Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 1017–1035 | Cite as

Finding high-impact interdisciplinary users based on friend discipline distribution in academic social networking sites

  • Xiaolan Wu
  • Chengzhi ZhangEmail author
Article
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Specialized academic social networking sites are gaining popularity in scientific communication. A huge volume of interdisciplinary information is generated when researchers from multiple disciplines participate in scientific communication, which makes it possible to discover interdisciplinary users from a range of disciplines. In this study we analyze ScienceNet, one of the most well-known academic social networking sites in China, to find high-impact interdisciplinary users. We focus on the discipline distribution of friends and adopt phylogenetic species evenness on discipline phylogenetic trees to find 128 high-impact interdisciplinary users. A questionnaire was then sent to these academics to test the accuracy of this method. The questionnaire results show that our approach can determine authority users who span specific disciplines. Thus our approach will be useful for finding interdisciplinary collaborators and academic social networking site-related international peer reviewers.

Keywords

Academic social network Interdisciplinary users Interdisciplinary distance Phylogenetic species evenness 

Mathematics Subject Classification

68T30 

JEL Classification

D830 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Social Science Fund Project (No. 17CTQ047).

References

  1. Amara, N., Landry, R., & Halilem, N. (2015). What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members? Scientometrics, 103(2), 489–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chakraborty, N. (2012). Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research scholars in NEHU: A study on Facebook and ResearchGate. Planner, 19–27.Google Scholar
  4. Chang, Y. W., & Huang, M. H. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, K., & Liang, C. (2004). Disciplinary interflow of library and information science in Taiwan. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 2(2), 31–55.Google Scholar
  6. COSEPUP (Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy). (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, M. (2011). Biologists using social-networking sites to boost collaboration. BioScience, 61(9), 736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dengler, F., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A., & Zhang, H. (2010). Social software for coordination of collaborative process activities. In Paper presented at the international conference on business process management.Google Scholar
  9. Elsayed, A. M. (2016). The use of academic social networks among Arab researchers: A survey. Social Science Computer Review, 34(3), 378–391.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Espinoza Vasquez, F. K., & Caicedo Bastidas, C. E. (2015). Academic social networking sites: A comparative analysis of their services and tools. In Conference 2015 proceedings.Google Scholar
  11. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Gruzd, A., & Goertzen, M. (2013). Wired academia: Why social science scholars are using social media. In Paper presented at the 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, K., Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (2005). Using bibliometrics to measure multidisciplinarity. Westmont: ipIQ, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Hammarfelt, B. (2011). Interdisciplinarity and the intellectual base of literature studies: Citation analysis of highly cited monographs. Scientometrics, 86(3), 705–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helmus, M. R., Bland, T. J., Williams, C. K., & Ives, A. R. (2007). Phylogenetic measures of biodiversity. The American Naturalist, 169(3), E68–E83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on Research Gate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeng, W., Daqing, H., & Jiepu, J. (2014). User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on mendeley. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(5), 890–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiang, J., Ni, C., He, D., & Jeng, W. (2013). Mendeley group as a new source of interdisciplinarity study: how do disciplines interact on Mendeley? In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries.Google Scholar
  19. Kadriu, A. (2013). Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate. In Paper presented at the ITI 2013 international conference on information technology interfaces.Google Scholar
  20. Kelly, B. (2013). Using social media to enhance your research activities. In Paper presented at the social media in social research 2013 conference.Google Scholar
  21. Lancichinetti, A., Fortunato, S., & Kertész, J. (2009). Detecting the overlapping and hierarchical community structure in complex networks. New Journal of Physics, 11(3), 033015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levitt, J., & Thelwall, M. (2008). The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, 78(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lusseau, D. (2003). The emergent properties of a dolphin social network. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 270(Suppl 2), S186–S188.Google Scholar
  24. Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W., & Meagher, L. (2013). The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mangan, K. (2012). Social networks for academics proliferate, despite some doubts. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(35), 1–7.Google Scholar
  26. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Odell, J., & Gabbard, R. (2008). The interdisciplinary influence of library and information science 1996–2004: A journal-to-journal citation analysis. College & Research Libraries, 69(6), 546–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oh, J.S., & Wei, J. (2011). Groups in academic social networking services—An exploration of their potential as a platform for multi-disciplinary collaboration. In Paper presented at the IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust.Google Scholar
  30. Olson, G., Zimmerman, A., Bos, N., & Wulf, W. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science: An International Review of Research in the Social Dimensions of Science and Technology, 35(5), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palla, G., Derényi, I., Farkas, I., & Vicsek, T. (2005). Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature, 435(7043), 814–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter, A., Cohen, A., David Roessner, J., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity measures and network centralities as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rinia, E. J., Van, L. T. N., Bruins, E. E. W., Van, V. H. G., & Van, R. A. F. J. (2001). Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics, 51(1), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 4(15), 707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tang, R. (2004). Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 41(1), 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu, X., & Zhang, C. (2015). Multi-label propagation for overlapping community detection based on contribution degree. Journal of the China Society for Scientific & Technical Information, 34(9), 949–957.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu, X., & Zhang, C. (2017). Finding high-impact interdisciplinary users based on social media. Journal of the China Society for Scientific & Technical Information, 36(6), 618–627.Google Scholar
  42. Yan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yousuf, A. M., & Joanna, R. (2017). Pakistani LIS scholars’ altmetrics in ResearchGate. Program, 51(2), 152–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Journalism and CommunicationNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Information ManagementNanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations