Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which specific features of interdisciplinary research are accurately reflected in selected bibliometric measures of scholarly publications over time. To test the validity of these measures, we compare knowledge of research processes and impact based on ethnographic studies of a well-established researcher’s laboratory, together with personal interview data, against bibliometric indicators of cognitive integration, diffusion, and impact represented in the entire portfolio of papers produced by this researcher over time.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. VantagePoint: http://www.theVantagePoint.com.

  2. For details of how integration scores I are calculated, see Porter et al. 2008.

  3. t tests were calculated with benefit of: http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest1.cfm.

  4. For more on JIFs, including how they are calculated, see http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/.

  5. Benchmark sample sizes are calculated with benefit of: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, using a confidence level of 95 % and confidence interval of ±3.

  6. The top five SCs for Nerem (by record counts), in order of magnitude, are: Engineering, Biomedical (BME), Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD), Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems (CCS), Hematology (HEM) and Cell Biology (CBI). We note that the lion’s share (i.e., 63.75 %) of Nerem’s research falls into one or more of these categories.

  7. A Nerem publication with the SC Biomedical Engineering (BME) is said to be affiliated with the BME benchmark.

  8. t tests are calculated with benefit of: http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest1.cfm?Format=SD.

  9. The mean number of cases (i.e., publications) Nerem has for each for the above SC year comparisons is 2.

  10. Nitric oxide synthases (NOSs) are a family of enzymes that catalyze the production of nitric oxide (NO) from l-arginine. NO is an important cellular signaling molecule, having a vital role in many biological processes. It is the intercellular signal that controls vascular tone (hence blood pressure), insulin secretion, airway tone, and peristalsis and is involved in angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels) and in the development of the nervous system. It is believed to function as a retrograde neurotransmitter and hence is likely to be important in learning. Nitric oxide signalling is mediated in mammals by the calcium/calmodulin controlled isoenzymes eNOS (endothelial NOS) and nNOS (neuronal NOS); the inducible isoform iNOS is involved in immune response, binds calmodulin at all physiologically relevant concentrations, and produces large amounts of NO as a defense mechanism. It is the proximate cause of septic shock and may play a role in many diseases with an autoimmune etiology. “Nitric Oxide Synthase" Wikipedia Web, 24 Nov 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_oxide_synthase).

References

  • Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek—program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2012). A forward diversity index. Scientometrics.

  • De Keulenaer, G. W., Chappell, D. C., Ishizaka, N., et al. (1998). Oscillatory and steady laminar shear stress differentially affect human endothelial redox state—role of a superoxide-producing NADH oxidase. Circulation Research, 82(10), 1094–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J., & Porter, A. L. (2011). Assessing the human and social dynamics program—exceptional cross-disciplinarity. Atlanta: Proceedings, Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ku, D. N. (1997). Blood flow in arteries. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 29, 399–434.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, M. J., & Nerem, R. M. (1985). The elongation and orientation of cultured endothelial-cells in response to shear-stress. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Transactions of the ASME, 107(4), 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51, 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Committee on Science, Engineering and Ublic Policy. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 730–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J., & Patton, C. (2009). Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 687–718). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishida, K., Harrison, D. G., Navas, J. P., et al. (1992). Molecular-cloning and characterization of the constitutive bovine aortic endothelial-cell nitric-oxide synthase. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 90(5), 2092–2096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17(4), 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I. (2007). Strategies for knowledge acquisition in bionanotechnology: why are interdisciplinary practices less widespread than expected? Innovation. The European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(4), 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., et al. (2008). The science of team science—overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77–S89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uematsu, M., Ohara, Y., Navas, J. P., et al. (1995). Regulation of endothelial cell nitric oxide synthase mRNA expression by shear stress. American Journal of Physiology Cell Physiology, 269(6), C1371–C1378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our grateful thanks to Dr. Robert Nerem for his extremely helpful cooperation during this study. We appreciate the support of the National Science Foundation (Award #0830207, “Measuring and Tracking Research Knowledge Integration”). We also appreciate the support of NSF (Award #s DRL0109773 and DRL0450578) in conducting the research on the Nerem tissue engineering research lab. The findings and observations contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    David Roessner, Alan L. Porter, Nancy J. Nersessian & Stephen Carley

  2. 1824 Hull Avenue, Redwood City, CA, 94061, USA

    David Roessner

Authors
  1. David Roessner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan L. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nancy J. Nersessian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Carley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Roessner.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 5

Table 5 Nerem journal classifications
Full size table

Appendix B

References for the three papers that put Nerem on the map early on

  1. 1.

    Nerem, R.M., & Seed, W. A. (1972). In vivo study of aortic flow disturbances. Cardiovascular Research, 6 (1), 1–14.

  2. 2.

    Nerem, R. M., Wood, N. B., & Seed, W. A. (1972). Experimental study of velocity distribution and transition to turbulence in the aorta. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 52 (14).

  3. 3.

    Caro, C. G., & Nerem, R. M. (1973). Transport of C-14-4-cholesterol between serum and wall in perfused dog common carotid-artery. Circulation Research, 32(2), 187–205.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roessner, D., Porter, A.L., Nersessian, N.J. et al. Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs. Scientometrics 94, 439–468 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0872-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0872-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation