciplinarity increases. This finding underscores the complexity of interdisciplinary research impact, as it doesn't universally amplify scientific influence.
2. Optimum Interdisciplinarity: One consistent observation across disciplines is that papers with either extremely high or extremely low interdisciplinarity scores tend to have lower citation impacts. This suggests an optimal range for interdisciplinarity, implying that excessively interdisciplinary papers may be too dispersed to garner significant attention, while highly disciplinary papers might not attract interest due to their mainstream nature.
3. Citation Intensity Dependency: The paper highlights that the citation impact of highly interdisciplinary papers is strongly influenced by the citation characteristics of the disciplines involved. Articles that cite intensive disciplines are more likely to be cited by those areas, thereby enhancing their citation scores relative to those referencing less citation-intensive disciplines.

Methodology

The paper employs a comprehensive bibliometric approach, defining the level of interdisciplinarity based on the percentage of references to articles from different disciplines. Three distinct measures of scientific impact are utilized: average relative citations (ARC), average relative impact factor (ARIF), and percentage of papers in the top 5% most cited. These metrics are normalized by world averages to account for disciplinary variation in citation practices.

Implications

The findings of this paper present significant implications both for researchers and the institutions that evaluate them. Notably, the results suggest that simplistic metrics of interdisciplinarity might not suffice as indicators of research excellence. Institutions and funding bodies should consider the nuanced implications of interdisciplinary collaborations, recognizing that the impact of such endeavors varies substantially across fields. Moreover, research evaluators should heed the differential citation potential contingent on the disciplines engaged in interdisciplinary work.

Future Directions

The research opens pathways for future studies to investigate deeper into the causal mechanisms influencing how different levels and types of interdisciplinarity impact citation outcomes. Additionally, exploring how evolving citation patterns over time may affect these dynamics could offer further insights. The interplay between interdisciplinary innovation and disciplinary depth remains a fertile ground for further academic inquiry, particularly as the scientific community continues to advocate for and pursue more integrative research agendas.

In conclusion, this paper challenges the conventional wisdom that interdisciplinarity uniformly boosts scientific impact. Instead, it posits a more sophisticated framework where the interplay between interdisciplinarity and impact is materialized through a complex nexus of disciplinary interactions, urging a more discerning application and interpretation of bibliometric indicators in research assessment.