Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 116, Issue 1, pp 423–433 | Cite as

The effect of multidisciplinary collaborations on research diversification

  • Giovanni Abramo
  • Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
  • Flavia Di Costa
Article
  • 123 Downloads

Abstract

This work verifies whether research diversification by a scientist is in some measure related to their collaboration with multidisciplinary teams. The analysis considers the publications achieved by 5300 Italian academics in the sciences over the period 2004–2008. The findings show that a scientist’s outputs resulting from research diversification are more often than not the result of collaborations with multidisciplinary teams. The effect becomes more pronounced with larger and particularly with more diversified teams. This phenomenon is observed both at the overall level and for the disciplinary macro-areas.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Co-authorship Research specialization Italy 

References

  1. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1129–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2017a). Gender differences in research diversification behavior. In Proceedings of the 16th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference—(ISSI—2017), 16–20 Oct 2017. Wuhan.Google Scholar
  3. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2017b). Does your surname affect the citability of your publications? Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93(3), 1005–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2017a). Diversification vs. specialization in research: Which strategy pays off? Working paper.Google Scholar
  6. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2017b). Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science? Scientometrics, 111(1), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2017c). The effects of gender, age and academic rank on research diversification. Scientometrics, 114, 1–15.Google Scholar
  8. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2017d). Authorship analysis of specialized vs. diversified research output. Working paper.Google Scholar
  9. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). The collaboration behaviors of scientists in Italy: A field level analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 442–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Adelman, M. A. (1969). Comment on the “H” concentration measure as a numbers-equivalent. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 51, 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boh, W. F., Ren, Y., Kiesler, S., & Bussjaeger, R. (2007). Expertise and collaboration in the geographically dispersed organization. Organization Science, 18(4), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, B. Y., & Llorens, J. J. (2012). Investments in scientific research: Examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Studies Journal, 40(4), 698–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Angelo, C. A., & Abramo, G. (2015). Publication rates in 192 research fields. In A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference—(ISSI—2015) (pp. 909–919). Istanbul: Bogazici University Printhouse.Google Scholar
  16. D’Angelo, C. A., Giuffrida, C., & Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darbellay, F. (2015). Rethinking inter- and transdisciplinarity: Undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of a new thought style. Futures, 65, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. He, Z. L., Geng, X. S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2009). Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, 38(2), 306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S116–S123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mizukami, Y., Mizutani, Y., Honda, K., Suzuki, S., & Nakano, J. (2017). An international research comparative study of the degree of cooperation between disciplines within mathematics and mathematical sciences: Proposal and application of new indices for identifying the specialized field of researchers. Behaviormetrika, 44(2), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mo, G. Y. (2016). Examining cross-disciplinary communication’s impact on multidisciplinary collaborations: Implications for innovations. Information, Communication and Society, 19(9), 1250–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mugabushaka, A.-M., Kyriakou, A., & Papazoglou, T. (2016). Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: The potential of the Leinster–Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity. Scientometrics, 107(2), 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nature News (2015). Why interdisciplinary research matters. Nature, 525(7569), 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shimada, Y., & Suzuki, J. (2017). Promoting scientodiversity inspired by biodiversity. Scientometrics, 113, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., et al. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5(6), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strober, M. (2006). Habits of the mind: Challenges for multidisciplinary engagement. Social Epistemology, 20(3–4), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Viseu, A. (2015). Integration of social science into research is crucial. Nature, 525(7569), 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In Peter Weingart & Nico Stehr (Eds.), Practicing interdisciplinarity (pp. 25–41). Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Wray, K. B. (2005). Rethinking scientific specialization. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ynalvez, M. A., & Shrum, W. M. (2011). Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. Research Policy, 40(2), 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Abramo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Flavia Di Costa
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory for Studies in Research Evaluation, Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science (IASI-CNR)National Research Council of ItalyRomeItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di Analisi dei Sistemi e InformaticaConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’ImpresaUniversità degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly
  4. 4.Research Value s.r.l.RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations