Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 12;10(8):e0135095. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135095. eCollection 2015.

Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity.

Author information

1
Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
2
Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain; SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Brighton, England; Observatoire des Sciences et des Téchniques (OST-HCERES), Paris, France.
3
Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain.

Abstract

This article analyses the effect of degree of interdisciplinarity on the citation impact of individual publications for four different scientific fields. We operationalise interdisciplinarity as disciplinary diversity in the references of a publication, and rather than treating interdisciplinarity as a monodimensional property, we investigate the separate effect of different aspects of diversity on citation impact: i.e. variety, balance and disparity. We use a Tobit regression model to examine the effect of these properties of interdisciplinarity on citation impact, controlling for a range of variables associated with the characteristics of publications. We find that variety has a positive effect on impact, whereas balance and disparity have a negative effect. Our results further qualify the separate effect of these three aspects of diversity by pointing out that all three dimensions of interdisciplinarity display a curvilinear (inverted U-shape) relationship with citation impact. These findings can be interpreted in two different ways. On the one hand, they are consistent with the view that, while combining multiple fields has a positive effect in knowledge creation, successful research is better achieved through research efforts that draw on a relatively proximal range of fields, as distal interdisciplinary research might be too risky and more likely to fail. On the other hand, these results may be interpreted as suggesting that scientific audiences are reluctant to cite heterodox papers that mix highly disparate bodies of knowledge--thus giving less credit to publications that are too groundbreaking or challenging.

PMID:
26266805
PMCID:
PMC4534379
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0135095
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center