Abstract

Journals were central to Eugene Garfield’s research interests. Among other things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus. In addition to providing a basis for disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of disciplines; the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration, but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary—that is, non-disciplined—variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be considered as diffusion or differentiation of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of interdisciplinarity at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can therefore be decomposed; differences among (sub)sets can be tested for statistical significance. In the appendix, a general-purpose routine for measuring diversity in networks is provided.

Highlights

  • The journal network and its role in collecting and communicating advances in science continues to be a source of debate and challenge to understanding

  • Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of interdisciplinarity

  • We focus in this study on betweenness centrality and diversity as two main candidates for measuring interdisciplinarity in journal citation networks

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The journal network and its role in collecting and communicating advances in science continues to be a source of debate and challenge to understanding. The journal structures provide order and improve the efficiency of the search for new information. Eugene Garfield enhanced this role by creating additional categories for the evaluation of journals (Bensman 2007). By aggregating citations at that level, one obtains a systems view of the disciplines as they are linked to the subjects covered by the respective journals (Narin et al 1972). The Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) developed a journal classification system—the so-called ‘‘Web-of-Science subject categories’’ (WC)—that is often used in scientometric evaluations. As boundaries are drawn to enhance efficiency, new developments, especially those that bring together disparate ideas in original ways (Uzzi et al 2013), can be disadvantaged by a scheme that relies on incremental additions to the conventional subject categories (Rafols et al 2012)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call