IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v15y2021i1s1751157720306398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the characteristics of impactful research topics: A case of three decades of HIV-AIDS research

Author

Listed:
  • Xu, Ran
  • Baghaei Lakeh, Arash
  • Ghaffarzadegan, Navid

Abstract

While research is a process that may span over several years, and its success depends on multiple factors such as performance of the scientists, methods and technologies employed, one cannot understate the importance of the choice of research topic. Yet, how do we systematically characterize a research topic, and to what extent do topic choices affect the future impact of scientific studies? Drawing on more than 200,000 HIV-AIDS-related publications over the last three decades, we constructed a dynamic topic network from the abstracts of these publications through a topic-modeling approach. The network depicts the evolution of HIV-AIDS scientific knowledge over time. We mapped some salient network properties of each paper’s topic(s) to the future citation impact of the publication. Results showed that high-impact studies include novel topics (topics less-studied before, in contrast to “popular” topics), combine topics with varying maturity (e.g., well-explored and less-studied topics), and have a smaller number of competing topics. Furthermore, an excessive combination of topics has a detrimental effect on the impact of a publication.

Suggested Citation

  • Xu, Ran & Baghaei Lakeh, Arash & Ghaffarzadegan, Navid, 2021. "Examining the characteristics of impactful research topics: A case of three decades of HIV-AIDS research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:1:s1751157720306398
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2020.101122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157720306398
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101122?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    2. Tingcan Ma & Ruinan Li & Guiyan Ou & Mingliang Yue, 2018. "Topic based research competitiveness evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 789-803, November.
    3. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 606-617.
    4. Aksnes, Dag W. & Rip, Arie, 2009. "Researchers' perceptions of citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 895-905, July.
    5. Dag W. Aksnes, 2006. "Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 169-185, January.
    6. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    7. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    8. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    9. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    10. Jimi Adams & Ryan Light, 2014. "Mapping Interdisciplinary Fields: Efficiencies, Gaps and Redundancies in HIV/AIDS Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Small, Henry & Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Identifying emerging topics in science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1450-1467.
    12. Rogelio Oliva, 2020. "On structural dominance analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 8-28, January.
    13. Hazhir Rahmandad & Keyvan Vakili, 2019. "Explaining Heterogeneity in the Organization of Scientific Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1125-1145, November.
    14. Keijl, S. & Gilsing, V.A. & Knoben, J. & Duysters, G., 2016. "The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recombination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1061-1074.
    15. Confraria, Hugo & Mira Godinho, Manuel & Wang, Lili, 2017. "Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 265-279.
    16. Manika Lamba & Margam Madhusudhan, 2019. "Mapping of topics in DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, India: a study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 477-505, August.
    17. John D. Sterman & Jason Wittenberg, 1999. "Path Dependence, Competition, and Succession in the Dynamics of Scientific Revolution," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 322-341, June.
    18. Hyungjo Hur & Maryam A Andalib & Julie A Maurer & Joshua D Hawley & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2017. "Recent trends in the U.S. Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (BSSR) workforce," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    19. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    20. Francesca De Battisti & Alfio Ferrara & Silvia Salini, 2015. "A decade of research in statistics: a topic model approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 413-433, May.
    21. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2018. "Competition between academic journals for scholars’ attention: the ‘Nature effect’ in scholarly communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1413-1432, June.
    22. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    23. Moed, Henk F., 2010. "Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 265-277.
    24. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.
    25. Tian Yu & Guang Yu & Peng-Yu Li & Liang Wang, 2014. "Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1233-1252, November.
    26. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1982. "The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 114-132, March.
    27. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    28. Hu, Ya-Han & Tai, Chun-Tien & Liu, Kang Ernest & Cai, Cheng-Fang, 2020. "Identification of highly-cited papers using topic-model-based and bibliometric features: the consideration of keyword popularity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    29. Dag W Aksnes, 2003. "Characteristics of highly cited papers," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 159-170, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qianqian Jin & Hongshu Chen & Ximeng Wang & Tingting Ma & Fei Xiong, 2022. "Exploring funding patterns with word embedding-enhanced organization–topic networks: a case study on big data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5415-5440, September.
    2. Madeline K. Kneeland & Melissa A. Schilling & Barak S. Aharonson, 2020. "Exploring Uncharted Territory: Knowledge Search Processes in the Origination of Outlier Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 535-557, May.
    3. Magda Fontana & Martina Iori & Fabio Montobbio & Roberta Sinatra, 2018. "A bridge over troubled water: Interdisciplinarity, Novelty, and Impact," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Politica Economica dipe0002, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    4. Li, Xin & Wen, Yang & Jiang, Jiaojiao & Daim, Tugrul & Huang, Lucheng, 2022. "Identifying potential breakthrough research: A machine learning method using scientific papers and Twitter data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    6. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    7. Aksnes, Dag W. & Rip, Arie, 2009. "Researchers' perceptions of citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 895-905, July.
    8. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    9. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    10. Yan, Hong-Bin & Li, Ming, 2022. "Consumer demand based recombinant search for idea generation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    11. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    12. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    13. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    14. Deichmann, Dirk & Moser, Christine & Birkholz, Julie M. & Nerghes, Adina & Groenewegen, Peter & Wang, Shenghui, 2020. "Ideas with impact: How connectivity shapes idea diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    15. Bornmann, Lutz & Adams, Jonathan & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2018. "The negative effects of citing with a national orientation in terms of recognition: National and international citations in natural-sciences papers from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 931-949.
    16. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander & Zhang, Helena H. & Ye, Fred Y., 2019. "Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    17. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    18. Miranda, Ruben & Garcia-Carpintero, Esther, 2018. "Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1015-1030.
    19. Jeongsik “Jay” Lee & Hyun Ju Jung & Hyunwoo Park, 2023. "Rare is beautiful? Rareness, technology value, and the moderating role of search domain and knowledge maturity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(4), pages 1019-1040, April.
    20. Wang, Jian & Shibayama, Sotaro, 2022. "Mentorship and creativity: Effects of mentor creativity and mentoring style," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:1:s1751157720306398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.