Abstract
In this paper we seek to better understand the relationship between forward diversity in the Cognitive Science and Educational Research literature, as well as what we call Border fields (i.e. those fields which exist at the intersection of Cognitive Science and Education Research). We find a clear and convincing relationship between forward and backward diversity in the datasets we study. Among all available explanatory variables, Integration scores claim the strongest correlation in terms of their ability to account for forward diversity. When comparing results from this study to benchmark results from a prior study (using the same indicators) the datasets in this study show a tendency to be both more integrative and diffuse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We drop the retracted articles from the sample as they are falsified knowledge.
We do not include the summary statistics of the Journal in this table.
See the distribution of these two variable in the "Appendix".
References
Autant-Bernard, C., Mairesse, J., & Massard, N. (2007). Spatial knowledge diffusion through collaborative networks. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 341–350.
Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2012). A forward diversity index. Scientometrics, 90(2), 407–427.
Carley, S., Porter, A. L., Rafols, I., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Visualization of disciplinary profiles: Enhanced science overlay maps. Journal of Data and Information Science (JDIS), 2(3), 68–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0015.
Cassi, L., Mescheba, W., & Turckheim, E. (2014). How to evaluate the degree of interdisciplinarity of an institution? Scientometrics, 101(3), 1871–1895.
Chen, C., & Hicks, D. (2004). Tracing knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics, 59(2), 199–211.
Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 191–209.
Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, of the Committee On Science, Engineering, And Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Garner, J., Porter, A. L., & Newman, N. C. (2014). Distance and velocity measures: Using citations to determine breadth and speed of research impact. Scientometrics, 100(3), 687–703.
Goldstone, R., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The import and export of Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 983–993.
Katz J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. In 6th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Jerusalem, Israel.
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics, 94, 589–593.
MacGarvie, M. (2005). The determinants of international knowledge diffusion as measured by patent citations. Economics Letters, 87, 121–126.
Mugabushaka, A. M., Kyriakou, A., & Papazoglou, T. (2016). Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: The potential of the Leinster–Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity. Scientometrics, 107(2), 593–607.
Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17(4), 273–282.
Roessner, D., Porter, A. L., Nersessian, N., & Carley, S. (2013). Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: Linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs. Scientometrics, 94(2), 439–468.
Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51, 756–770.
Solomon, G., Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2016). How multidisciplinary are the multidisciplinary journals science and nature? PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0152637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152637.
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.
Wang, X., Wang, Z., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, H., et al. (2017). Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories. Scientometrics, 111(3), 2023–2039.
Youtie, J., Solomon, G. E. A., Carley, S., Kwon, S., & Porter, A. L. (2017). Crossing borders: A citation analysis of connections between cognitive science and educational eesearch and the fields in between. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 242–255.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from the US National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources (DRL-1348765) to A.P. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Are diffusion scores normally distributed?
Appendix: Are diffusion scores normally distributed?
In “A Forward Diversity Index,” Carley and Porter (2012) find that “Integration and diffusion score distributions for each of the [six] benchmarks, except Math, assumed a bell shape. Most of the Math integration and diffusion score data-points, by contrast, concentrated at relatively low values.” Table 6 (below) provides descriptive statistics for the D Scores used in this study’s dataset:
From Table 6 we note that both Kurtosis and Skew fall within the − 2 to 2 range, consistent with a normal distribution. Since the Skew isn’t greater than 2*SQRT(6/Count) we conclude there isn’t significant skew. Mean (0.52) and Median (0.54) values are similar, also consistent with a normal distribution. A Frequency Distribution Histogram (for CORE D Scores), provided below, assumes a bell shape (Fig. 1).
Diffusion score frequency distribution histogram
On the basis of the preceding we think it reasonable to posit that the D Scores used in this study are normally distributed.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carley, S.F., Kwon, S., Porter, A.L. et al. The relationship between forward and backward diversity in CORE datasets. Scientometrics 120, 961–974 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03163-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03163-3