Social Dynamics of Science

The birth and decline of disciplines are critical to science and society. How do scientific disciplines emerge? No quantitative model to date allows us to validate competing theories on the different roles of endogenous processes, such as social collaborations, and exogenous events, such as scientific discoveries. Here we propose an agent-based model in which the evolution of disciplines is guided mainly by social interactions among agents representing scientists. Disciplines emerge from splitting and merging of social communities in a collaboration network. We find that this social model can account for a number of stylized facts about the relationships between disciplines, scholars, and publications. These results provide strong quantitative support for the key role of social interactions in shaping the dynamics of science. While several “science of science” theories exist, this is the first account for the emergence of disciplines that is validated on the basis of empirical data.

[1]  Zaiping Guo,et al.  Preparation and characterization of spinel Li4Ti5O12 nanoparticles anode materials for lithium ion battery , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[2]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Monitoring Scientific Developments from a Dynamic Perspective: Self-Organized Structuring to Map Neural Network Research , 1998, Journal of the American Society for Information Science.

[3]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Resolution limit in community detection , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[5]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[6]  Katy Börner,et al.  Visual conceptualizations and models of science , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[7]  László Lovász,et al.  Random Walks on Graphs: A Survey , 1993 .

[8]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Crowdsourcing Scholarly Data , 2010 .

[9]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[11]  Ed C. M. Noyons,et al.  Monitoring scientific developments from a dynamic perspective: self-organized structuring to map neural network research , 1998 .

[12]  L. Asz.  Random Walks on Graphs: a Survey , 2022 .

[13]  Nicolas Payette,et al.  Agent-Based Models of Science , 2012 .

[14]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  On Growth, Ageing, and Fractal Differentiation of Science , 2000, Scientometrics.

[15]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[16]  A. Vanraan,et al.  Fractal dimension of co-citations , 1990, Nature.

[17]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Multidisciplinary cognitive content of nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[18]  A. F. Adams,et al.  The Survey , 2021, Dyslexia in Higher Education.

[19]  N. Gilbert.  A Simulation of the Structure of Academic Science , 1997 .

[20]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Katy Börner,et al.  Models of Science Dynamics , 2012 .

[22]  T. Kuhn.  The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[23]  L. Zucker,et al.  Minerva Unbound: Knowledge Stocks, Knowledge Flows and New Knowledge Production , 2006 .

[24]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Nanobank: Data Overview , 2007 .

[25]  J J Fitzpatrick,et al.  Little science. , 1991, Applied nursing research : ANR.

[26]  Dominik Benz,et al.  The social bookmark and publication management system bibsonomy , 2010, The VLDB Journal.

[27]  C. Wagner.  The New Invisible College: Science for Development , 2008 .

[28]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Modeling science: studying the structure and dynamics of science , 2011, Scientometrics.

[29]  Andrea Scharnhorst,et al.  Models of Science Dynamics: Encounters Between Complexity Theory and Information Sciences , 2014 .

[30]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  F. Menczer,et al.  Scholarometer: A Social Framework for Analyzing Impact across Disciplines , 2012, PloS one.

[32]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance , 2005, Science.

[33]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[34]  Luís M. A. Bettencourt,et al.  Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[35]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying social group evolution , 2007, Nature.

[36]  Michael Mulkay,et al.  Three Models of Scientific Development , 1975 .

[37]  M. Newman.  Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  M. Dogan,et al.  Creative Marginality: Innovation at the Intersections of Social Sciences. , 1992 .

[39]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Consensus clustering in complex networks , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[40]  D. Price.  Little Science, Big Science , 1965 .

[41]  Diana Crane,et al.  Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities , 1972, Medical History.

[42]  G. Nigel Gilbert,et al.  Does cumulative advantage affect collective learning in science? An agent-based simulation , 2011, Scientometrics.

[43]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.