Diversity and interdisciplinarity in nanoscience and nanotechnology: a time-related analysis of the subject category
Source abstract
Abstract
Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies (NST) are known for their potentialities, as well as for their interdisciplinarity, due to their exploitation of their specific approach in different scientific fields. Aim of the present paper is to study the evolution of interdisciplinarity in NST. Its experimental activity is based on the data of the "NANOSCIENCE & NANOTECHNOLOGY" (N&N) "Web of Science(TM)" Subject category. This Subject category, launched in 2005, collects the relevant NST scientific literature and is thus an instrument apt to its analysis. The article uses data of the accessory Subject categories of the journals belonging to N&N to calculate several Diversity indicators, able to disentangle its interdisciplinary features. Results show that the main evolution in such terms is in the first years since its inception, while the situation in 2010s is more stable. Nevertheless analysis of data shows also a lack of balance between the accessory subject categories.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration · University-Industry-Government Innovation Models
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Arora SK, Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P (2013) Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs. Scientometrics 95(1):351–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0903-610.1007/s11192-012-0903-6 ↗
2. Chen H, Roco MC, Son J, Jiang S, Larson CA, Gao Q (2013) Global nanotechnology development from 1991 to 2012: patents, scientific publications, and effect of NSF funding. J Nanopart Res 15(9):1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1951-410.1007/s11051-013-1951-4 ↗
3. Coccia M, Finardi U, Margon D (2012) Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geoeconomic players. J Technol Transf 37(5):777–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9219-610.1007/s10961-011-9219-6 ↗
4. Finardi U (2014) On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: an empirical study. J Informetr 8(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.00310.1016/j.joi.2013.10.003 ↗
5. Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, Bruun H, Hukkinen J (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res Policy 39(1):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.01110.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011 ↗
6. Jo H, Park Y, Kim SE, Lee H (2016) Exploring the intellectual structure of nanoscience and nanotechnology: journal citation network analysis. J Nanopart Res 18(6):167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3473-310.1007/s11051-016-3473-3 ↗
7. Leydesdorff L (2007) Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 58(9):1303–1319. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.2061410.1002/asi.20614 ↗
8. Leydesdorff L (2018) Diversity and interdisciplinarity: how can one distinguish and recombine disparity, variety, and balance? Scientometrics 116(3):2113–2121. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2810-y10.1007/s11192-018-2810-y ↗
9. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2009) A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 60(2):348–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.2096710.1002/asi.20967 ↗
10. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2011) Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: diversity, centrality, and citations. J Informetr 5(1):87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.09.00210.1016/j.joi.2010.09.002 ↗
11. Leydesdorff L, Wagner CS, Bornmann L (2018) Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—a tribute to Eugene Garfield. Scientometrics 114(2):567–592. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2528-210.1007/s11192-017-2528-2 ↗
12. Leydesdorff L, Wagner CS, Bornmann L (2019) Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient. J Informetr 13(1):255–269. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.00610.1016/j.joi.2018.12.006 ↗
13. Li Y, Youtie J, Shapira P (2015) Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology. J Technol Transf 40(6):1016–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9391-610.1007/s10961-014-9391-6 ↗
14. Muñoz-Écija T, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z (2017) Identification and visualization of the intellectual structure and the main research lines in nanoscience and nanotechnology at the worldwide level. J Nanopart Res 19(2):62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3732-310.1007/s11051-016-3732-3 ↗
15. Munoz-Sandoval E (2013) Trends in nanoscience, nanotechnology, and carbon nanotubes: a bibliometric approach. J Nanopart Res 16(1):2152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-2152-x10.1007/s11051-013-2152-x ↗
16. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS, Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-0-309-38637-1. https://doi.org/10.17226/1115310.17226/11153 ↗
17. Patra D, Leisnham P, Tanui C, Pradhan A (2020) Evaluation of global research trends in the area of food waste due to date labeling using a scientometrics approach. Food Control 115:107307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.10730710.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107307 ↗
18. Pilkington A, Meredith J (2009) The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management—1980– 2006: a citation/co-citation analysis. J Oper Manag 27(3):185–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.08.00110.1016/j.jom.2008.08.001 ↗
19. Porter AL, Rafols I (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81(3):719–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-210.1007/s11192-008-2197-2 ↗
20. Porter AL, Youtie J (2009) How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? J Nanopart Res 11(5):1023–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9607-010.1007/s11051-009-9607-0 ↗
21. Porter AL, Cohen AS, David Roessner J, Perreault M (2007) Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics 72(1):117–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1700-510.1007/s11192-007-1700-5 ↗
22. Rafols I, Meyer M (2010) Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 82(2):263–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y ↗
23. Rao CR (1982) Diversity: its measurement, decomposition, apportionment and analysis. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (1961–2002) 44(1):1–22
24. Roco MC (2003a) Nanotechnology: convergence with modern biology and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 14(3):337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-1669(03)00068-510.1016/S0958-1669(03)00068-5 ↗
25. Roco MC (2003b) Converging science and technology at the nanoscale: opportunities for education and training. Nat Biotechnol 21:1247–1249. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1003-124710.1038/nbt1003-1247 ↗
26. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: integrating from the nanoscale. J Nanopart Res 4(4):281–295. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102115202334910.1023/A:1021152023349 ↗
27. Siegel RW, Hu E, Cox DM, Goronkin H, Jelinski L, Koch CC, Mendel J, Roco MC, Shaw DT (1999) Nanostructure science and technology. Springer, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9185-010.1007/978-94-015-9185-0 ↗
28. Stahlschmidt S, Schmidt M (2017) Measuring and analysing the internal, topical coherence of Web of Science subject categories. In: ISSI 2017 Conference Proceedings - 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 16–20 October, 2017 WUHAN CHINA, pp. 902–907. https://www.issi-society.org/proceedings/issi_2017/2017ISSI. Accessed Dec 2020
29. Stirling A (2007) A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J R Soc Interface 4(15):707–719. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2007.021310.1098/rsif.2007.0213 ↗
30. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, Keyton J, Rafols I, Börner K (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J Informetr 5(1):14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.00410.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004 ↗
31. Wang L, Li Z (2019) Knowledge flows from public science to industrial technologies. J Technol Transf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09738-910.1007/s10961-019-09738-9 ↗
32. Wang L, Notten A, Surpatean A (2013) Interdisciplinarity of nano research fields: a keyword mining approach. Scientometrics 94(3):877–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0856-910.1007/s11192-012-0856-9 ↗
33. Wang Z, Porter AL, Kwon S, Youtie J, Shapira P, Carley SF, Liu X (2019) Updating a search strategy to track emerging nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 21(9):199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-019-4627-x10.1007/s11051-019-4627-x ↗
34. Yegros-Yegros A, Rafols I, D’Este P (2015) Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS One 10(8):e0135095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.013509510.1371/journal.pone.0135095 ↗
35. Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter AL (2008) Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10(6):981–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-008-9360-910.1007/s11051-008-9360-9 ↗
36. Zhang L, Liu X, Janssens F, Liang L, Glänzel W (2010) Subject clustering analysis based on ISI category classification. J Informetr 4(2):185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.11.00510.1016/j.joi.2009.11.005 ↗