Characterizing structure of cross-disciplinary impact of global disciplines:A perspective of the Hierarchy of Science

Purpose:Interdisciplinary fields have become the driving force of modern science and a significant source of scientific innovation.However,there is still a paucity of analysis about the essential characteristics of disciplines’cross-disciplinary impact.Design/methodology/approach:In this study,we define cross-disciplinary impact on one discipline as its impact to other disciplines,and refer to a three-dimensional framework of variety-balance-disparity to characterize the structure of cross-disciplinary impact.The variety of cross-disciplinary impact of the discipline was defined as the proportion of the high cross-disciplinary impact publications,and the balance and disparity of cross-disciplinary impact were measured as well.To demonstrate the cross-disciplinary impact of the disciplines in science,we chose Microsoft Academic Graph(MAG)as the data source,and investigated the relationship between disciplines’cross-disciplinary impact and their positions in the Hierarchy of Science(HOS).Findings:Analytical results show that there is a significant correlation between the ranking of cross-disciplinary impact and the HOS structure,and that the discipline exerts a greater cross-disciplinary impact on its neighboring disciplines.Several bibliometric features that measure the hardness of a discipline,including the number of references,the number of cited disciplines,the citation distribution,and the Price index have a significant positive effect on the variety of cross-disciplinary impact.The number of references,the number of cited disciplines,and the citation distribution have significant positive and negative effects on balance and disparity,respectively.It is concluded that the less hard the discipline,the greater the cross-disciplinary impact,the higher balance and the lower disparity of cross-disciplinary impact.Research limitations:In the empirical analysis of HOS,we only included five broad disciplines.This study also has some biases caused by the data source and applied regression models.Practical implications:This study contributes to the formulation of discipline-specific policies and promotes the growth of interdisciplinary research,as well as offering fresh insights for predicting the cross-disciplinary impact of disciplines.Originality/value:This study provides a new perspective to properly understand the mechanisms of cross-disciplinary impact and disciplinary integration.

Are Contributions from Chinese Physicists Undercited?

Purpose:In this work,we want to examine whether or not there are some scientific fields to which contributions from Chinese scholars have been un der or over cited.Design/methodology/approach:We do so by comparing the number of received citations and the IOF of publications in each scientific field from each country.The IOF is calculated from applying the modified closed system input–output analysis(MCSIOA)to the citation network.MCSIOA is a PageRank-like algorithm which means here that citations from the more influential subfields are weighted more towards the IOF.Findings:About 40% of subfields in physics in China are undercited,meaning that their net influence ranks are higher(better)than the direct rank,while about 75% of subfields in the USA and German are undercited.Research limitations:Only APS data is analyzed in this work.The expected citation influence is assumed to be represented by the IOF,and this can be wrong.Practical implications:MCSIOA provides a measure of net influences and according to that measure.Overall,Chinese physicists’publications are more likely overcited rather than being undercited.Originality/value:The issue of under or over cited has been analyzed in this work using MCSIOA.

Quantifying the Research Diversification of Physicists

Scientists may shift research interests and span multiple research areas in their careers,reflecting the research diversification of scientists.Quantifying the scientists,research diversity can help to understand the research patterns of scientists.In this paper,we study the research diversification of scientists in Physics based on the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme(PACS)which can well reflect the research topics of physics papers.For each scientist,we first build a PACS codes co-occurrence network and reveal the research diversity by analyzing the connectivity and community structure of this network.Then we use diversity indicators to measure the research diversification of scientists and analyze the distribution of each indicator.Finally,we investigate the relationship between scientists7 diversity indicators and their scientific impact using multiple regression analysis.The results show that the numbers of connected components of most PACS codes co-occurrence networks are less than 5,and some networks have significant community structures.The diversity indicators show the heterogeneity of the research diversity of physicists.We also find that some diversity indicators are weakly correlated with scientific impact indicators.Based on our findings,we suggest that physicists should focus on their main research fields and span multiple research fields over their entire careers which could promote their scientific impact.

Global case studies of soft-sediment deformation structures(SSDS): Definitions,classifications, advances, origins, and problems

Soft-sediment deformation structures（SSDS）have been the focus of attention for over 150 years.Existing unconstrained definitions allow one to classify a wide range of features under the umbrella phrase＂SSDS＂.As a consequence,a plethora of at least 120 different types of SSDS（e.g.,convolute bedding,slump folds,load casts,dish-and-pillar structures,pockmarks,raindrop imprints,explosive sandegravel craters,clastic injections,crushed and deformed stromatolites,etc.）have been recognized in strata ranging in age from Paleoproterozoic to the present time.The two factors that control the origin of SSDS are prelithification deformation and liquidization.A sedimentological compendium of 140 case studies of SSDS worldwide,which include 30 case studies of scientific drilling at sea（DSDP/ODP/IODP）,published during a period between 1863and 2017,has yielded at least 31 different origins.Earthquakes have remained the single most dominant cause of SSDS because of the prevailing＂seismite＂mindset.Selected advances on SSDS research are：（1）an experimental study that revealed a quantitative similarity between raindrop-impact cratering and asteroid-impact cratering;（2）IODP Expedition 308 in the Gulf of Mexico that documented extensive lateral extent（〉12 km）of mass-transport deposits（MTD）with SSDS that are unrelated to earthquakes;（3）contributions on documentation of pockmarks,on recognition of new structures,and on large-scale sediment deformation on Mars.Problems that hinder our understanding of SSDS still remain.They are：（1）vague definitions of the phrase＂soft-sediment deformation＂;（2）complex factors that govern the origin of SSDS;（3）omission of vital empirical data in documenting vertical changes in facies using measured sedimentological logs;（4）difficulties in distinguishing depositional processes from tectonic events;（5）a model-driven interpretation of SSDS（i.e.,earthquake being the singular cause）;（6）routine application of the genetic term＂seismites＂to the＂SSDS＂,thus undermining the basic tenet of process sedimentology（i.e.,separation of interpretation from observation）;（7）the absence of objective criteria to differentiate 21 triggering mechanisms of liquefaction and related SSDS;（8）application of the process concept＂high-density turbidity currents＂,a process that has never been documented in modern oceans;（9）application of the process concept＂sediment creep＂with a velocity connotation that cannot be inferred from the ancient record;（10）classification of pockmarks,which are hollow spaces（i.e.,without sediments）as SSDS,with their problematic origins by fluid expulsion,sediment degassing,fish activity,etc.;（11）application of the Earth＇s climate-change model;and most importantly,（12）an arbitrary distinction between depositional process and sediment deformation.Despite a profusion of literature on SSDS,our understanding of their origin remains muddled.A solution to the chronic SSDS problem is to utilize the robust core dataset from scientific drilling at sea（DSDP/ODP/IODP）with a constrained definition of SSDS.