Towards an early-stage identification of emerging topics in science - The usability of bibliometric characteristics

The assessment of research topics according to their development stage can be used for different purposes, most importantly for decisions regarding the (financial) support of research groups and regions. In this work, we try to determine the influencing factors of emerging scientific topics during their early development stage. Documents in five pre-defined fields are analyzed with regard to the characteristics of the involved authors, their references and journals. With the help of an assignment to emerging and established topics, the publication behavior of documents in different development stages can be compared. Foremost, indicators can be derived that can help to identify publications in emerging topics in science at an early-stage after publication.

[1]  Jeffrey C. Stier,et al.  The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences: a forestry case study , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[2]  David Alexander,et al.  Our starting point , 2012 .

[3]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, 2nd Edition , 2005 .

[4]  Dale E. Zand.  Trust and Managerial Problem Solving , 1972 .

[5]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A Bibliometric Study of Reference Literature in the Sciences and Social Sciences , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[6]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience , 2009, Scientometrics.

[7]  M. Zweig,et al.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  Ulrich Schmoch,et al.  The growth of science and database coverage , 2012, Scientometrics.

[9]  F Davidoff,et al.  The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. , 2000, The American journal of medicine.

[10]  Gunther S. Stent,et al.  Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery , 1972 .

[11]  F S Chew,et al.  Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. , 1991, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time , 2009, Scientometrics.

[13]  David Alvargonzález,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Sciences , 2011 .

[14]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[16]  Elena Rocco,et al.  Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact , 1998, CHI.

[17]  C. Stephen,et al.  Strategies for Collaboration in the Interdisciplinary Field of Emerging Zoonotic Diseases , 2012, Zoonoses and public health.

[18]  Peter Atkins,et al.  Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science , 2003 .

[19]  J. H. Kilwein,et al.  Biases in medical literature , 1999, Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics.

[20]  Katsiaryna Mirylenka,et al.  On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement , 2013, Scientometrics.

[21]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[22]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange , 2001, Scientometrics.

[23]  C. Handy.  Trust and the virtual organization , 1999 .

[24]  Bernard Barber,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1963 .

[25]  Daryl E. Chubin,et al.  Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? , 1979, Scientometrics.

[26]  Hiroaki Urata,et al.  Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan , 1990, Scientometrics.

[27]  Arjo Klamer,et al.  Is Science a Case of Wasteful Competition? , 2005 .

[28]  D. Benos,et al.  The ups and downs of peer review. , 2007, Advances in physiology education.

[29]  Julie Thompson Klein,et al.  Prospects for transdisciplinarity , 2004 .

[30]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  The Electronic Journal: A Progress Report , 1982, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[31]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates , 2009, Scientometrics.

[32]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators , 2001, Scientometrics.

[33]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  The “Mendel syndrome” in science: durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists , 2011, Scientometrics.

[34]  Lynn Dirk,et al.  A Measure of Originality , 1999 .

[35]  ANTHONY F. J. VAN RAAN,et al.  Sleeping Beauties in science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[36]  Gary Longton,et al.  Estimation and Comparison of Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves , 2009, The Stata journal.

[37]  Y. Kajikawa,et al.  Early detection of innovations from citation networks , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[38]  Susan E. Cozzens,et al.  What do citations count? the rhetoric-first model , 1989, Scientometrics.

[39]  Michael H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis , 1996, Scientometrics.

[40]  E. Hook,et al.  Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On Resistance and Neglect , 2002 .

[41]  Y. Kajikawa,et al.  Citation network analysis of organic LEDs , 2009 .

[42]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Tracking and predicting growth areas in science , 2006, Scientometrics.

[43]  G. Franck.  Scientific Communication--A Vanity Fair? , 1999, Science.

[44]  M. Shafique.  Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008) , 2013 .

[45]  Bernard Barber,et al.  Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. , 1961, Science.

[46]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables , 1997 .

[47]  R. O’Brien,et al.  A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors , 2007 .

[48]  Yoshiyuki Takeda,et al.  Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation , 2009 .

[49]  C. Metz.  Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[50]  Ulrich Schmoch,et al.  Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors , 2013, Scientometrics.

[51]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Citation structure of an emerging research area on the verge of application , 2009, Scientometrics.