Larivière Vincent, Haustein Stefanie, Börner Katy
École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada; Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 30;10(3):e0122565. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122565. eCollection 2015.
Scholarly collaborations across disparate scientific disciplines are challenging. Collaborators are likely to have their offices in another building, attend different conferences, and publish in other venues; they might speak a different scientific language and value an alien scientific culture. This paper presents a detailed analysis of success and failure of interdisciplinary papers--as manifested in the citations they receive. For 9.2 million interdisciplinary research papers published between 2000 and 2012 we show that the majority (69.9%) of co-cited interdisciplinary pairs are "win-win" relationships, i.e., papers that cite them have higher citation impact and there are as few as 3.3% "lose-lose" relationships. Papers citing references from subdisciplines positioned far apart (in the conceptual space of the UCSD map of science) attract the highest relative citation counts. The findings support the assumption that interdisciplinary research is more successful and leads to results greater than the sum of its disciplinary parts.
跨不同科学学科的学术合作具有挑战性。合作者可能在另一栋楼办公,参加不同的会议,并在其他场所发表论文;他们可能说不同的科学语言,重视不同的科学文化。本文对跨学科论文的成功与失败进行了详细分析——以它们获得的引用情况来体现。对于2000年至2012年间发表的920万篇跨学科研究论文,我们发现,大多数(69.9%)被共同引用的跨学科论文对是“双赢”关系,即引用它们的论文具有更高的引用影响力,而“双输”关系的论文对则少至3.3%。引用来自在(加利福尼亚大学圣地亚哥分校科学地图的概念空间中)位置相距甚远的子学科参考文献的论文吸引的相对引用次数最高。这些发现支持了这样一种假设,即跨学科研究更成功,并且所产生的成果大于其各学科部分的总和。