IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v11y2017i2p598-607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do mathematicians, economists and biomedical scientists trace large topics more strongly than physicists?

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Menghui
  • Yang, Liying
  • Zhang, Huina
  • Shen, Zhesi
  • Wu, Chensheng
  • Wu, Jinshan

Abstract

In this work, we extend our previous work on largeness tracing among physicists to other fields, namely mathematics, economics and biomedical science. Overall, the results confirm our previous discovery, indicating that scientists in all these fields trace large topics. Surprisingly, however, it seems that researchers in mathematics tend to be more likely to trace large topics than those in the other fields. We also find that on average, papers in top journals are less largeness-driven. We compare researchers from the USA, Germany, Japan and China and find that Chinese researchers exhibit consistently larger exponents, indicating that in all these fields, Chinese researchers trace large topics more strongly than others. Further correlation analyses between the degree of largeness tracing and the numbers of authors, affiliations and references per paper reveal positive correlations – papers with more authors, affiliations or references are likely to be more largeness-driven, with several interesting and noteworthy exceptions: in economics, papers with more references are not necessary more largeness-driven, and the same is true for papers with more authors in biomedical science. We believe that these empirical discoveries may be valuable to science policy-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Menghui & Yang, Liying & Zhang, Huina & Shen, Zhesi & Wu, Chensheng & Wu, Jinshan, 2017. "Do mathematicians, economists and biomedical scientists trace large topics more strongly than physicists?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 598-607.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:598-607
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157716303753
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2017.04.004?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. Katz, J. Sylvan, 1999. "The self-similar science system1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 501-517, June.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Filippo Radicchi & Lutz Bornmann & Claudio Castellano & Wouter Nooy, 2013. "Field-normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(11), pages 2299-2309, November.
    3. Small, Henry & Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Identifying emerging topics in science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1450-1467.
    4. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    5. Hongguang Dong & Menghui Li & Ru Liu & Chensheng Wu & Jinshan Wu, 2017. "Allometric scaling in scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 583-594, July.
    6. Michaël Bikard & Fiona Murray & Joshua S. Gans, 2015. "Exploring Trade-offs in the Organization of Scientific Work: Collaboration and Scientific Reward," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1473-1495, July.
    7. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    8. Shen, Zhesi & Yang, Liying & Pei, Jiansuo & Li, Menghui & Wu, Chensheng & Bao, Jianzhang & Wei, Tian & Di, Zengru & Rousseau, Ronald & Wu, Jinshan, 2016. "Interrelations among scientific fields and their relative influences revealed by an input–output analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 82-97.
    9. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    10. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2012. "A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2378-2392, December.
    11. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & van Leeuwen, Thed N. & Visser, Martijn S., 2013. "Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 272-285.
    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. Sjögårde, Peter & Ahlgren, Per, 2018. "Granularity of algorithmically constructed publication-level classifications of research publications: Identification of topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 133-152.
    2. Jochen Gläser & Wolfgang Glänzel & Andrea Scharnhorst, 2017. "Same data—different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 981-998, May.
    3. Xu, Shuo & Hao, Liyuan & Yang, Guancan & Lu, Kun & An, Xin, 2021. "A topic models based framework for detecting and forecasting emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. Ugo Moschini & Elena Fenialdi & Cinzia Daraio & Giancarlo Ruocco & Elisa Molinari, 0. "A comparison of three multidisciplinarity indices based on the diversity of Scopus subject areas of authors’ documents, their bibliography and their citing papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    5. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    6. Annamaria Conti & Christopher C. Liu, 2014. "The (Changing) Knowledge Production Function: Evidence from the MIT Department of Biology for 1970–2000," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 49-74, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Annamaria Conti & Christopher C. Liu, 2014. "The (Changing) Knowledge Production Function: Evidence from the MIT Department of Biology for 1970-2000," NBER Working Papers 20037, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2017. "Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 1053-1070, May.
    9. Xu, Shuo & Hao, Liyuan & An, Xin & Yang, Guancan & Wang, Feifei, 2019. "Emerging research topics detection with multiple machine learning models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    10. Frank Havemann & Jochen Gläser & Michael Heinz, 2017. "Memetic search for overlapping topics based on a local evaluation of link communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 1089-1118, May.
    11. Fang Han & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Testing the science/technology relationship by analysis of patent citations of scientific papers after decomposition of both science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 767-796, August.
    12. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2016. "Ranking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 183-199.
    13. Ugo Moschini & Elena Fenialdi & Cinzia Daraio & Giancarlo Ruocco & Elisa Molinari, 2020. "A comparison of three multidisciplinarity indices based on the diversity of Scopus subject areas of authors’ documents, their bibliography and their citing papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1145-1158, November.
    14. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H., 2000. "Heart of darkness: modeling public-private funding interactions inside the R&D black box," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1165-1183, December.
    15. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2018. "Open access to research data: Strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-34.
    16. Kealey, Terence & Ricketts, Martin, 2014. "Modelling science as a contribution good," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1014-1024.
    17. 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.
    18. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    19. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Menicucci, Domenico, 2008. "Money, fame and the allocation of talent: Brain drain and the institution of science," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 558-581, June.
    20. Leporia, Benedetto & Geuna, Aldo & Mira, Antonietta, 2018. "Scientific Output of US and European Universities Scales Super-linearly with Resources," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201806, University of Turin.

    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:11:y:2017:i:2:p:598-607. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.