Diversity and interdisciplinarity: Should variety, balance and disparity be combined as a product or better as a sum? An information-theoretical and statistical estimation approach

Diversity is a central concept not only in ecology, but also in the social sciences and in bibliometrics. The discussion about an adequate measure of diversity is strongly driven by the work of Rao (Sankhyā Indian J Stat Series A 44:1-22, 1982) and Stirling (J R Soc Interface 4:707-719, 2007). It is to the credit of Leydesdorff (Scientometr 116:2113-2121, 2018) to have proposed a decisive improvement with regard to an inconsistency in the Rao-Sterling-diversity indicator that Rousseau (Scientometr 116:645-653, 2018) had pointed out. With recourse to Shannon's probabilistically based entropy concept, in this contribution the three components of diversity “variety”, “balance”, and “disparity” are to be reconceptualized as entropy masses that add up to an overall diversity indicator dive. Diversity can thus be interpreted as the degree of uncertainty or unpredictability. For "disparity", for example, the concept of mutual information is used. However, probabilities must be estimated statistically. A basic estimation strategy (cross tables) and a more sophisticated one (parametric statistical model) are presented. This overall probability-theoretical based concept is applied exemplarily to data on research output types of funded research projects in UK that were the subject of the Metric Tide Report (REF 2014) and ex-ante evaluation data of a research funding organization. As expected, research output types depend on the research area, with journal articles having the strongest individual balance among the output types, i.e., being represented in almost all research areas. For the ex-ante evaluation data of 1,221 funded projects the diversity components were statistically estimated. The overall diversity of the projects in terms of entropy is 55.5% of the maximal possible entropy.

Interdisciplinary Research Maps: A new technique for visualizing research topics

This article introduces Interdisciplinary Research Maps as a novel visualization technique to assist with interdisciplinary research analytics and to map common (and distinct) topics across publications from different disciplines. We detail the method for this technique which is based on entity linking and illustrate its application to a sample of articles sourced from the top business/management and environmental sciences journals. Both fields have separately been criticized for a lack of interdisciplinary research to co-create insights for tackling pressing environmental issues such as climate change. Our mapping approach provides a starting point for exploring similarities and differences in research topics across these fields. The mapping technique introduced here has broader applicability to facilitate the creation and exchange of knowledge across fields. We discuss avenues for visualization techniques to bridge the different fields by focusing on identifying common concepts to provide a basis for future analysis.

A critical realist synthesis of cross-disciplinary health policy and systems research: defining characteristic features, developing an evaluation framework and identifying challenges

BACKGROUND

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is an inherently cross-disciplinary field of investigation. However, conflicting conceptualisations about inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary research have contributed to confusion about the characteristics of cross-disciplinary approaches in HPSR. This review was conducted to (1) define the characteristic features of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in cross-disciplinary HPSR, (2) develop criteria for evaluating cross-disciplinarity and (3) synthesise emerging challenges of the approach.

METHOD

The paper is a critical realist synthesis conducted in three phases, as follows: (1) scoping the literature, (2) searching for and screening the evidence, and (3) extracting and synthesising the evidence. Five databases, namely the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and Web of Science, PubMed central, Embase and CINHAL, and reference lists of studies that qualified for inclusion in the review were searched. The search covered peer-reviewed original research, reviews, commentary papers, and institutional or government reports published in English between January 1998 and January 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 7792 titles were identified in the online search and 137 publications, comprising pilot studies as well as anecdotal and empirical literature were selected for the final review. The review draws attention to the fact that cross-disciplinary HPSR is not defined by individual characteristics but by the combination of a particular type of research question and setting (context), a specific way of researchers working together (mechanism), and research output (outcome) that is superior to what could be achieved under a monodisciplinary approach. This CMO framework also informs the criteria for assessing whether a given HPSR is truly cross-disciplinary. The challenges of cross-disciplinary HPSR and their accompanying coping mechanisms were also found to be context driven, originating mainly from conceptual disagreements, institutional restrictions, communication and information management challenges, coordination problems, and resource limitations.

CONCLUSION

These findings have important implications. First, the CMO framework of cross-disciplinary HPSR can provide guidance for researchers engaging in new projects and for policy-makers using their findings. Second, the proposed criteria for evaluating theory and practice of cross-disciplinary HPSR may inform the systematic development of new research projects and the structured assessment of existing ones. Third, a better understanding of the challenges of cross-disciplinary HPSR and potential response mechanisms may help researchers to avoid these problems in the future.

User needs assessment for research data services in a research university

This study assesses the needs of researchers for data-related assistance and investigates their research data management behavior. A survey was conducted, and 186 valid responses were collected from faculty, researchers, and graduate students across different disciplines at a research university. The services for which researchers perceive the greatest need include assistance with quantitative analysis and data visualization. Overall, the need for data-related assistance is relatively higher among health scientists, while humanities researchers demonstrate the lowest need. This study also investigated the data formats used, data documentation and storage practices, and data-sharing behavior of researchers. We found that researchers rarely use metadata standards, but rely more on a standard file-naming scheme. As to data sharing, respondents are likely to share their data personally upon request or as supplementary materials to journal publications. The findings of this study will be useful for planning user-centered research data services in academic libraries.

Seizure and epilepsy publication in nonneurology journals

PURPOSE

The prevalence and characteristics of seizure and epilepsy research published in nonneurology journals are unknown. Characterizing this published research allows for insight into the relevance of seizures and epilepsy in other specialties and may increase opportunity for cross-specialty collaboration.

METHODS

In this observational study, we reviewed the top five highly cited clinical journals within eleven specialties in the InCites Journal Citation Reports (JCR) database (2016). For each specialty, we collected 2013-2017 PubMed data on publications with MeSH Major Topic of "seizures," "epilepsy," or "status epilepticus." Medical subject headings (MeSH) in PubMed are standardized terms assigned by subject analysts. MeSH Major Topic identifies articles in which a specified topic is the major focus of the article. We also retrieved author country and medical specialty affiliations. We analyzed whether author specialty affiliation was 1) concordant with journal medical specialty, 2) neurology-related, or 3) other.

RESULTS

Articles on "seizures," "epilepsy," or "status epilepticus" had the following prevalence in specialty clinical journals: cardiac and cardiovascular systems (0.01%); clinical neurology (5.34%); critical care medicine (0.20%); emergency medicine (0.47%); general and internal medicine (0.44%); neuroimaging (2.05%); neurosurgery (2.23%); obstetrics and gynecology (0.16%); oncology (0.01%); pediatrics (0.69%); and psychiatry (0.23%). Within general and internal medicine, neuroimaging, and pediatrics, seizure-related articles are more likely to be first-authored by someone with a neurology-related affiliation. Within critical care medicine, emergency medicine, neurosurgery, and obstetrics and gynecology, seizure-related articles were more likely to be first-authored by someone whose affiliation is within the field.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study characterizes seizure and epilepsy research published in nonneurology journals. We found that there is a paucity of such research published in nonneurology journals, whether authored by neurologists or other specialists. This is not ideal since nonneurologists are often first-line providers for recognizing, diagnosing, or managing seizures prior to assessment by a neurologist. Cross-specialty collaboration should be strongly encouraged in clinical research.

Research diversification and its relationship with publication counts and impact: A case study based on Australian professors

This research aims to investigate whether multi/inter-disciplinary research activities are related to research impact and publication counts of scholars. Since researchers with very high levels of multi/inter-disciplinarity might be able to target complex problems, we would expect them to receive more credits than their colleagues with a stronger disciplinary orientation. We analysed Web of Science (WoS) indexed publications of all associate and full professors from a random sample of Australian universities in physics, chemistry and biology (1980–2014). Australian Fields of Research (FoR) codes assigned to journals were used to calculate the diversification of authors’ publications. The number of citations in the first 3 years, number of 10% most frequently cited papers, and citation impact percentile were used for impact assessment. A few indicators were used to measure the diversity including ‘extent of diversification (ED)’ (number of distinct FoR codes divided by the number of publications) and ‘diversification ratio (DR)’ (ratio of the publications falling outside the dominant code to the total number of publications). A total of 47.76% of biologists’ publications, 35.23% of physicists’ publications and 20.36% of chemists’ publications were published in journals assigned to fields other than the Australian associate and full professors’ fields. Publications from biologists had the largest values of diversification. Women (compared with men) and associate professors (compared with full professors) in chemistry, biology and overall were more probably to publish diversely. ED was negatively correlated with output and citation impact. DR also had a negative but weak correlation with the number of publications and 10% most frequently cited paper.

Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity-A tribute to Eugene Garfield

Journals were central to Eugene Garfield’s research interests. Among other things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus. In addition to providing a basis for disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of disciplines; the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration, but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary—that is, non-disciplined—variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be considered as diffusion  or differentiation of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of interdisciplinarity at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can therefore be decomposed; differences among (sub)sets can be tested for statistical significance. In the appendix, a general-purpose routine for measuring diversity in networks is provided.