IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v116y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-018-2776-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interdisciplinary relations of converging technologies: Nano–Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)

Author

Listed:
  • Hamid R. Jamali

    (Charles Sturt University)

  • Ghasem Azadi-Ahmadabadi

    (Kharazmi University)

  • Saeid Asadi

    (Shahed University)

Abstract

This paper investigates the interdisciplinary relations of nanotechnology (Nano), biotechnology (Bio), information technology (Info), and cognitive science (Cogno) (together known as NBIC converging technologies) using different bibliometric techniques. For each set of two (pairs) and three (trios) of subjects, overlaps in journal citation, authorship, publication journals, and keywords were calculated for all Iranian NBIC articles published from 2001 to 2015 in international journals. Maximum and minimum spanning trees were used to visualise the interdisciplinary relations. To determine the nature of convergence between the subjects, an expert panel categorised the shared keywords of each pair and trio of subjects using four categories of tools, material, applications and techniques. The results showed that overall the pairs of Nano–Bio and Nano–Info had the highest level of mutual interdisciplinary relations. Info–Bio and Cogno–Bio had the weakest mutual interdisciplinary relations. Among the trios, Nano–Info–Bio had the strongest relations and Cogno–Nano–Info had the weakest. The dominant type of convergence for Nano–Bio and Cogno–Bio was sharing materials. For Nano–Info the dominant type of convergence was sharing tools and techniques. For Info–Cogno, and Info–Bio sharing techniques was the dominant type of convergence, and for Nano–Cogno sharing materials and applications was most dominant. Nano–Info–Bio mostly shared materials and applications. Identifying weak and strong ties between the four NBIC fields can help plan for their further convergence at science and technology levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamid R. Jamali & Ghasem Azadi-Ahmadabadi & Saeid Asadi, 2018. "Interdisciplinary relations of converging technologies: Nano–Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1055-1073, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2776-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2776-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2776-9
    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/s11192-018-2776-9?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 & Martin Meyer, 2010. "Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 263-287, February.
    2. Lili Wang & Ad Notten & Alexandru Surpatean, 2013. "Interdisciplinarity of nano research fields: a keyword mining approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 877-892, March.
    3. Alan L Porter & J David Roessner & Alex S Cohen & Marty Perreault, 2006. "Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 187-195, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Morteza Maghrebi & Ali Abbasi & Saeid Amiri & Reza Monsefi & Ahad Harati, 2011. "A collective and abridged lexical query for delineation of nanotechnology publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 15-25, January.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline S. Wagner & Lutz Bornmann, 2018. "Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—A tribute to Eugene Garfield," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 567-592, February.
    7. Karmen Stopar & Damjana Drobne & Klemen Eler & Tomaz Bartol, 2016. "Citation analysis and mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology: identifying the scope and interdisciplinarity of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 563-581, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Alan L. Porter & Alex S. Cohen & J. David Roessner & Marty Perreault, 2007. "Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 117-147, July.
    10. Elise Bassecoulard & Alain Lelu & Michel Zitt, 2007. "Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 859-880, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    14. Christine L. Borgman & Ronald E. Rice, 1992. "The convergence of information science and communication: A bibliometric analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(6), pages 397-411, July.
    15. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
    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. Baaden, Philipp & Rennings, Michael & John, Marcus & Bröring, Stefanie, 2024. "On the emergence of interdisciplinary scientific fields: (how) does it relate to science convergence?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    2. Zhao, Shengchao & Zeng, Deming & Li, Jian & Feng, Ke & Wang, Yao, 2023. "Quantity or quality: The roles of technology and science convergence on firm innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    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. Giulio Giacomo Cantone, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4937-4982, August.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    3. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Cristian Mejia & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7477-7502, September.
    4. Lin Zhang & Beibei Sun & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Lixin Chen & Ying Huang, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 271-291, October.
    5. Wooseok Jang & Heeyeul Kwon & Yongtae Park & Hakyeon Lee, 2018. "Predicting the degree of interdisciplinarity in academic fields: the case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 231-254, July.
    6. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2019. "Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 255-269.
    7. Stephen Carley & Alan L. Porter, 2012. "A forward diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Zhichao Ba & Yujie Cao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2019. "A hierarchical approach to analyzing knowledge integration between two fields—a case study on medical informatics and computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1455-1486, June.
    10. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2017. "Specialization versus diversification in research activities: the extent, intensity and relatedness of field diversification by individual scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1403-1418, September.
    11. Tracy Klarenbeek & Nelius Boshoff, 2018. "Measuring multidisciplinary health research at South African universities: a comparative analysis based on co-authorships and journal subject categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1461-1485, September.
    12. Kavitha Karunan & Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran, 2017. "Discovering interdisciplinary interactions between two research fields using citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 335-367, October.
    13. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Zhang, Lin, 2018. "A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1182-1193.
    14. Shiyun Wang & Jin Mao & Yujie Cao & Gang Li, 2022. "Integrated knowledge content in an interdisciplinary field: identification, classification, and application," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6581-6614, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Shogo Katoh & Rick (H.L.) Aalbers & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Effects and Interactions of Researcher’s Motivation and Personality in Promoting Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Shunshun Shi & Wenyu Zhang & Shuai Zhang & Jie Chen, 2018. "Does prestige dimension influence the interdisciplinary performance of scientific entities in knowledge flow? Evidence from the e-government field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1237-1264, November.

    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:116:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2776-9. 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.