Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Scientometrics

Volumn 102, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 1307-1323

  Chen, Shiji ^a,b   Arsenault, Clément ^b   Gingras, Yves ^c   Larivière, Vincent ^b,c  

^a CHINA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Information visualisation; Interdisciplinarity; References

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922073545     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1457-6     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2012). Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(11), 2206–2222.
2. Adams, J., Jackson, L., & Marshall, S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202100434/http:/hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2007/rd19_07/.
3. Berg, J., & Wagner-Döbler, R. (1996). A multidimensional analysis of scientific dynamics. Part I. Case studies of mathematical logic in the 20th century. Scientometrics,35(3), 321–346.
4. Bordons, M., Zulueta, M. A., Romero, F., & Barrigón, S. (1999). Measuring interdisciplinary collaboration within a university: The effects of the multidisciplinary research programme. Scientometrics,46(3), 383–398.
5. Buter, R. K., Noyons, E. C., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Searching for converging research using field to field citations. Scientometrics,86(2), 325–338.
6. Byron, L., & Wattenberg, M. (2008). Stacked Graphs: Geometry and aesthetics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,14(6), 1245–1252.
7. Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2012). A forward diversity index. Scientometrics,90(2), 407–427.
8. Chang, Y. W., & Huang, M. H. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(1), 22–33.
9. Garner, J., Porter, A. L., Borrego, M., Tran, E., & Teutonico, R. (2013). Facilitating social and natural science cross-disciplinarity: Assessing the human and social dynamics program. Research Evaluation,22(2), 134–144.
10. Hamilton, K. S. (2003). Subfield and level classification of journals. CHI No. 2012-R, CHI Research Inc.
11. Havre, S., Hetzler, B., & Nowell, L. (2000). ThemeRiver: Visualizing theme changes over time. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Vizualization 2000, IEEE Computer Society: 115.
12. Hinze, S. (1994). Bibliographical cartography of an emerging interdisciplinary discipline: The case of bioelectronics. Scientometrics,29(3), 353–376.
13. Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics,79, 1–10.
14. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(3), 455–476.
15. Kohler, R. E. (1982). From medical chemistry to biochemistry: The making of a biomedical discipline. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(2), 288–296.
17. Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2014). Measuring interdisciplinarity. In B. Cronin & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 187–200). Cambridge: Mass: MIT Press.
18. Le Pair, C. (1980). Switching between academic disciplines in universities in the Netherlands. Scientometrics,2(3), 177–191.
19. Lee, E. S., McDonald, D. W., Anderson, N., & Tarczy-Hornoch, P. (2009). Incorporating collaboratory concepts into informatics in support of translational interdisciplinary biomedical research. International Journal of Medical Informatics,78(1), 10–21.
20. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(12), 1973–1984.
21. Levitt, J. M., Thelwall, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2011). Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(6), 1118–1129.
22. Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics,94(2), 589–593.
23. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics,51(1), 203–222.
24. Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics,8(3–4), 161–176.
25. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics,81(3), 719–745.
26. Qiu, L. (1992). A study of interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Evaluation,2(3), 169–175.
27. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics,70(3), 633–650.
28. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics,82(2), 263–287.
29. Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(9), 1871–1887.
30. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Bruins, E. E. W., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2002a). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics,54(3), 347–362.
31. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2002b). Impact measures of interdisciplinary research in physics. Scientometrics,53(2), 241–248.
32. Rosvall, M., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). Mapping change in large networks. PLoS ONE,5(1), e8694.
33. Smajgl, A., & Ward, J. (2013). A framework to bridge science and policy in complex decision making arenas. Futures,52, 52–58.
34. Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C. Q., Russell, T. G., & Bychowski, B. (2011). Academic genealogy as an indicator of interdisciplinarity: An examination of dissertation networks in library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(9), 1808–1828.
35. Tomov, D. T., & Mutafov, H. G. (1996). Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science. Scientometrics,37(2), 267–278.
36. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics,84(2), 523–538.
37. van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(12), 2405–2416.
38. van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: Analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation,9(3), 183–187.