IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i2d10.1007_s11192-025-05249-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring knowledge flow in the interdisciplinary field of biosecurity: full counting method or fractional counting method?

Author

Listed:
  • Xi Wang

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Dongqiao Li

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Xiwen Liu

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Zhiqiang Wang

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

In the context of widespread concern about interdisciplinary phenomena, knowledge flows provide a dynamic and reliable perspective for understanding complex interdisciplinary phenomena. By reviewing the relevant literatures, it is found that existing studies usually calculate knowledge flows based on the full counting method. However, it remains uncertain which of these two methods, the full counting method or the fractional counting method, can measure the knowledge flow of interdisciplinary research more effective. Therefore, this study takes the field of biosecurity research as an example, designs the SP index based on the fractional counting method, and compares the full counting method with the fractional counting method in terms of knowledge flow, knowledge flow proportion, knowledge flow growth rate, etc. The results illustrate that, compared to the full counting method, the fractional counting method can provide a more fine-grained perspective, which reduces the data bias caused by a large number of citations from the same discipline in one article. Furthermore, this study divides the contribution of different disciplines into four types through SP index: Core Disciplines, Emerging Disciplines, Alternative Disciplines and Marginal Disciplines. Then, from the perspective of knowledge flow, in the same period of time, it is proposed that Core Disciplines contribute the most knowledge to the solution of biosecurity issues, while Marginal Disciplines contribute the least, among these four roles. Different researchers can select disciplines with different roles for interdisciplinary research according to their own needs. The research results also show that the roles of disciplines may change at different time stages. And the division of disciplinary roles further verifies that the fractional counting method can more accurately describe the flow of interdisciplinary knowledge. This study provides a reference for promoting further collaboration across disciplines and assisting stakeholders to identify appropriate disciplines for collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Xi Wang & Dongqiao Li & Xiwen Liu & Zhiqiang Wang, 2025. "Measuring knowledge flow in the interdisciplinary field of biosecurity: full counting method or fractional counting method?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 1101-1128, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05249-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05249-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05249-7
    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/s11192-025-05249-7?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.

    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:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05249-7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.