A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: the disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list

Abstract

This study investigates the convergence of two bibliometric approaches to the measurement of interdisciplinary research: one based on analyzing disciplinary diversity in the reference list of publications, the other based on the disciplinary diversity of authors of publications. In particular we measure the variety, balance, disparity and integrated diversity index of, respectively, single-author, multi-author single-field, and multi-author multi-field publications. We find that, in general, the diversity of the reference list grows with the number of fields reflected in a paper's authors' list and, to a lesser extent, with the number of authors being equal the number of fields. Further, we find that when fields belonging to different disciplines are reflected in the authors' list, the disparity in the reference list is higher than in the case of fields belonging to the same discipline. However, this general tendency varies across disciplines, and noticeable exceptions are found at individual paper level.

References in corpus (3)

• A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments
• Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of co-authors of scientific publications
• Specialization vs diversification in research activities: the extent, intensity and relatedness of field diversification by individual scientists

Cited by in corpus (3)

• Practical method to reclassify Web of Science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines
• Is Coronavirus-Related Research Becoming More Interdisciplinary? A Perspective of Co-occurrence Analysis and Diversity Measure of Scientific Articles
• Assessing Network Representations for Identifying Interdisciplinarity