IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/complx/v2022y2022i1n2524491.html

Analyzing Interdisciplinary Research Using Co‐Authorship Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Mati Ullah
  • Abdul Shahid
  • Irfan ud Din
  • Muhammad Roman
  • Muhammad Assam
  • Muhammad Fayaz
  • Yazeed Ghadi
  • Hanan Aljuaid

Abstract

With the advancement of scientific collaboration in the 20th century, researchers started collaborating in many research areas. Researchers and scientists no longer remain solitary individuals; instead, they collaborate to advance fundamental understandings of research topics. Various bibliometric methods are used to quantify the scientific collaboration among researchers and scientific communities. Among these different bibliometric methods, the co‐authorship method is one of the most verifiable methods to quantify or analyze scientific collaboration. In this research, the initial study has been conducted to analyze interdisciplinary research (IDR) activities in the computer science domain. The ACM has classified the computer science fields. We selected the Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS) for experimentation purposes. The J.UCS is the first Journal of Computer Science that addresses a complete ACM topic. Using J.UCS data, the co‐authorship network of the researcher up to the 2nd level was developed. Then the co‐authorship network was analyzed to find interdisciplinary among scientific communities. Additionally, the results are also visualized to comprehend the interdisciplinary among the ACM categories. A whole working web‐based system has been developed, and a forced directed graph technique has been implemented to understand IDR trends in ACM categories. Finally, the IDR values between the categories are computed to quantify the collaboration trends among the ACM categories. It was found that “Artificial Intelligence” and “Information Storage and Retrieval”, “Natural Language Processing and Information Storage and Retrieval”, and “Human‐Computer Interface” and “Database Applications” were found the most overlapping areas by acquiring an IDR score of 0.879, 0.711, and 0.663, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Mati Ullah & Abdul Shahid & Irfan ud Din & Muhammad Roman & Muhammad Assam & Muhammad Fayaz & Yazeed Ghadi & Hanan Aljuaid, 2022. "Analyzing Interdisciplinary Research Using Co‐Authorship Networks," Complexity, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2022(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:complx:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:n:2524491
    DOI: 10.1155/2022/2524491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2524491
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2022/2524491?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bo Jarneving, 2005. "A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(2), pages 245-263, November.
    2. Mario Karlovčec & Dunja Mladenić, 2015. "Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 433-454, January.
    3. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López-Herrera & E. Herrera-Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    4. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    5. Tibor Braun & András Schubert, 2003. "A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980-1999," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(1), pages 183-189, September.
    6. Stig Slipersæter & Jean Thèves & Barend van der Meulen, 2007. "Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(6), pages 372-388, July.
    7. Aldieri, Luigi & Kotsemir, Maxim & Vinci, Concetto Paolo, 2018. "The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: An empirical analysis for some European countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 13-30.
    8. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López‐Herrera & E. Herrera‐Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    9. Francisco José Acedo & Carmen Barroso & Cristóbal Casanueva & José Luis Galán, 2006. "Co‐Authorship in Management and Organizational Studies: An Empirical and Network Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 957-983, July.
    10. Zehra Taşkın & Arsev U. Aydinoglu, 2015. "Collaborative interdisciplinary astrobiology research: a bibliometric study of the NASA Astrobiology Institute," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1003-1022, June.
    11. Henry Small, 1973. "Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(4), pages 265-269, July.
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    14. Jian Qin & F. W. Lancaster & Bryce Allen, 1997. "Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 48(10), pages 893-916, October.
    15. Borut Lužar & Zoran Levnajić & Janez Povh & Matjaž Perc, 2014. "Community Structure and the Evolution of Interdisciplinarity in Slovenia's Scientific Collaboration Network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-5, April.
    16. Alfredo Yegros-Yegros & Ismael Rafols & Pablo D’Este, 2015. "Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Alan L Porter & David J Roessner & Anne E Heberger, 2008. "How interdisciplinary is a given body of research?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 273-282, 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. 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.
    2. Xin Liu & Yi Bu & Ming Li & Jiang Li, 2024. "Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(1), pages 59-78, January.
    3. Zhichao Ba & Yujie Cao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2019. "A hierarchical approach to analyzing knowledge integration between two fields—a case study on medical informatics and computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1455-1486, June.
    4. Paúl Carrión-Mero & Néstor Montalván-Burbano & Fernando Morante-Carballo & Adolfo Quesada-Román & Boris Apolo-Masache, 2021. "Worldwide Research Trends in Landslide Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-24, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Koseoglu, Mehmet Ali & Rahimi, Roya & Okumus, Fevzi & Liu, Jingyan, 2016. "Bibliometric studies in tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 180-198.
    7. 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.
    8. Patrick Röhm, 2018. "Exploring the landscape of corporate venture capital: a systematic review of the entrepreneurial and finance literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 279-319, August.
    9. Tracy Klarenbeek & Nelius Boshoff, 2018. "Measuring multidisciplinary health research at South African universities: a comparative analysis based on co-authorships and journal subject categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1461-1485, September.
    10. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Zhang, Lin, 2018. "A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1182-1193.
    11. Baker, H. Kent & Kumar, Satish & Goyal, Kirti & Sharma, Anuj, 2021. "International review of financial analysis: A retrospective evaluation between 1992 and 2020," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Maryam Nakhoda & Peter Whigham & Sander Zwanenburg, 2023. "Quantifying and addressing uncertainty in the measurement of interdisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(11), pages 6107-6127, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    15. Gallego-Losada, María-Jesús & Montero-Navarro, Antonio & García-Abajo, Elisa & Gallego-Losada, Rocío, 2023. "Digital financial inclusion. Visualizing the academic literature," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Francisco Díez-Martín & Giorgia Miotto & Cristina Del-Castillo-Feito, 2024. "The intellectual structure of gender equality research in the business economics literature," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1649-1680, June.
    17. Ricardo Eito-Brun & María Ledesma Rodríguez, 2016. "50 years of space research in Europe: a bibliometric profile of the European Space Agency (ESA)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 551-576, October.
    18. Rajni & Alka Swami & Muskan Khan & Pragati Hemrajani & Rahul Dhiman, 2025. "Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Workplace Spirituality Through Bibliometric Analysis," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 14(4), pages 425-444, August.
    19. Margarida Rodrigues & Cidália Oliveira & MárioFranco & Ana Daniel, 2024. "A Bibliometric Study About the Rural Creative Class: Proposal of a Conceptual Framework and Future Agenda," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 15278-15303, September.
    20. Chen, Xiaoyan & Liu, Yisheng, 2020. "Visualization analysis of high-speed railway research based on CiteSpace," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-17.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:complx:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:n:2524491. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/8503 .

    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.