Refine your search
Collections
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Ye, Fred Y.
- Characterizing Interdisciplinarity of Nobel Laureates’ Key Publications
Abstract Views :271 |
PDF Views:80
Authors
Affiliations
1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, CN
1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, CN
Source
Current Science, Vol 117, No 7 (2019), Pagination: 1148-1152Abstract
To know whether greater or smaller interdisciplinarity benefits high-quality scientific outputs, two indicators, the Brillouin’s (BI) and Hill-type (HI) indices, are applied to characterize interdisciplinarity of key publications of Nobel laureates from 2001 to 2010. Both BI and HI indicate that smaller interdisciplinarity benefits the creative works of these Nobel laureates. The results show high concordance between BI and HI, with high correlation (>0.8). Although all values, with BI < 1 and HI < 12, show that the interdisciplinarity is always small in the sample, the study also shows that interdisciplinary studies are more widely distributed in the field of physiology or medicine than that in physics.Keywords
Interdisciplinarity, Interdisciplinary Measure, Nobel Laureates’ Key Publications.Full Text
References
- Brillouin, L., Science and Information Theory, Academic Press, New York, 1956.
- Small, H. G. and Griffith, B. C., The structure of scientific literatures: identifying and graphing specialties. Sci. Stud., 1974, 4, 17–40.
- Porter, A. L. and Chubin, D. E., An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 1985, 8, 161–176.
- Stirling, A., A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J. R. Soc. Interface., 2007, 4, 707–719.
- Rafols, I. and Meyer, M., Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 2010, 82, 263–287.
- Zhang, L., Rousseau, R. and Glänzel, W., Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: taking similarity between subject fields into account. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2016, 67, 1257–1265.
- Leydesdorff, L. and Probst, C., The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set: the case of communication studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2009, 60, 1709–1718.
- Leydesdorff, L. and Rafols, I., Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: diversity, centrality, and citations. J. Informetr., 2011, 5, 87–100.
- Leydesdorff, L. and Rafols, I., Interactive overlays: a new method for generating global journal maps from Web-of-Science data. J. Informetr., 2012, 6, 318–332.
- Steele, T. W. and Stier, J. C., The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences: a forestry case study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2000, 51, 476–484.
- Huang, M. H. and Chang, Y. W., A study of interdisciplinarity in information science: using direct citation and co-authorship analysis. J. Inf. Sci., 2011, 37, 369–378.
- Huang, M. H. and Chang, Y. W., A comparative study of interdisciplinary changes between information science and library science. Scientometrics, 2012, 91, 789–803.
- Chang, Y. W. and Huang, M. H., A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: using three bibliometric methods. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec., 2012, 63, 22– 33.
- Adams, J., Jackson, L. and Marshall, S., Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research, Report to Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2007.
- Levitt, J. M. and Thelwall, M., Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2008, 59, 1973–1984.
- Uzzi, B. et al., Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 2013, 342, 468–472.
- Larivière, V., Haustein, S. and Börner, K., Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10, e0122565.
- Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I. and D’Este, P., Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10, e0135095.
- Larivière, V. and Gingras, Y., On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Tech., 2010, 61, 126–131.
- McIntosh, R. P., An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to diversity. Ecology, 1967, 48, 392–404.
- Hill, M. O., Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 1973, 54, 427–432.
- Jost, L., Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology, 2007, 88, 2427–2439.
- Jost, L., Mismeasuring biological diversity: response to Hoffmann and Hoffmann (2008). Ecol. Econ., 2009, 68, 925–928.
- One big science project or 1000 smaller ones?
Abstract Views :189 |
PDF Views:79
Authors
Affiliations
1 International Joint Informatics Laboratory and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, CN
2 Nottingham University Business School (China), University of Not-tingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, CN
1 International Joint Informatics Laboratory and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Service, School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, CN
2 Nottingham University Business School (China), University of Not-tingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, CN
Source
Current Science, Vol 121, No 4 (2021), Pagination: 479-484Abstract
Historical experiences show that big science projects such as Manhattan, Apollo, LHC and the Human Genome Project often need large investment and inevitably consume significant socio-economic resources, whereas small science projects need only small investment. While most big science projects are based on known scientific principles, smaller ones explore unknowns that may result in breakthroughs, some of which may lead to Nobel Prizes. Closing one big science project may afford 1000 small science projects quantitatively. As such, decision-making on a big science project is not only a scientific issue, but also a socio-economic one. Based on the cost–benefit analysis of LHC (big science) and CNAO (small science), we found that small science projects have a higher benefit/cost ratio. At least three policy effects need to be considered: (1) Decision on investing in a big science project should consider both scientific and socio-economic merits. (2) Small science projects could be more effective than bigger ones in exploring the scientific frontier. (3) Replacing one big science project with many small science ones might benefit the scientific enterprise.Keywords
Big and small science, Nobel Prize, cost–benefit analysis, socio-economic merits.Full Text
References
- Price, D. J., Little Science, Big Science…and Beyond, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986.
- Penrose, R., The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Jonathan Cape, London, 2004.
- Gibney, E., Inside the plans for Chinese mega-collider that will dwarf the LHC. Nature, 2018.
- Group CEPCP-DS, The CEPC input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics – Physics and Detector, 2019.
- Group TCEPCAS, The CEPC input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics – Accelerator, 2019.
- Berg, J., Science, big and small. Science, 2017, 358, 1504.
- Dennis M. A., Big science. Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc, 2017.
- Alberts, B., The end of ‘small science’? Science, 2012, 337, 1583.
- Weinberg, A. M., Impact of large-scale science on the United States. Science, 1961, 134, 161–164.
- Alberts, B. M., Limits to growth: in biology, small science is good science. Cell, 1985, 41, 337–338.
- Goldstein, J. L. and Brown, M. S., A golden era of Nobel laureates. Science, 2012, 338, 1033–1034.
- Wu, L., Wang, D. and Evans, J. A., Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 2019, 566, 378–382.
- Frenkel, K. A., Nobelist Steven Weinberg Calls for Bigger Science, More Taxes, 2011.
- Bornmann, L., Measuring the societal impact of research. Embo Rep., 2012, 13, 673–676.
- Bornmann, L., What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 2012, 64, 217–233.
- Smith, R., Measuring the social impact of research – difficult but necessary. Br. Med. J., 2001, 323, 528.
- Salter, A. J. and Martin, B. R., The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res. Policy, 2001, 30, 509–532.
- Gaughan, P., Hallinan, D. and Reilly, K., Using economic cost benefit analysis methodologies to underpin the sustainability and strategic planning of coastal ocean research infrastructures in Europe. In OCEANS – Marseille Conference, Marseille, France, 2019.
- Sheth, A. and Sarkar, D., Social benefit cost analysis of electric bus transit for Ahmedabad. Trans. Dev. Econ., 2021, 7, 6; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-021-00116-5.
- Poder, T. G., Erraji, J., Coulibaly, L. P. and Koffi, K., Percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent: Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12, e0177476; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177476.
- Florio, M. and Sirtori, E., Social benefits and costs of large scale research infrastructures. Technol. Forecast. Social Change, 2016, 112, 65–78.
- Florio, M., Forte, S. and Sirtori, E., Forecasting the socio-economic impact of the Large Hadron Collider: a cost–benefit analysis to 2025 and beyond. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2016, 112, 38–53.
- Battistoni, G. et al., Cost–benefit analysis of applied research infrastructure. Evidence from health care. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2016, 112, 79–91.
- Magazinik, A. et al., Societal impact as cost–benefit analysis: comparative analysis of two research infrastructures. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). IEEE, France, 2019.
- Frank, C. et al., Health research: measuring the social, health and economic benefits. Can. Med. Assoc. J., 2009, 180, 528–534.
- Hossenfelder, S., The world doesn’t need a new gigantic particle collider. Sci. Am., 2020.