A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list

This study investigates the convergence of two bibliometric approaches to the measurement of interdisciplinary research: one based on analyzing disciplinary diversity in the reference list of publications, the other based on the disciplinary diversity of authors of publications. In particular we measure the variety, balance, disparity and integrated diversity index of, respectively, single-author, multi-author single-field, and multi-author multi-field publications. We find that, in general, the diversity of the reference list grows with the number of fields reflected in a paper’s authors’ list and, to a lesser extent, with the number of authors being equal the number of fields. Further, we find that when fields belonging to different disciplines are reflected in the authors’ list, the disparity in the reference list is higher than in the case of fields belonging to the same discipline. However, this general tendency varies across disciplines, and noticeable exceptions are found at individual paper level.     

Authorship analysis of specialized vs diversified research output

The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author’s dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines.     

On the relation between the degree of internationalization of cited and citing publications: A field level analysis,including and excluding self-citations

The growing complexity of scientific challenges demands increasingly intense research collaboration, both domestic and international. The resulting trend affects not only the modes of producing new knowledge, but also the way it is disseminated within scientific communities. This paper analyses the relationship between the “degree of internationalization” of a country’s scientific production and that of the relevant citing publications. The empirical analysis is based on 2010-2012 Italian publications. Findings show: i) the probability of being cited increases with the degree of internationalization of the research team; ii) totally domestic research teams tend to cite to a greater extent totally domestic publications; iii) vice versa, publications resulting from international collaborations tend to be more cited by totally foreign publications rather than by publications including domestic authors. These results emerge both at overall and at discipline level. Findings might inform research policies geared towards internationalization.     

Understanding Biological Evolution Through Computational Thinking

Science & Education - Computational thinking is a contemporary science and engineering practice that has been introduced to the US science classrooms due to its emphasis in the Next Generation...     

Grade Level and Gender Differences in the Writing Self-Beliefs of Middle School Students

The objectives of this study were to determine whether middle school students' writing self-efficacy beliefs make an independent contribution to the prediction of their writing competence and to explore grade level and gender differences in writing self-beliefs (N = 742). Writing self-efficacy was the only motivation construct to predict writing competence in a model that included writing self-concept, writing apprehension, perceived value of writing, self-efficacy for self-regulation, previous writing achievement, gender, and grade level. Girls were more competent writers than were boys, but there were no gender differences in writing self-efficacy beliefs. However, when students were asked whether they were better writers than their peers, girls expressed that they were better writers than were other boys or girls in their class or in their school to a greater degree than did the boys. These findings suggest that girls and boys may use a different metric when responding to traditional self-efficacy scales. Students in Grade 6 reported higher self-efficacy and found writing more valuable than did their older peers, and students in Grade 7 reported lower writing self-beliefs than did students in Grades 6 or 8.     

Bioimpedance patterns and bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) of road cyclists

Bioelectrical impedance vector-analysis (BIVA) describes cell-mass, cell function and hydration status of an individual or a group. The goal of the present investigation was to provide bioelectrical impedance data for 525 male road cyclists (155 professionals, 79 elite, 59 elite-youth, and 232 amateurs) at the time of their optimal performance level. Data were plotted on the resistance-reactance (R-Xc) graph to characterize cyclists group vectors using BIVA. Compared to the general male population, the mean vector position of the road cyclists indicates a higher body cell mass (BCM) and phase angle (p<0.001). The vector position of the high-performance, compared to the amateur cyclists showed similar patterns with higher BCM and phase angles and higher reactance values for the high-performance athletes (p<0.001). The bio-impedance data were used to calculate the 50%, 75%, and 95% tolerance ellipses of each group of cyclists. The characteristic vector positions of the road cyclists indicate normal hydration and greater muscle mass and function of the high-performance cyclists compared to amateur cyclists and the normal population. The cyclists specific tolerance ellipses, particularly the high-performance cyclists might be used for classifying a cyclist according to the individual vector position and to define target vector regions for lower level cyclists.