IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v123y2020i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03406-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics: meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019)

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann

    (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society)

  • Sitaram Devarakonda

    (NET ESolutions Corporation)

  • Alexander Tekles

    (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society
    Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich)

  • George Chacko

    (NET ESolutions Corporation)

Abstract

Wu et al. (Nature 566:378–382, 2019) introduced a new indicator measuring disruption ($${DI}_{1}$$DI1). Bornmann et al. (Do disruption index indicators measure what they propose to measure? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers, 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08775) compared variants of the disruption index and pointed to $${DI}_{5}$$DI5 as an interesting variant. The calculation of a field-specific version of $${DI}_{5}$$DI5 (focusing on disruptiveness within the same field) for Scientometrics papers in the current study reveals that the variant is possibly able to identify landmark papers in scientometrics. This result is in contrast to the Scientometrics analysis previously published by Bornmann and Tekles (Scientometrics 120(1):331–336, 2019) based on the original disruption index ($${DI}_{1}$$DI1).

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Sitaram Devarakonda & Alexander Tekles & George Chacko, 2020. "Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics: meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1149-1155, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:123:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03406-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8?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. W. Glänzel & A. Schubert & H. -J. Czerwon, 1999. "A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(2), pages 185-202, June.
    2. Yinian Gu, 2004. "Global knowledge management research: A bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(2), pages 171-190, October.
    3. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    4. Shengli Ren & Ronald Rousseau, 2002. "International visibility of Chinese scientific journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 389-405, March.
    5. Wen-Ta Chiu & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2005. "Bibliometric analysis of homeopathy research during the period of 1991 to 2003," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(1), pages 3-23, March.
    6. F. Moya-Anegón & V. Herrero-Solana, 1999. "Science in america latina: A comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(2), pages 299-320, October.
    7. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles, 2019. "Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 331-336, July.
    9. William W. Hood & Concepción S. Wilson, 2001. "The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(2), pages 291-314, October.
    10. James S. Dietz & Ivan Chompalov & Barry Bozeman & Eliesh O'Neil Lane & Jongwon Park, 2000. "Using the Curriculum Vita to Study the Career Paths of Scientists and Engineers: An Exploratory Assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(3), pages 419-442, November.
    11. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    12. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    13. Alan L. Porter & Alisa Kongthon & Jye-Chyi (JC) Lu, 2002. "Research profiling: Improving the literature review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 351-370, March.
    14. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 133-143, January.
    15. Diana Hicks, 1999. "The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(2), pages 193-215, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erin Leahey & Jina Lee & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?," American Sociological Review, , vol. 88(3), pages 562-597, June.
    2. Ruijie Wang & Yuhao Zhou & An Zeng, 2023. "Evaluating scientists by citation and disruption of their representative works," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1689-1710, March.
    3. Yuyan Jiang & Xueli Liu, 2023. "A construction and empirical research of the journal disruption index based on open citation data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 3935-3958, July.
    4. Lin, Yiling & Evans, James A. & Wu, Lingfei, 2022. "New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    6. Yue Wang & Ning Li & Bin Zhang & Qian Huang & Jian Wu & Yang Wang, 2023. "The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1801-1823, March.
    7. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.
    8. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz, 2021. "Disruption indices and their calculation using web-of-science data: Indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    9. Nan Deng & An Zeng, 2023. "Enhancing the robustness of the disruption metric against noise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2419-2428, April.
    10. Jeffrey T. Macher & Christian Rutzer & Rolf Weder, 2023. "The Illusive Slump of Disruptive Patents," Papers 2306.10774, arXiv.org.
    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. Ruan, Xuanmin & Lyu, Dongqing & Gong, Kaile & Cheng, Ying & Li, Jiang, 2021. "Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    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. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    2. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    3. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz, 2021. "Disruption indices and their calculation using web-of-science data: Indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    4. 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.
    5. Osman Issah & Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Tax Aggressiveness: A Scientometric Analysis of the Existing Literature to Map the Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, June.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. Ruan, Xuanmin & Lyu, Dongqing & Gong, Kaile & Cheng, Ying & Li, Jiang, 2021. "Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    8. Ruijie Wang & Yuhao Zhou & An Zeng, 2023. "Evaluating scientists by citation and disruption of their representative works," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1689-1710, March.
    9. Nan Deng & An Zeng, 2023. "Enhancing the robustness of the disruption metric against noise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2419-2428, April.
    10. António Osório & Lutz Bornmann, 2021. "On the disruptive power of small-teams research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 117-133, January.
    11. Libo Sheng & Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Hongquan Shen & Ying Cheng, 2023. "The association between prior knowledge and the disruption of an article," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4731-4751, August.
    12. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    13. Vanessa Sandoval-Romero & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 99-126, January.
    14. Guoqiang Liang & Ying Lou & Haiyan Hou, 2022. "Revisiting the disruptive index: evidence from the Nobel Prize-winning articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5721-5730, October.
    15. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    16. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.
    17. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    18. Wang, Jean J. & Ye, Fred Y., 2021. "Probing into the interactions between papers and patents of new CRISPR/CAS9 technology: A citation comparison," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    19. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    20. Ali Najmi & Taha H. Rashidi & Alireza Abbasi & S. Travis Waller, 2017. "Reviewing the transport domain: an evolutionary bibliometrics and network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 843-865, February.

    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:spr:scient:v:123:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03406-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.