IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i4d10.1007_s11192-022-04276-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the isolation of research topics in philosophy

Author

Listed:
  • Pei-Shan Chi

    (ECOOM, KU Leuven)

  • Stijn Conix

    (KU Leuven)

Abstract

Various authors have recently argued that certain parts of academic philosophy are highly isolated from other fields of academic research. The central aim of this paper is to go beyond philosophical arguments, and empirically test whether this is indeed the case. More specifically, we investigate whether LEMM (Philosophy of Language, Epistemology, Mind and Metaphysics) is more isolated than Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Theory. To do this, we collected 2369 Web of Science indexed papers divided into 17 PhilPapers topics from these three subfields of philosophy, and used 10 indicators to measure their isolation. The results showed that the topics from LEMM were more isolated from other fields of science than the topics from Value Theory and Philosophy of Science. Within philosophy, however, the topics from LEMM generally seemed as well-connected as Philosophy of Science and Value Theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Pei-Shan Chi & Stijn Conix, 2022. "Measuring the isolation of research topics in philosophy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1669-1696, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04276-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04276-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04276-y
    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/s11192-022-04276-y?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. Blaise Cronin & Debora Shaw & Kathryn La Barre, 2003. "A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(9), pages 855-871, July.
    2. Klavans, Richard & Boyack, Kevin W., 2017. "Research portfolio analysis and topic prominence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 1158-1174.
    3. Henry Kreuzman, 2001. "A co-citation analysis of representative authors in philosophy: Examining the relationship between epistemologists and philosophers of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(3), pages 525-539, July.
    4. Gunnar Sivertsen & Birger Larsen, 2012. "Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 567-575, May.
    5. John McLevey & Alexander V. Graham & Reid McIlroy-Young & Pierson Browne & Kathryn S. Plaisance, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 331-349, October.
    6. Diana Hicks, 1999. "The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(2), pages 193-215, February.
    7. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs & Pei-Shan Chi, 2016. "The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2165-2179, December.
    8. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    9. Henry Kreuzman, 2001. "A co-citation analysis of representative authors in philosophy: Examining the relationship between epistemologists and philosophers of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(3), pages 525-539, January.
    10. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2017. "Which Type of Citation Analysis Generates the Most Accurate Taxonomy of Scientific and Technical Knowledge?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 984-998, April.
    11. Pei-Shan Chi, 2015. "Changing publication and citation patterns in political science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1833-1848, December.
    12. Pei-Shan Chi, 2014. "Which role do non-source items play in the social sciences? A case study in political science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1195-1213, November.
    13. Linda Butler & Martijn S. Visser, 2006. "Extending citation analysis to non-source items," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 327-343, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    2. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    3. Pei-Shan Chi, 2015. "Changing publication and citation patterns in political science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1833-1848, December.
    4. Giovanni Colavizza, 2017. "The structural role of the core literature in history," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1787-1809, December.
    5. Pei-Shan Chi, 2014. "Which role do non-source items play in the social sciences? A case study in political science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1195-1213, November.
    6. Jordi Ardanuy & Llorenç Arguimbau & Ángel Borrego, 2022. "Social sciences and humanities research funded under the European Union Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006): a long-term assessment of projects, acknowledgements and publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Including cited non-source items in a large-scale map of science: What difference does it make?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 569-580.
    8. Eugenio Petrovich, 2018. "Accumulation of knowledge in para-scientific areas: the case of analytic philosophy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1123-1151, August.
    9. Anton J. Nederhof & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2010. "Highly cited non-journal publications in political science, economics and psychology: a first exploration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 363-374, May.
    10. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    11. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Weeren, Arie, 2016. "Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 254-272.
    12. Thed N. Leeuwen & Erik Wijk & Paul F. Wouters, 2016. "Bibliometric analysis of output and impact based on CRIS data: a case study on the registered output of a Dutch university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Jordi Ardanuy & Cristóbal Urbano & Lluís Quintana, 2009. "A citation analysis of Catalan literary studies (1974–2003): Towards a bibliometrics of humanities studies in minority languages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 347-366, November.
    14. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    15. Takahiro Kawamura & Katsutaro Watanabe & Naoya Matsumoto & Shusaku Egami & Mari Jibu, 2018. "Funding map using paragraph embedding based on semantic diversity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 941-958, August.
    16. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    17. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Geert Campenhout & Tom Caneghem & Steve Uytbergen, 2008. "A comparison of overall and sub-area journal influence: The case of the accounting literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 61-90, October.

    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:127:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04276-y. 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.