Interdisciplinary relations of converging technologies: Nano–Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)

This paper investigates the interdisciplinary relations of nanotechnology (Nano), biotechnology (Bio), information technology (Info), and cognitive science (Cogno) (together known as NBIC converging technologies) using different bibliometric techniques. For each set of two (pairs) and three (trios) of subjects, overlaps in journal citation, authorship, publication journals, and keywords were calculated for all Iranian NBIC articles published from 2001 to 2015 in international journals. Maximum and minimum spanning trees were used to visualise the interdisciplinary relations. To determine the nature of convergence between the subjects, an expert panel categorised the shared keywords of each pair and trio of subjects using four categories of tools, material, applications and techniques. The results showed that overall the pairs of Nano–Bio and Nano–Info had the highest level of mutual interdisciplinary relations. Info–Bio and Cogno–Bio had the weakest mutual interdisciplinary relations. Among the trios, Nano–Info–Bio had the strongest relations and Cogno–Nano–Info had the weakest. The dominant type of convergence for Nano–Bio and Cogno–Bio was sharing materials. For Nano–Info the dominant type of convergence was sharing tools and techniques. For Info–Cogno, and Info–Bio sharing techniques was the dominant type of convergence, and for Nano–Cogno sharing materials and applications was most dominant. Nano–Info–Bio mostly shared materials and applications. Identifying weak and strong ties between the four NBIC fields can help plan for their further convergence at science and technology levels.

[1]  M. HamidR.Jamali,et al.  Bibliometric Study of Interdisciplinary Relations of Converging Technologies (Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno) , 2017, ISSI.

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

[3]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Import and Export of Cognitive Science , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Searching for converging research using field to field citations , 2010, Scientometrics.

[5]  Reinhard Diestel,et al.  Graph Theory , 1997 .

[6]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Converging Technologies - Shaping the Future of European Societies , 2004 .

[7]  A. Porter,et al.  Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture , 2006 .

[8]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  The Convergence of Information Science and Communication: A Bibliometric Analysis , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—A tribute to Eugene Garfield , 2017, Scientometrics.

[10]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis , 2007, Scientometrics.

[11]  Anthony Rj. Van Raan.  4. The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science: Theoretical Framework and Bibliometric-Empirical Approach , 2000 .

[12]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Co-Word Analysis , 1993 .

[13]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  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.

[15]  Tomaz Bartol,et al.  Citation analysis and mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology: identifying the scope and interdisciplinarity of research , 2016, Scientometrics.

[16]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology , 2014, Scientometrics.

[17]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[18]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Integrating From the Nanoscale , 2002 .

[19]  Frans W. A. Brom,et al.  From Bio to NBIC convergence : From medical practice to daily life. Report written for the Council of Europe, Committee on Bioethics , 2014 .

[20]  Ahad Harati,et al.  A collective and abridged lexical query for delineation of nanotechnology publications , 2010, Scientometrics.

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

[22]  Harish S. Bhat,et al.  The Interdisciplinarity of Collaborations in Cognitive Science , 2017, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  J. Youtie,et al.  How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? , 2009, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[24]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[25]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity , 2007, Scientometrics.

[26]  Saeid Asadi,et al.  Bibliometrics in Practice in Developing Nations: A Study on the Development of Scientometrics and Bibliometrics Careers in Iran , 2018 .

[27]  Lili Wang,et al.  Interdisciplinarity of nano research fields: a keyword mining approach , 2012, Scientometrics.

[28]  Jong-Chan Kim,et al.  Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in? , 2015, Scientometrics.