The role of mainstreamness and interdisciplinarity for the relevance of scientific papers

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 2;15(4):e0230325. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230325. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Is it possible to tell how interdisciplinary and out-of-the-box scientific papers are, or which papers are mainstream? Here we use the bibliographic coupling network, derived from all physics papers that were published in the Physical Review journals in the past century, to try to identify them as mainstream, out-of-the-box, or interdisciplinary. We show that the network clusters into scientific fields. The position of individual papers with respect to these clusters allows us to estimate their degree of mainstreamness or interdisciplinarity. We show that over the past decades the fraction of mainstream papers increases, the fraction of out-of-the-box decreases, and the fraction of interdisciplinary papers remains constant. Studying the rewards of papers, we find that in terms of absolute citations, both, mainstream and interdisciplinary papers are rewarded. In the long run, mainstream papers perform less than interdisciplinary ones in terms of citation rates. We conclude that to avoid a unilateral trend towards mainstreamness a new incentive scheme is necessary.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Bibliometrics*
  • Cluster Analysis
  • Humans
  • Interdisciplinary Studies / trends*
  • Journal Impact Factor
  • Periodicals as Topic*
  • Physics / trends*
  • Reinforcement, Social

Grants and funding

We acknowledge support from the Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund under grant number MOE2017-T2-2-075 to SAC and from the Austrian FFG Project 857136 to ST. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.