Stephen Carley

Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials

Visualize printing all 24 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the head of a pin. In 1959, Richard Feynman articulated this reality in an insightful address at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society. In what became a prophetic speech, ‘‘There’s plenty of room at the bottom’’ [1], Feynman discussed manipulating and controlling matter on a small scale. Back then, forward thinking conjured images of going to the moon in an era when computers occupied entire floors of buildings. Fifty years later, we no longer have to imagine. We are actively manipulating and controlling materials and devices on the scale of nanometers.

Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories

In August 2011, Thomson Reuters launched version 5 of the Science and Social Science Citation Index in the Web of Science (WoS). Among other things, the 222 ISI Subject Categories (SCs) for these two databases in version 4 of WoS were renamed and extended to 225 WoS Categories (WCs). A new set of 151 Subject Areas was added, but at a higher level of aggregation. Perhaps confusingly, these Subject Areas are now abbreviated “SC” in the download, whereas “WC” is used for WoS Categories. Since we previously used the ISI SCs as the baseline for a global map in Pajek (Pajek is freely available at http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/) (Rafols et al., Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61:1871–1887, 2010) and brought this facility online (at http://www.leydesdorff.net/overlaytoolkit), we recalibrated this map for the new WC categories using the Journal Citation Reports 2010. In the new installation, the base maps can also be made using VOSviewer (VOSviewer is freely available at http://www.VOSviewer.com/) (Van Eck and Waltman, Scientometrics 84:523–538, 2010).

A forward diversity index

We introduce an indicator to measure the diffusion of scientific research. Consistent with Stirling’s 3-factor diversity model, the diffusion score captures not only variety and balance, but also disparity among citing article cohorts. We apply it to benchmark article samples from six 1995 Web of Science subject categories (SCs) to trace trends in knowledge diffusion over time since publication. Findings indicate that, for most SCs, diffusion scores steadily increase with time. Mathematics is an outlier. We employ a typology of citation trends among benchmark SCs and correlate this with diffusion scores. We also find that self-cites do not, in most cases, significantly influence diffusion scores.

Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs

This article examines the extent to which specific features of interdisciplinary research are accurately reflected in selected bibliometric measures of scholarly publications over time. To test the validity of these measures, we compare knowledge of research processes and impact based on ethnographic studies of a well-established researcher’s laboratory, together with personal interview data, against bibliometric indicators of cognitive integration, diffusion, and impact represented in the entire portfolio of papers produced by this researcher over time.

Toward a more precise definition of self-citation

The definition assigned to self-citations is nontrivial. This decision can affect research outputs in a number of ways. The current paper considers the self-citation definition used by the Web of Science, and compares this with an alternative definition, advanced in the present study, within the context of the work of an individual researcher. A discussion follows.

How Multidisciplinary Are the Multidisciplinary Journals Science and Nature

Interest in cross-disciplinary research knowledge interchange runs high. Review processes at funding agencies, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation, consider plans to disseminate research across disciplinary bounds. Publication in the leading multidisciplinary journals, Nature and Science, may signify the epitome of successful interdisciplinary integration of research knowledge and cross-disciplinary dissemination of findings. But how interdisciplinary are they? The journals are multidisciplinary, but do the individual articles themselves draw upon multiple fields of knowledge and does their influence span disciplines? This research compares articles in three fields (Cell Biology, Physical Chemistry, and Cognitive Science) published in a leading disciplinary journal in each field to those published in Nature and Science. We find comparable degrees of interdisciplinary integration and only modest differences in cross-disciplinary diffusion. That said, though the rate of out-of-field diffusion might be comparable, the sheer reach of Nature and Science, indicated by their potent Journal Impact Factors, means that the diffusion of knowledge therein can far exceed that of leading disciplinary journals in some fields (such as Physical Chemistry and Cognitive Science in our samples).

Measuring the influence of nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research

Concern about nanotechnology risks has engendered an upsurge of research on environmental, health and safety issues (Nano-EHS). This paper explores the extent to which such research is impacting the field. Citations to a carefully vetted set of Nano-EHS articles are analyzed along several dimensions. One dimension concerns the emergence of a Nano-EHS field, as indicated by shared bodies of research knowledge. A second concerns the extent to which nanotechnology researchers, in general, are taking Nano-EHS results into account in their studies (i.e. how are they citing Nano-EHS articles?). A third dimension explores the degree to which corporate nano-researchers are attendant to Nano-EHS findings. Findings suggest that the sharply increased Nano-EHS funding is translating into sharply increasing research output and the emergence of a research community. General nanotechnology researchers are increasingly citing Nano-EHS results, but still to a very small extent. Furthermore, corporate attention to this research seems to be lagging. These results demonstrate the viability of tracking citation information to substantial bodies of research to assess patterns of influence. That, in turn, offers a useful research evaluation capability. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Visualization of disciplinary profiles: Enhanced science overlay maps

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study is to modernize previous work on science overlay maps by updating the underlying citation matrix, generating new clusters of scientific disciplines, enhancing visualizations, and providing more accessible means for analysts to generate their own maps. Design/methodology/approach We use the combined set of 2015 Journal Citation Reports for the Science Citation Index (n of journals = 8,778) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (n = 3,212) for a total of 11,365 journals. The set of Web of Science Categories in the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index increased from 224 in 2010 to 227 in 2015. Using dedicated software, a matrix of 227 × 227 cells is generated on the basis of whole-number citation counting. We normalize this matrix using the cosine function. We first develop the citing-side, cosine-normalized map using 2015 data and VOSviewer visualization with default parameter values. A routine for making overlays on the basis of the map (“wc15.exe”) is available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/wc15/index.htm. Findings Findings appear in the form of visuals throughout the manuscript. In Figures 1–9 we provide basemaps of science and science overlay maps for a number of companies, universities, and technologies. Research limitations As Web of Science Categories change and/or are updated so is the need to update the routine we provide. Also, to apply the routine we provide users need access to the Web of Science. Practical implications Visualization of science overlay maps is now more accurate and true to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports than was the case with the previous version of the routine advanced in our paper. Originality/value The routine we advance allows users to visualize science overlay maps in VOSviewer using data from more recent Journal Citation Reports.

Erratum to: Measuring the development of a common scientific lexicon in nanotechnology

Acknowledgments This research is supported by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (National Science Foundation Awards 0531194 and 0937591). Philip Shapira further acknowledges additional support from the Project on Emerging Technologies, Trajectories and Implications of Next Generation Innovation Systems Development in China and Russia (Economic and Social Research Council, grant reference ES/J012785/1). The findings in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the research sponsors.