A Comparison of Citation Disciplinary Structure in Science between the G7 Countries and the BRICS Countries

Purpose： This study aims to compare the characteristics of citation disciplinary structure between the G7 countries and the BRICS countries.Design/Methodology/Approach： In this contribution, which uses about 1 million Web of Science publications and two publications years（1993 and 2013）, we compare the G7 countries and the BRICS countries with regard to this type of structure. For the publication year 2013, cosine similarity values regarding the citation disciplinary structures of these countries（and of nine other countries） were used as input to cluster analysis. We also obtained cosine similarity values for a given country and its citation disciplinary structures across the two publication years. Moreover, for the publication year 2013, the within-country JeffreysMatusita distance between publication and citation disciplinary structure was measured. Research limitations： First, the citation disciplinary structures of countries depend on multiple and complex factors. It is therefore difficult to completely explain the formation and change of the citation disciplinary structure of a country. This study suggests some possible causes, whereas detailed explanations might be given by future research. Second, the length of the citation window used in this study is three years. However, scientific disciplines differ in their citation practices. Comparison between citations across disciplines using the same citation window length may affect the citation discipline structure results for some countries.Practical limitations： First, the results of this study are based on the WoS database. However, in this database some fields are covered to a greater extent than others, which may affect the results for the citation discipline structure for some studied countries. In future research, we might repeat this study using another database（like Scopus） and, in that case, we would like to make comparisons between the two outcomes. Second, the use of a constant journal setyielded that a large share of the journals covered by WoS year 2013 is ignored in the study. Thus, disciplinary structure is studied based on a quite restricted set of publications. The three mentioned limitations should be kept in mind when the results of this study are interpreted.Originality/value： Disciplinary structure on country level is a highlighted topic for the S＆T policy makers, especially for those come from developing countries. This study observes the disciplinary structure in the view of academic impact, and the result will provide some evidence to make decision for the discipline strategy and funding allocation. Besides, JeffreysMatusita distance is introduced to measure the similarity of citation disciplinary structure and publication disciplinary structure. By applying this measure, some new observations were drawn, for example, ＂Based on the comparison of publication disciplinary structure and citation disciplinary structure, the paper finds most BRICS counties have less impact with more publications＂.Findings： The outcome of the cluster analysis indicates that the G7 countries and BRICS countries are quite heterogeneous regarding their citation disciplinary structure. For a majority of the G7 countries, the citation disciplinary structure tend to be more stable compared to BRICS countries with regard to the years 1993 and 2013. Most G7 countries, with United States as an exception, turned out to have lower values on the Jeffreys-Matusita distance than BRICS countries, indicating a higher degree of heterogeneity between the publication and the citation disciplinary structure for the latter countries. In other words, BRICS countries still receive much less citations in most disciplines than their publication output would suggest. G7 countries can still expect more citations than is to be expected based on their publication output, thereby generating relatively more impact than BRICS countries.

Insight into the Disciplinary Structure of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology

Purpose： This paper aims to gain an insight into the disciplinary structure of nanoscience ＆ nanotechnology （N＆N）： What is the disciplinary network of N＆N like？ Which disciplines are being integrated into N＆N over time？ For a specific discipline, how many other disciplines have direct or indirect connections with it？ What are the distinct subgroups of N＆N at different evolutionary stages？ Such critical issues are to be addressed in this paper. Design/methodology/approach： We map the disciplinary network structure of N＆N by employing the social network analysis tool, Netdraw, identifying which Web of Science Categories （WCs） mediate nbetweenness centrality in different stages of nano development. Cliques analysis embedded in the Ucinet program is applied to do the disciplinary cluster analysis in the study according to the path of ＂Network-Subgroup-Cliques,＂ and a tree diagram is selected as the visualizing type. Findings： The disciplinary network structure reveals the relationships among different disciplines in the N＆N developing process clearly, and it is easy for us to identify which disciplines are connected with the core ＂N＆N＂ directly or indirectly. The tree diagram showing N＆N related disciplines provides an interesting perspective on nano research and development （R＆D） structure. Research limitations： The matrices used to draw the N＆N disciplinary network are the original ones, and normalized matrix could be tried in future similar studies. Practical implications： Results in this paper can help us better understand the disciplinary structure of N＆N, and the dynamic evolution of N＆N related disciplines over time. The findings could benefit R＆D decision making. It can support policy makers from government agencies engaging in science and technology （S＆T） management or S＆T strategy planners to formulate efficient decisions according to a perspective of converging sciences and technologies. Originality/value： The novelty of this study lies in mapping the disciplinary network structure of N＆N clearly, identifying which WCs have a mediating effect in different developmental stages （especially analyzing clusters among disciplines related to N＆N, revealing close or distant relationships among distinct areas pertinent to N＆N）.

Disciplinary structure of geographic science in China

International and domestic circumstances have led to new opportunities and higher requirements for the development of geographic science in China.In this paper,we propose a modified disciplinary structure for geographic science in China in the new era.Geographic science in China can be categorized into four secondary disciplines,i.e.,integrated geography,physical geography,human geography,and information geography,according to the current situation and expected trends.The tertiary disciplines under each secondary discipline are nearly fully developed,and a few quaternary disciplines under the tertiary disciplines are widely accepted and used in China.We hope this new disciplinary structure can play a breakthrough role in improving the branches of geographic science,promoting the development of emerging disciplines under the framework of geographic science,and supporting national and international development strategies in the new era.

Disciplinary structure and development strategy of information geography in China

The advent of the information era has resulted in exceptional advances in geographic science.The domain of geographic science has expanded from traditional physical and human geography to physical,human,and information geography,resulting in the emergence of the field of information geography.Three subdisciplines have gradually formed,i.e.,geographic remote sensing science,geographic information science,and geographic data science.With a view towards preparing a description of the disciplinary structure of geographic science for the“Development Strategy of Discipline and Frontier Research in China(2021-2035)”,this article summarizes the history,definition,and disciplinary structure of information geography.The strategic layout of the discipline,along with the goals and key directions of priority development fields,are also highlighted.The insights into this new discipline provided in this paper will promote the development and application of remote sensing and geographic information within the framework of geographic science,advancing the synthesis of geographic research and the integrated development of geographic science.

Disciplinary structure and development strategy of physical geography in China

Physical geography,one of the branches of geography,is the basic discipline of geographic science.And it is the scientific foundation of ecology,environmental science and other related disciplines.Physical geography focuses on spatial characteristics,evolution and regional differentiation of the earth’s surface.In the new period of rapid development of social economy,and science and technology,physical geography is more closely and widely connected with human geography and,information geography.This paper analyzed the forming process of the physical geography,expressed sub-discipline structure of integrated physical geography,sectoral physical geography,human living-environment geography,and proposed the development strategy of physical geography and its sub-branch disciplines,key priority of development goals and directions in China.