通过编委联锁绘制科学图谱:知识领域与机构隶属关系之间的联系与距离

IF 3.5 3区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Scientometrics Pub Date : 2024-05-12 DOI:10.1007/s11192-024-05027-x
Luis de-Marcos, Manuel Goyanes, Adrián Domínguez-Díaz
{"title":"通过编委联锁绘制科学图谱:知识领域与机构隶属关系之间的联系与距离","authors":"Luis de-Marcos, Manuel Goyanes, Adrián Domínguez-Díaz","doi":"10.1007/s11192-024-05027-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research is a global enterprise underpinned by the general belief that findings need to be true to be considered scientific. In the complex system of scientific validation, editorial boards (EBs) play a fundamental role in guiding journals’ review process, which has led many stakeholders of sciences to metaphorically picture them as the “gatekeepers of knowledge.” In an attempt to address the academic structure that governs sciences through editorial board interlocking (EBI, the cross-presence of EB members in different journals) and social network analysis, the aim of this study is threefold: first, to map the connection between fields of knowledge through EBI; second, to visualize and empirically test the distance between social and general sciences; and third, to uncover the institutional structure (i.e., universities) that governs these connections. Our findings, based on the dataset collected through the Open Editors initiative for the journals indexed in the JCR, revealed a substantial level of collaboration between all fields, as suggested by the connections between EBs. However, there is a statistically significant difference between the weight of the edges and the path lengths connecting the fields of natural sciences to the fields of social sciences (compared to the connections within), indicating the development of different research cultures and invisible colleges in these two research areas. The results also show that a central group of US institutions dominates most journal EBs, indirectly suggesting that US scientific norms and values still prevail in all fields of knowledge. Overall, our study suggests that scientific endeavor is highly networked through EBs.</p>","PeriodicalId":21755,"journal":{"name":"Scientometrics","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping science through editorial board interlocking: connections and distance between fields of knowledge and institutional affiliations\",\"authors\":\"Luis de-Marcos, Manuel Goyanes, Adrián Domínguez-Díaz\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11192-024-05027-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Research is a global enterprise underpinned by the general belief that findings need to be true to be considered scientific. In the complex system of scientific validation, editorial boards (EBs) play a fundamental role in guiding journals’ review process, which has led many stakeholders of sciences to metaphorically picture them as the “gatekeepers of knowledge.” In an attempt to address the academic structure that governs sciences through editorial board interlocking (EBI, the cross-presence of EB members in different journals) and social network analysis, the aim of this study is threefold: first, to map the connection between fields of knowledge through EBI; second, to visualize and empirically test the distance between social and general sciences; and third, to uncover the institutional structure (i.e., universities) that governs these connections. Our findings, based on the dataset collected through the Open Editors initiative for the journals indexed in the JCR, revealed a substantial level of collaboration between all fields, as suggested by the connections between EBs. However, there is a statistically significant difference between the weight of the edges and the path lengths connecting the fields of natural sciences to the fields of social sciences (compared to the connections within), indicating the development of different research cultures and invisible colleges in these two research areas. The results also show that a central group of US institutions dominates most journal EBs, indirectly suggesting that US scientific norms and values still prevail in all fields of knowledge. Overall, our study suggests that scientific endeavor is highly networked through EBs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientometrics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientometrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05027-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientometrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05027-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究是一项全球性事业,其基础是人们普遍认为研究结果必须真实才能被视为科学。在复杂的科学验证体系中,编辑委员会(EB)在指导期刊审稿过程中发挥着根本性作用,这使得许多科学界的利益相关者将其比喻为 "知识的守门人"。本研究试图通过编委会互锁(EBI,EB成员在不同期刊中的交叉存在)和社会网络分析来探讨管理科学的学术结构,其目的有三:第一,通过EBI绘制知识领域之间的联系图;第二,可视化并实证检验社会科学与一般科学之间的距离;第三,揭示管理这些联系的制度结构(即大学)。我们的研究结果基于 "开放编辑 "计划为 JCR 所收录期刊收集的数据集,揭示了所有领域之间的实质性合作,EB 之间的联系也表明了这一点。然而,连接自然科学领域与社会科学领域的边的权重和路径长度(与内部连接相比)在统计上存在显著差异,这表明这两个研究领域发展了不同的研究文化和隐形学院。研究结果还表明,由美国机构组成的核心集团主导着大多数期刊 EB,这间接表明美国的科学准则和价值观在所有知识领域仍然占主导地位。总之,我们的研究表明,科学活动通过电子期刊高度网络化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mapping science through editorial board interlocking: connections and distance between fields of knowledge and institutional affiliations

Research is a global enterprise underpinned by the general belief that findings need to be true to be considered scientific. In the complex system of scientific validation, editorial boards (EBs) play a fundamental role in guiding journals’ review process, which has led many stakeholders of sciences to metaphorically picture them as the “gatekeepers of knowledge.” In an attempt to address the academic structure that governs sciences through editorial board interlocking (EBI, the cross-presence of EB members in different journals) and social network analysis, the aim of this study is threefold: first, to map the connection between fields of knowledge through EBI; second, to visualize and empirically test the distance between social and general sciences; and third, to uncover the institutional structure (i.e., universities) that governs these connections. Our findings, based on the dataset collected through the Open Editors initiative for the journals indexed in the JCR, revealed a substantial level of collaboration between all fields, as suggested by the connections between EBs. However, there is a statistically significant difference between the weight of the edges and the path lengths connecting the fields of natural sciences to the fields of social sciences (compared to the connections within), indicating the development of different research cultures and invisible colleges in these two research areas. The results also show that a central group of US institutions dominates most journal EBs, indirectly suggesting that US scientific norms and values still prevail in all fields of knowledge. Overall, our study suggests that scientific endeavor is highly networked through EBs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientometrics
Scientometrics 管理科学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
17.90%
发文量
351
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Scientometrics aims at publishing original studies, short communications, preliminary reports, review papers, letters to the editor and book reviews on scientometrics. The topics covered are results of research concerned with the quantitative features and characteristics of science. Emphasis is placed on investigations in which the development and mechanism of science are studied by means of (statistical) mathematical methods. The Journal also provides the reader with important up-to-date information about international meetings and events in scientometrics and related fields. Appropriate bibliographic compilations are published as a separate section. Due to its fully interdisciplinary character, Scientometrics is indispensable to research workers and research administrators throughout the world. It provides valuable assistance to librarians and documentalists in central scientific agencies, ministries, research institutes and laboratories. Scientometrics includes the Journal of Research Communication Studies. Consequently its aims and scope cover that of the latter, namely, to bring the results of research investigations together in one place, in such a form that they will be of use not only to the investigators themselves but also to the entrepreneurs and research workers who form the object of these studies.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the wisdom of scholar crowds from the perspective of knowledge diffusion Automatic gender detection: a methodological procedure and recommendations to computationally infer the gender from names with ChatGPT and gender APIs An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty Measuring hotness transfer of individual papers based on citation relationship Prevalence and characteristics of graphical abstracts in a specialist pharmacology journal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1