Assessing researcher interdisciplinarity: A case study of the University of Hawaii NASA Astrobiology Institute

Scientometrics

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 133-161

  Gowanlock, Michael ^a   Gazan, Rich ^a  

^a University of Hawai'i at Manoa   (United States)

Author keywords

Astrobiology; Bibliometrics; Information bottleneck method; Interdisciplinary science; Machine learning; Text mining

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871865561     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0765-y     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bjurström, A., & Polk, M. (2011). Climate change and interdisciplinarity: A co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Scientometrics, 87, 525-550.
2. Bornmann, L., & Waltman, L. (2011). The detection of "hot regions" in the geography of science-A visualization approach by using density maps. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 547-553.
3. Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64, 351-374.
4. Brewer, G. D. (1999). The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32, 327-337.
5. Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002). SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16, 321-357.
6. Cockell, C. (2002). Astrobiology-A new opportunity for interdisciplinary thinking. Space Policy, 18(4), 263-266.
7. Derrick, G., Sturk, H., Haynes, A., Chapman, S., & Hall, W. (2010). A cautionary bibliometric tale of two cities. Scientometrics, 84, 317-320.
8. Gargaud, M., & Tirard, S. (2011). Exobiology: An example of interdisciplinarity at work. In J. -Pierre Lasota (Ed.), Astronomy at the Frontiers of Science, Vol. 1 of Integrated Science & Technology Program (pp. 337-350). Dordrecht: Springer.
9. Jacsó, P. (2005). As we may search: Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89, 1537-1547.
10. Kostoff, R. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43, 27-43.
11. Kostoff, R., del Río, J. A., Humenik, J. A., García, E. O., & Ramírez, A. M. (2001). Citation mining: Integrating text mining and bibliometrics for research user profiling. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(13), 1148-1156.
12. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74, 273-294.
13. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51, 203-222.
14. National Academies. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. National Science Foundation. (2011). Introduction to interdisciplinary research. Accessed November 21, 2011, from http://www. nsf. gov/od/oia/additional_resources/interdisciplinary_research/.
16. Oliver, C. A., & Fergusson, J. (2007). Astrobiology: A pathway to adult science literacy? Acta Astronautica, 61(78), 716-723.
17. Porter, A., Cohen, A., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72, 117-147.
18. Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81, 719-745.
19. Porter, M. F. (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14(3), 130-137.
20. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82, 263-287.
21. Slonim, N., Friedman, N., & Tishby, N. (2002). Unsupervised document classification using sequential information maximization. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 129-136). New York, USA.
22. Small, H. (2010). Maps of science as interdisciplinary discourse: Co-citation contexts and the role of analogy. Scientometrics, 83, 835-849.
23. Staley, J. (2003). Astrobiology, The transcendent science: the promise of astrobiology as an integrative approach for science and engineering education and research. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 14(3), 347-354.
24. Sugimoto, C. (2011). Looking across communicative genres: A call for inclusive indicators of interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 86, 449-461.
25. Upham, S., & Small, H. (2010). Emerging research fronts in science and technology: Patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics, 83, 15-38.
26. van Leeuwen, T. N. (2007). Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment. Research Evaluation, 16(2), 93-105.
27. van Raan, A. F. J., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research. Research Policy, 31(4), 611-632.
28. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., & Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26.
29. Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques, 2nd edn. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
30. Zhang, J., Vogeley, M. S., & Chen, C. (2011). Scientometrics of big science: A case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Scientometrics, 86, 1-14.
31. Zhang, L., Liu, X., Janssens, F., Liang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2010). Subject clustering analysis based on ISI category classification. Journal of Informetrics, 4(2), 185-193.