Dataset Information

On disciplinary fragmentation and scientific progress.

ABSTRACT: Why are some scientific disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, more fragmented into conflicting schools of thought than other fields, such as physics and biology? Furthermore, why does high fragmentation tend to coincide with limited scientific progress? We analyzed a formal model where scientists seek to identify the correct answer to a research question. Each scientist is influenced by three forces: (i) signals received from the correct answer to the question; (ii) peer influence; and (iii) noise. We observed the emergence of different macroscopic patterns of collective exploration, and studied how the three forces affect the degree to which disciplines fall apart into divergent fragments, or so-called "schools of thought". We conducted two simulation experiments where we tested (A) whether the three forces foster or hamper progress, and (B) whether disciplinary fragmentation causally affects scientific progress and vice versa. We found that fragmentation critically limits scientific progress. Strikingly, there is no effect in the opposite causal direction. What is more, our results shows that at the heart of the mechanisms driving scientific progress we find (i) social interactions, and (ii) peer disagreement. In fact, fragmentation is increased and progress limited if the simulated scientists are open to influence only by peers with very similar views, or when within-school diversity is lost. Finally, disciplines where the scientists received strong signals from the correct answer were less fragmented and experienced faster progress. We discuss model's implications for the design of social institutions fostering interdisciplinarity and participation in science.

SUBMITTER: Balietti S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4366147 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

On disciplinary fragmentation and scientific progress.

Balietti Stefano S Mäs Michael M Helbing Dirk D

PloS one 20150319 3

Why are some scientific disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, more fragmented into conflicting schools of thought than other fields, such as physics and biology? Furthermore, why does high fragmentation tend to coincide with limited scientific progress? We analyzed a formal model where scientists seek to identify the correct answer to a research question. Each scientist is influenced by three forces: (i) signals received from the correct answer to the question; (ii) peer influence; and ...[more]

PMID: 25790025

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI) is a landmark imaging and omics study in AD. ADNI research literature has increased substantially over the past decade, which poses challenges for effectively communicating information about the results and impact of ADNI-related studies. In this work, we employed advanced information visualization techniques to perform a comprehensive and systematic mapping of the ADNI scientific growth and impact over a period of 12 years. METHODS:Citation information of ADNI-related publications from 01/01/2003 to 05/12/2015 were downloaded from the Scopus database. Five fields, including authors, years, affiliations, sources (journals), and keywords, were extracted and preprocessed. Statistical analyses were performed on basic publication data as well as journal and citations information. Science mapping workflows were conducted using the Science of Science (Sci2) Tool to generate geospatial, topical, and collaboration visualizations at the micro (individual) to macro (global) levels such as geospatial layouts of institutional collaboration networks, keyword co-occurrence networks, and author collaboration networks evolving over time. RESULTS:During the studied period, 996 ADNI manuscripts were published across 233 journals and conference proceedings. The number of publications grew linearly from 2008 to 2015, so did the number of involved institutions. ADNI publications received much more citations than typical papers from the same set of journals. Collaborations were visualized at multiple levels, including authors, institutions, and research areas. The evolution of key ADNI research topics was also plotted over the studied period. CONCLUSIONS:Both statistical and visualization results demonstrate the increasing attention of ADNI research, strong citation impact of ADNI publications, the expanding collaboration networks among researchers, institutions and ADNI core areas, and the dynamic evolution of ADNI research topics. The visualizations presented here can help improve daily decision making based on a deep understanding of existing patterns and trends using proven and replicable data analysis and visualization methods. They have great potential to provide new insights and actionable knowledge for helping translational research in AD.

Project description:The Mediterranean Sea is a renowned biodiversity hotspot influenced by multiple interacting ecological and human forces. A gap analysis on the biology of Mediterranean marine fishes was conducted in 2017, revealing the most studied species and biological characteristics, as well as identifying knowledge gaps and areas of potential future research. Here, we updated this gap analysis five years later by reviewing the literature containing information on the same eight biological characteristics, namely length-weight relationships, growth, maximum age, mortality, spawning, maturity, fecundity and diet, for the 722 fish species of the Mediterranean Sea. The results revealed a considerable knowledge gap as 37% of the species had no information for any of the studied characteristics, while 13% had information on only one characteristic. Out of all the biological characteristics, the smallest knowledge gap was found in the length-weight relationships (studied for 51% of the species, mainly in the eastern Mediterranean), while the least studied characteristic was mortality (studied for 10% of the species). The western and eastern Mediterranean Sea were leading forces in data collection exhibiting the narrowest gaps between current and desired knowledge. The most studied species across the entire region were the highly commercial European hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet (Mullus barbatus), European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus), common pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), and annular seabream (Diplodus annularis). The knowledge gap has shrunk by 6% during the last five years, with 40 new species having at least one study on their biology. Moreover, research has slightly shifted towards species that have been traditionally neglected, e.g., sharks, rays and chimaeras (chondrichthyans). It is recommended that research becomes less focused on commercial species and more targeted towards the identified gaps, vulnerable species (e.g., deep-sea species and chondrichthyans) and species that could potentially pose a threat (e.g., non-indigenous species) to the ecosystems of the everchanging Mediterranean Sea.

Dataset Information

On disciplinary fragmentation and scientific progress.

Publications

On disciplinary fragmentation and scientific progress.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets