IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v9y2015i4p962-973.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the cognitive extent of science

Author

Listed:
  • Milojević, Staša

Abstract

While the modern science is characterized by an exponential growth in scientific literature, the increase in publication volume clearly does not reflect the expansion of the cognitive boundaries of science. Nevertheless, most of the metrics for assessing the vitality of science or for making funding and policy decisions are based on productivity. Similarly, the increasing level of knowledge production by large science teams, whose results often enjoy greater visibility, does not necessarily mean that “big science” leads to cognitive expansion. Here we present a novel, big-data method to quantify the extents of cognitive domains of different bodies of scientific literature independently from publication volume, and apply it to 20 million articles published over 60–130 years in physics, astronomy, and biomedicine. The method is based on the lexical diversity of titles of fixed quotas of research articles. Owing to large size of quotas, the method overcomes the inherent stochasticity of article titles to achieve <1% precision. We show that the periods of cognitive growth do not necessarily coincide with the trends in publication volume. Furthermore, we show that the articles produced by larger teams cover significantly smaller cognitive territory than (the same quota of) articles from smaller teams. Our findings provide a new perspective on the role of small teams and individual researchers in expanding the cognitive boundaries of science. The proposed method of quantifying the extent of the cognitive territory can also be applied to study many other aspects of ‘science of science.’

Suggested Citation

  • Milojević, Staša, 2015. "Quantifying the cognitive extent of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 962-973.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:9:y:2015:i:4:p:962-973
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175115771530081X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.005?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. Li Tang & Guangyuan Hu, 2013. "Tracing the footprint of knowledge spillover: Evidence from U.S.–China collaboration in nanotechnology," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(9), pages 1791-1801, September.
    2. Marco Pautasso, 2012. "Publication Growth in Biological Sub-Fields: Patterns, Predictability and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Staša Milojević & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2011. "The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science: Analysis of article title words," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1933-1953, October.
    4. E. C. M. Noyons & A. F. J. van Raan, 1998. "Monitoring scientific developments from a dynamic perspective: Self‐organized structuring to map neural network research," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 49(1), pages 68-81.
    5. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2000. "On Growth, Ageing, and Fractal Differentiation of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 347-362, February.
    6. Staša Milojević & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2011. "The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science: Analysis of article title words," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1933-1953, October.
    7. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    8. Gavin LaRowe & Sumeet Ambre & John Burgoon & Weimao Ke & Katy Börner, 2009. "The Scholarly Database and its utility for scientometrics research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 219-234, May.
    9. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    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. Clara Boothby & Staša Milojević, 2021. "An exploratory full-text analysis of Science Careers in a changing academic job market," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4055-4071, May.
    2. Martin Ricker, 2017. "Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1851-1855, June.
    3. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    4. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    5. Sun, Xiaoling & Ding, Kun & Lin, Yuan, 2016. "Mapping the evolution of scientific fields based on cross-field authors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 750-761.
    6. Salva Duran-Nebreda & Michael J. O’Brien & R. Alexander Bentley & Sergi Valverde, 2022. "Dilution of expertise in the rise and fall of collective innovation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Carlos Romá-Mateo & Maria-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones, 2019. "Overview of trends in global epigenetic research (2009–2017)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1545-1574, June.
    8. 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).
    9. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell Funk, 2021. "The decline of disruptive science and technology," Papers 2106.11184, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    10. Diego Kozlowski & Jennifer Dusdal & Jun Pang & Andreas Zilian, 2021. "Semantic and relational spaces in science of science: deep learning models for article vectorisation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5881-5910, July.
    11. Xuechun Xiang & Jing Li, 2020. "A diachronic comparative study of research article titles in linguistics and literature journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 847-866, February.
    12. Woo, Seokkyun & Youtie, Jan & Ott, Ingrid & Scheu, Fenja, 2021. "Understanding the long-term emergence of autonomous vehicles technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V., 2022. "Dynamics of senses of new physics discourse: Co-keywords analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    14. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.

    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. Saad Ahmed Javed & Sifeng Liu, 2018. "Predicting the research output/growth of selected countries: application of Even GM (1, 1) and NDGM models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 395-413, April.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    3. María Pinto & Rosaura Fernández-Pascual & David Caballero-Mariscal & Dora Sales, 2020. "Information literacy trends in higher education (2006–2019): visualizing the emerging field of mobile information literacy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1479-1510, August.
    4. Yi Bu & Binglu Wang & Win-bin Huang & Shangkun Che & Yong Huang, 2018. "Using the appearance of citations in full text on author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 275-289, July.
    5. Ruhua Huang & Yuting Huang & Fan Qi & Leyi Shi & Baiyang Li & Wei Yu, 2022. "Exploring the characteristics of special issues: distribution, topicality, and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5233-5256, September.
    6. Craig Aaen-Stockdale, 2017. "Selfish Memes: An Update of Richard Dawkins’ Bibliometric Analysis of Key Papers in Sociobiology," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9, May.
    7. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    8. Shesen Guo & Ganzhou Zhang, 2017. "Analyzing concept complexity, knowledge ageing and diffusion pattern of Mooc," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 413-430, July.
    9. Soo Jeung Lee & Christian Schneijderberg & Yangson Kim & Isabel Steinhardt, 2021. "Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    11. Hao Wang & Sanhong Deng & Xinning Su, 2016. "A study on construction and analysis of discipline knowledge structure of Chinese LIS based on CSSCI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1725-1759, December.
    12. repec:thr:techub:1008:y:2020:i:1:p:161-170 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Jensen, Scott & Liu, Xiaozhong & Yu, Yingying & Milojevic, Staša, 2016. "Generation of topic evolution trees from heterogeneous bibliographic networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 606-621.
    14. Lin, Yiling & Evans, James A. & Wu, Lingfei, 2022. "New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    15. A. Abrizah & A. Noorhidawati & A. N. Zainab, 2015. "LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: a stated preference study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1083-1099, February.
    16. Chaoqun Ni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Visualizing and comparing four facets of scholarly communication: producers, artifacts, concepts, and gatekeepers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1161-1173, March.
    17. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    18. Joseph Pozsgai-Alvarez & Iván Pastor Sanz, 2021. "Mapping the (anti-)corruption field: key topics and changing trends, 1968–2020," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 851-881, November.
    19. Andreas Rehs, 2020. "A structural topic model approach to scientific reorientation of economics and chemistry after German reunification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1229-1251, November.
    20. Jianchoun Dou, 2021. "Variety, Fertility, and Long-term Economic Growth," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2021020, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    21. Xie, Qing & Zhang, Xinyuan & Song, Min, 2021. "A network embedding-based scholar assessment indicator considering four facets: Research topic, author credit allocation, field-normalized journal impact, and published time," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).

    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:9:y:2015:i:4:p:962-973. 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.