IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i2d10.1007_s11192-025-05249-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring knowledge flow in the interdisciplinary field of biosecurity: full counting method or fractional counting method?

Author

Listed:
  • Xi Wang

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Dongqiao Li

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Xiwen Liu

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Zhiqiang Wang

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

In the context of widespread concern about interdisciplinary phenomena, knowledge flows provide a dynamic and reliable perspective for understanding complex interdisciplinary phenomena. By reviewing the relevant literatures, it is found that existing studies usually calculate knowledge flows based on the full counting method. However, it remains uncertain which of these two methods, the full counting method or the fractional counting method, can measure the knowledge flow of interdisciplinary research more effective. Therefore, this study takes the field of biosecurity research as an example, designs the SP index based on the fractional counting method, and compares the full counting method with the fractional counting method in terms of knowledge flow, knowledge flow proportion, knowledge flow growth rate, etc. The results illustrate that, compared to the full counting method, the fractional counting method can provide a more fine-grained perspective, which reduces the data bias caused by a large number of citations from the same discipline in one article. Furthermore, this study divides the contribution of different disciplines into four types through SP index: Core Disciplines, Emerging Disciplines, Alternative Disciplines and Marginal Disciplines. Then, from the perspective of knowledge flow, in the same period of time, it is proposed that Core Disciplines contribute the most knowledge to the solution of biosecurity issues, while Marginal Disciplines contribute the least, among these four roles. Different researchers can select disciplines with different roles for interdisciplinary research according to their own needs. The research results also show that the roles of disciplines may change at different time stages. And the division of disciplinary roles further verifies that the fractional counting method can more accurately describe the flow of interdisciplinary knowledge. This study provides a reference for promoting further collaboration across disciplines and assisting stakeholders to identify appropriate disciplines for collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Xi Wang & Dongqiao Li & Xiwen Liu & Zhiqiang Wang, 2025. "Measuring knowledge flow in the interdisciplinary field of biosecurity: full counting method or fractional counting method?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 1101-1128, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05249-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05249-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05249-7
    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/s11192-025-05249-7?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. Yoonjung An & Mintak Han & Yongtae Park, 2017. "Identifying dynamic knowledge flow patterns of business method patents with a hidden Markov model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 783-802, November.
    2. Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka & Anthi Kyriakou & Theo Papazoglou, 2016. "Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: the potential of the Leinster–Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 593-607, May.
    3. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Iqra Safder & Anam Akram & Faisal Kamiran, 2018. "A novel machine-learning approach to measuring scientific knowledge flows using citation context analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 973-996, August.
    4. Lin Zhang & Ronald Rousseau & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2016. "Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1257-1265, May.
    5. George R. Heath & Ekaterina Kots & Janice L. Robertson & Shifra Lansky & George Khelashvili & Harel Weinstein & Simon Scheuring, 2021. "Localization atomic force microscopy," Nature, Nature, vol. 594(7863), pages 385-390, June.
    6. Henry Small, 2010. "Maps of science as interdisciplinary discourse: co-citation contexts and the role of analogy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 835-849, June.
    7. Sivertsen, Gunnar & Rousseau, Ronald & Zhang, Lin, 2019. "Measuring scientific contributions with modified fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 679-694.
    8. Lu Huang & Yijie Cai & Erdong Zhao & Shengting Zhang & Yue Shu & Jiao Fan, 2022. "Measuring the interdisciplinarity of Information and Library Science interactions using citation analysis and semantic analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6733-6761, November.
    9. Guijie Zhang & Luning Liu & Fangfang Wei, 2019. "Key nodes mining in the inventor–author knowledge diffusion network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 721-735, March.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "Diversity and interdisciplinarity: how can one distinguish and recombine disparity, variety, and balance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2113-2121, September.
    11. Ma, Xiaowei & Jiao, Hong & Zhao, Yang & Huang, Shan & Yang, Bo, 2024. "Does open data have the potential to improve the response of science to public health emergencies?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    12. Shiji Chen & Yanan Guo & Alvin Shijie Ding & Yanhui Song, 2024. "Is interdisciplinarity more likely to produce novel or disruptive research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2615-2632, May.
    13. Marianne Gauffriau & Peder Olesen Larsen, 2005. "Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(1), pages 85-93, July.
    14. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2015. "Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 872-894.
    15. Mao, Jin & Liang, Zhentao & Cao, Yujie & Li, Gang, 2020. "Quantifying cross-disciplinary knowledge flow from the perspective of content: Introducing an approach based on knowledge memes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    16. Chang, Ching-Wen & Yamanaka, Takayuki & Kano, Shingo, 2019. "An enforced loop-out knowledge flow facilitates industry competition: Learning from the pharmaceutical and genetically modified seed industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 11-24.
    17. Xia Cao & Chuanyun Li & Jinqiu Li & Yunchang Li, 2022. "Modeling and simulation of knowledge creation and diffusion in an industry-university-research cooperative innovation network: a case study of China’s new energy vehicles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3935-3957, July.
    18. Lyu, Haihua & Bu, Yi & Zhao, Zhenyue & Zhang, Jiarong & Li, Jiang, 2022. "Citation bias in measuring knowledge flow: Evidence from the web of science at the discipline level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    19. Thed van Leeuwen & Robert Tijssen, 2000. "Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 183-187, 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. Chen, Shiji & Qiu, Junping & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2021. "Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    2. Jeffrey Demaine, 2022. "Fractionalization of research impact reveals global trends in university collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2235-2247, May.
    3. Shiji Chen & Yanhui Song & Fei Shu & Vincent Larivière, 2022. "Interdisciplinarity and impact: the effects of the citation time window," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2621-2642, May.
    4. SooJeung Lee & Su Jin Kim & Sunna Park & Jung Cheol Shin, 2025. "Unequal metrics in research publications: the impact of bibliometric databases and faculty size across academic disciplines on university rankings in South Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 641-663, February.
    5. Jesper W. Schneider & Thed Leeuwen & Martijn Visser & Kaare Aagaard, 2019. "Examining national citation impact by comparing developments in a fixed and a dynamic journal set," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 973-985, May.
    6. Giulio Giacomo Cantone, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4937-4982, August.
    7. Shiji Chen & Yanan Guo & Alvin Shijie Ding & Yanhui Song, 2024. "Is interdisciplinarity more likely to produce novel or disruptive research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2615-2632, May.
    8. Shiji Chen & Kaiqi Zhang & Junping Qiu & Jiaqi Chai, 2024. "Interdisciplinarity and expert rating: an analysis based on faculty opinions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6597-6628, November.
    9. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    10. Andrea Zielinski, 2022. "Impact of model settings on the text-based Rao diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7751-7768, December.
    11. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Cristian Mejia & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7477-7502, September.
    12. Hongyu Zhou & Raf Guns & Tim C. E. Engels, 2022. "Are social sciences becoming more interdisciplinary? Evidence from publications 1960–2014," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(9), pages 1201-1221, September.
    13. Xuefeng Wang & Zhinan Wang & Ying Huang & Yun Chen & Yi Zhang & Huichao Ren & Rongrong Li & Jinhui Pang, 2017. "Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 2023-2039, June.
    14. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    15. Lin Zhang & Beibei Sun & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Lixin Chen & Ying Huang, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 271-291, October.
    16. Sandro Tarkhan-Mouravi, 2020. "Traditional indicators inflate some countries’ scientific impact over 10 times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 337-356, April.
    17. Denis Kosyakov & Andrey Guskov, 2022. "Reasons and consequences of changes in Russian research assessment policies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4609-4630, August.
    18. Jianbing Ma & Kexin Yang, 2025. "A three-dimensional framework for quantifying knowledge intersection intensity: from a micro perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(1), pages 367-398, January.
    19. Wang, Shiyun & Mao, Jin & Lu, Kun & Cao, Yujie & Li, Gang, 2021. "Understanding interdisciplinary knowledge integration through citance analysis: A case study on eHealth," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    20. Wolfgang G. Stock & Isabelle Dorsch & Gerhard Reichmann & Christian Schlögl, 2023. "Labor productivity, labor impact, and co-authorship of research institutions: publications and citations per full-time equivalents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 363-377, January.

    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:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05249-7. 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.