IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v102y2015i2d10.1007_s11192-014-1468-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How small is the center of science? Short cross-disciplinary cycles in co-authorship graphs

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Fields

Abstract

Cycles that cross two or more boundaries between disciplines in the co-authorship graph for all of science are used to set upper limits on the number of co-authored papers required to cross 15 disciplines or subdisciplines ranging from macroeconomics to neurology. The upper limits obtained range from one (discrete mathematics, macroeconomics and nuclear physics) to six (neuroscience). The 15 disciplines or subdisciplines examined form a “small world” with an average separation of only 2.0 co-authorship links. It is conjectured that the high-productivity, high average degree centers of all scientific disciplines form a small world, and therefore that the diameter of the co-authorship graph of all of science is only slightly larger than the average diameter of the co-authorship graphs of its subdisciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Fields, 2015. "How small is the center of science? Short cross-disciplinary cycles in co-authorship graphs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1287-1306, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1468-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1468-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1468-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-014-1468-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ismael Rafols & Alan L. Porter & Loet Leydesdorff, 2010. "Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(9), pages 1871-1887, September.
    2. D. S. Callaway & J. E. Hopcroft & J. M. Kleinberg & M. E. J. Newman & S. H. Strogatz, 2001. "Are Randomly Grown Graphs Really Random?," Working Papers 01-05-025, Santa Fe Institute.
    3. David D. Ho & Avidan U. Neumann & Alan S. Perelson & Wen Chen & John M. Leonard & Martin Markowitz, 1995. "Rapid Turnover of Plasma Virions and CD4 Lymphocytes in HIV-1 Infection," Working Papers 95-01-002, Santa Fe Institute.
    4. Andrea Landherr & Bettina Friedl & Julia Heidemann, 2010. "A Critical Review of Centrality Measures in Social Networks," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 2(6), pages 371-385, December.
    5. Hameroff, Stuart & Penrose, Roger, 1996. "Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 453-480.
    6. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    7. Lambiotte, R. & Panzarasa, P., 2009. "Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 180-190.
    8. Barabási, A.L & Jeong, H & Néda, Z & Ravasz, E & Schubert, A & Vicsek, T, 2002. "Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 311(3), pages 590-614.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eli Rudinow Saetnan & Richard Philip Kipling, 2016. "Evaluating a European knowledge hub on climate change in agriculture: Are we building a better connected community?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1057-1074, November.
    2. A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman & Raf Guns & Loet Leydesdorff & Tim C. E. Engels, 2016. "Measuring the match between evaluators and evaluees: cognitive distances between panel members and research groups at the journal level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1639-1663, December.
    3. Chris Fields, 2015. "Co-authorship proximity of A. M. Turing Award and John von Neumann Medal winners to the disciplinary boundaries of computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 809-825, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chris Fields, 2015. "Close to the edge: co-authorship proximity of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, 1991–2010, to cross-disciplinary brokers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 267-299, April.
    2. Stephen Carley & Alan L. Porter, 2012. "A forward diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427, February.
    3. Diego Chavarro & Puay Tang & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: evidence from a developing country," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 195-209.
    4. Shiji Chen & Clément Arsenault & Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1307-1323, February.
    5. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jong-Chan Kim & Jae Young Choi, 2015. "Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 841-871, September.
    6. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    7. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    8. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    9. Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj & Patrick Doreian, 2011. "On the dynamics of national scientific systems," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 989-1015, August.
    10. Jielan Ding & Per Ahlgren & Liying Yang & Ting Yue, 2018. "Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1817-1852, September.
    11. Lyu, Haihua & Bu, Yi & Zhao, Zhenyue & Zhang, Jiarong & Li, Jiang, 2022. "Citation bias in measuring knowledge flow: Evidence from the web of science at the discipline level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Stephen Carley & Ismael Rafols, 2013. "Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 589-593, February.
    13. Ronnie Ramlogan & Davide Consoli, 2014. "Dynamics of collaborative research medicine: the case of glaucoma," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 544-566, August.
    14. Zehra Taşkın & Arsev U. Aydinoglu, 2015. "Collaborative interdisciplinary astrobiology research: a bibliometric study of the NASA Astrobiology Institute," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1003-1022, June.
    15. Hugo Confraria & Fernando Vargas, 2019. "Scientific systems in Latin America: performance, networks, and collaborations with industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 874-915, June.
    16. Leydesdorff, Loet & Rafols, Ismael, 2011. "Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 87-100.
    17. Yan, Erjia & Ding, Ying & Cronin, Blaise & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "A bird's-eye view of scientific trading: Dependency relations among fields of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 249-264.
    18. Mason Youngblood & David Lahti, 2018. "A bibliometric analysis of the interdisciplinary field of cultural evolution," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Haizheng Zhang & Baojun Qiu & Kristinka Ivanova & C. Lee Giles & Henry C. Foley & John Yen, 2010. "Locality and attachedness‐based temporal social network growth dynamics analysis: A case study of evolving nanotechnology scientific collaboration networks," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(5), pages 964-977, May.
    20. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Nicola Melluso & Francesco Alessandro Massucci, 2022. "Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: a topic modeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6961-6991, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1468-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.