Search

Insights into the interdisciplinary response to scientific collaboration remain scarce in interdisciplinary fields. The present work focuses on the effect of scientific collaboration on disciplinary diversity in the field of climate change using multiple statistical methods. The results show that research collaboration at the author and country/region levels has significantly positive effects on variety and DIV (an integrated diversity indicator), although these effects are limited. Additionally, the associations between the values of variety, disparity, and DIV and the number of departments are significantly positive, and similar results are found regarding relationships between these indicators and the number of countries/regions at the country/region and integrated levels. However, scientific collaboration has a negative effect on the balance of references at all levels. This study can improve our understanding of how scientific collaboration affects the multidimensional aspects of interdisciplinary research, and facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study compares two maps of biomedical sciences using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term co-assignments versus MeSH terms of citing/cited articles and reveals similarities and differences between the two approaches. Methods: MeSH terms assigned to 397,475 journal articles published in 2015, as well as their 4,632,992 cited references, were retrieved from Web of Science and MEDLINE databases, respectively, which formed over 7 million MeSH co-assignments and nearly 18 million direct citation pairs. We generated six network visualizations of biomedical science at three levels using Gephi software based on these MeSH co-assignments and citation pairs. Results: The MeSH co-assignment map contained more nodes and edges, as MeSH co-assignments cover all medical topics discussed in articles. By contrast, the MeSH citation map contained fewer but larger nodes and wider edges, as citation links indicate connections to two similar medical topics. Conclusion: These two types of maps emphasize different aspects of biomedical sciences, with MeSH co-assignment maps focusing on the relationship between topics in different categories and MeSH direct citation maps providing insights into relationships between topics in the same or similar category. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]