Skip to main content
Log in

A new approach to defining a multidisciplinary field of science: The case of cardiovascular biology

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes a new and objective method for tackling the problem of defining a multidisciplinary research area for bibliometric analysis. The test field was cardiovascular biology. A three stage process was adopted in setting a boundary around this research field:

  1. 1.

    Appropriate sections of a hierarchical subject classification scheme, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), were developed into a “MeSH filter” through which papers indexed in MEDLINE were screened.

  2. 2.

    A panel of cardiovascular experts reviewed the core set of classification terms, identifying irrelevant and missing areas, facilitating the development of a more sophisticated “filter”.

  3. 3.

    The definition was validated using publication lists from research departments with a known interest in cardiovascular research.

This iterative process resulted in a definition of the field which captured basic and clinical research papers from the international biomedical research community and which was recognisable to experts in the field of cardiovascular research. Importantly, the field boundary also excluded publications which were not relevant to cardiovascular research. The process of involving experts in shaping the field definition also yielded two intangible, but key benefits: (a) it lent credibility to subsequent analyses, the results of which were to be presented to policy-makers in cardiovascular biology, and (b) it served to shape consensus among the cardiovascular experts on the full range of scientific disciplines that are relevant to their field.

Analysis of international publishing in cardiovascular research revealed that whilst the UK and US dominate in total numbers of papers, the relative emphasis on cardiovascular research in these countries (as a proportion ofall biomedical publishing) is actually quite low, and declining. Japan and Germany in contrast appear to give greater emphasis to cardiovascular research in their national portfolios of biomedical science, and between 1988–1991 Japan established a marked increase in activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. Jones, Report on the 1989 research assessment exercise, Universities Funding Council, December 1989.

  2. J. A. McGinnety, A. G. Thomas, The efficiency of research council grants, Mimeo, Natural Environment Research Council, Swindon, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. O. Williams, Report to the Director of Research and Development, Review of the role of DH-funded research units. Strategies for long-term funding of Research and Development, Department of Health, March 1992.

  4. B. R. Martin, The bibliometric assessment of the UK scientific performance: a reply to Braun, Glänzel and Schubert,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 333–357.

    Google Scholar 

  5. WHO annual health statistics International Classification of Diseases (410–414) (1990).

  6. OPCS, Mortality Statistics 1988, DH2 no. 15, HMSO (1990).

  7. Health of the Nation. A consultative document for Health in England, Department of Health, HMSO, 1991.

  8. P. Isard, J. Forbes, The cost of stroke to the NHS in Scotland,Cerebrovascular Diseases, (1992) (in press).

  9. The Health of the Nation. A strategy for health in England. Department of Health, HMSO, 1992.

  10. M. Peckham, Research and development for the National Health Service,The Lancet, 338 (1991) 367–371.

    Google Scholar 

  11. MRC Cardiovascular Working Group Report, 1990, Professor A. Henderson personal communication.

  12. B. Balmer, B. R. Martin, Who's doing what in human genome research,Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 369–377.

    Google Scholar 

  13. H. Small, E. Sweeney, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations, Part I, A comparison of methods,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 393–409.

    Google Scholar 

  14. H. Small, E. Sweeney, E. Greenlee, Clustering the Science Citation Index, II, Mapping science,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. E. Cozzens, Literature-based data in research evaluation: a managers guide to bibliometrics, SPSG Concept Paper II, 1990.

  16. K. Stevens, F. Narin, National Citation Indicators based on citing year: the citation time anomaly, CHI Research Inc., memo to science literature indicator users, May, 1989.

  17. H. G. Small, B. C. Griffith, The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Sullivan, D. Hywel-White, E. J. Barboni, Co-citation analyses of science: an evaluation,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 223–240.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds),Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, London, Macmillan, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. Healey, H. Rothman, P. K. Hoch, An experiment in science mapping for research planning,Research Policy, 15 (1986) 233–251.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. Law, J. Whittaker, Mapping acidification research: a test of the co-word method,Scientometrics, 23 (1992) 417–461.

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Library of Medicine News, 46 (1991), July–August.

  23. National Library of Medicine, Index Medicus Review (1991).

  24. National Library of Medicine, US Department of Health and Human Services, Medical Subject Headings, 1–2 (1991).

  25. J. Anderson, P. M. D. Collins, J. Irvine, P. A. Isard, B. R. Martin, F. Narin, K. Stevens, On-Line approaches to measuring national scientific output: A cautionary tale,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  26. F. Narin, The Japan Technology 50, Venture Economics Inc., 1988.

  27. J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, International comparisons of scientific performance revisited,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 369–392.

    Google Scholar 

  28. S. Le Minor, P. Dostatni, A bibliometric study of publications of the National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM),Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  29. B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61–90.

    Google Scholar 

  30. S. M. Lawani, On the relationship between quantity and quality of a country's research productivity,Journal of Information Science, 5 (1982) 143–145.

    Google Scholar 

  31. F. Narin, Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of research programs,Science and Public Policy, 14 (1987) 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, T. Braun, Against absolute methods: relative scientometric indicators and relational charts as evaluation tools,Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology,A. J. F. Van Raan (Ed.), 1988, p. 137–176.

  33. O. Persson, Measuring scientific output by online techniques,Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology,A. J. F. Van Raan (Ed.), 1988, p. 229–254.

  34. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Assessing assessments of British Science: some facts and figures to accept or decline,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 165–170.

    Google Scholar 

  35. B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, F. Narin, C. Sterritt, K. A. Stevens, Recent trends in the output and impact of British science,Science and Public Policy, 17 (1990) 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sciencewatch, March 2 (1991) 2–8.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rogers, L.A., Anderson, J. A new approach to defining a multidisciplinary field of science: The case of cardiovascular biology. Scientometrics 28, 61–77 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016285

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016285

Keywords

Navigation