While interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial to promote innovation, how researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds collaborate has not been comprehensively examined. This study proposes a dual-perspective framework based on authors’ disciplines and their contributions in research to categorise different interdisciplinary collaboration patterns (ICPs). Analysing 20,542 research articles from PLoS-series journals, three ICPs are identified. In the first pattern, authors possess disciplinary backgrounds primarily centred around biology, medicine and related disciplines and undertake various tasks jointly. In the second pattern, authors possess disciplinary backgrounds similar to those of the first pattern but divide their labour more specifically with each assuming distinct tasks. In the third pattern, authors exhibit diverse disciplinary backgrounds and collaboratively undertake different types of tasks. Results show that the second pattern enhances the disruptive nature of outputs but impairs their impact beyond academia, while the third pattern facilitates the interdisciplinary nature of outputs and their impact across disciplines.
Anonymous. Why interdisciplinary research matters. Nature2015; 525(7569): 305–305.
2.
BarthelRSeidlR.Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences – status and trends exemplified in groundwater research. PLoS One2017; 12(1): e0170754.
3.
BellottiEKroneggerLGuadalupiL.The evolution of research collaboration within and across disciplines in Italian academia. Scientometrics2016; 109(2): 783–811.
4.
PessoaGJJuniorDiasTMRSilvaTHP, et al. On interdisciplinary collaborations in scientific coauthorship networks: the case of the Brazilian community. Scientometrics2020; 124(3): 2341–2360.
5.
AlShebliBKRahwanTWoonWL.The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. Nat Commun2018; 9(1): 5163.
6.
LoveHBStephensAFosdickBK, et al. The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: a need to broaden and accelerate future research. Hum Soc Sci Commun2022; 9(1): 386.
7.
XuHBuYLiuM, et al. Team power dynamics and team impact: new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2022; 73(10): 1489–1505.
8.
LoveHBCrossJEFosdickB, et al. Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study. Hum Soc Sci Commun2021; 8(1): 106.
9.
BenzPRossierT.Is interdisciplinarity distinctive? Scientific collaborations through research projects in natural sciences. Soc Sci Inform2022; 61(1): 179–214.
10.
FengSKirkleyA.Mixing patterns in interdisciplinary co-authorship networks at multiple scales. Sci Rep2020; 10(1): 7731.
11.
BishopPRHuckSWOwnleyBH, et al. Impacts of an interdisciplinary research center on participant publication and collaboration patterns: a case study of the national institute for mathematical and biological synthesis. Res Evaluat2014; 23(4): 327–340.
12.
GardnerSK.Paradigmatic differences, power, and status: a qualitative investigation of faculty in one interdisciplinary research collaboration on sustainability science. Sustain Sci2013; 8(2): 241–252.
13.
LungeanuAHuangYContractorNS.Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. J Informetr2014; 8(1): 59–70.
14.
ZuoZZhaoK.The more multidisciplinary the better? – the prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions. J Informetr2018; 12(3): 736–756.
15.
HaythornthwaiteC.Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2006; 57(8): 1079–1092.
16.
ZouBWangYKwohCK, et al. Directed collaboration patterns in funded teams: a perspective of knowledge flow. Inform Process Manag2023; 60(2): 103237.
17.
ZengAFanYDiZ, et al. Fresh teams are associated with original and multidisciplinary research. Nat Hum Behav2021; 5(10): 1314–1322.
18.
LiuMJaiswalABuY, et al. Team formation and team impact: the balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration. J Informetr2022; 16(4): 101337.
19.
XuFWuLEvansJ.Flat teams drive scientific innovation. P Natl Acad Sci USA2022; 119(23): e2200927119.
20.
FanLWangYDingS, et al. Productivity trends and citation impact of different institutional collaboration patterns at the research units’ level. Scientometrics2020; 125(2): 1179–1196.
21.
FanLGuoLWangX, et al. Does the author’s collaboration mode lead to papers’ different citation impacts? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching. J Informetr2022; 16(4): 101350.
22.
JeongSChoiJYKimJ.The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics2011; 89(3): 967–983.
23.
LiuJGuoXXuS, et al. A new interpretation of scientific collaboration patterns from the perspective of symbiosis: an investigation for long-term collaboration in publications. J Informetr2023; 17(1): 101372.
24.
BaileyKD.Typologies and taxonomies: an introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc, 1994.
25.
van RijnsoeverFJHesselsLK. Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Res Policy2011; 40(3): 463–472.
26.
XuJDingYMalicV.Author credit for transdisciplinary collaboration. PLoS One2015; 10(9): e0137968.
27.
HaeusslerCSauermannH.Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: the role of team size and interdisciplinarity. Res Policy2020; 49(6): 103987.
28.
HorwitzA.Building bridges through collaboration – a pathway for interdisciplinary research. Trends in Cell Biology2003; 13(1): 2–3.
29.
RennieDYankVEmanuelL.When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable. J Am Med Assoc1997; 278(7): 579–585.
30.
YankVRennieD.Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in the Lancet. Ann Intern Med1999; 130(8): 661–670.
31.
SauermannHHaeusslerC.Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci Adv2017; 3(11): e1700404.
32.
YangSWolframDWangF.The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals. Scientometrics2017; 110(3): 1273–1296.
33.
BrandAAllenLAltmanM, et al. Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learn Publ2015; 28(2): 151–155.
34.
AllenLO’ConnellAKiermerV.How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the contributor role taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learn Publ2019; 32(1): 71–74.
35.
AllenLScottJBrandA, et al. Publishing: credit where credit is due. Nature2014; 508(7496): 312–313.
36.
HolcombeAO.Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what. Publications2019; 7(3): 48.
37.
McNuttMKBradfordMDrazenJM, et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. P Natl Acad Sci USA2018; 115(11): 2557–2560.
38.
LarivièreVDesrochersNMacalusoB, et al. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Soc Stud Sci2016; 46(3): 417–435.
39.
LarivièreVPontilleDSugimotoCR.Investigating the division of scientific labor using the contributor roles taxonomy (CRediT). Quant Sci Stud2021; 2(1): 111–128.
40.
LuCZhangCXiaoC, et al. Contributorship in scientific collaborations: the perspective of contribution-based byline orders. Inform Process Manag2022; 59(3): 102944.
41.
StephensBCummingsJN.Knowledge creation through collaboration: the role of shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2021; 72(11): 1337–1353.
42.
UrbanoCArdanuyJ.Cross-disciplinary collaboration versus coexistence in LIS serials: analysis of authorship affiliations in four European countries. Scientometrics2020; 124(1): 575–602.
43.
QinJLancasterFWAllenB.Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. J Am Soc Inform Sci1997; 48(10): 893–916.
44.
LiuXBuYLiM, et al. Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2024; 75(1): 59–78.
45.
AbramoGD’AngeloCAZhangL.A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: the disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list. J Informetr2018; 12(4): 1182–1193.
46.
ZhangLSivertsenGDuH, et al. Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research. Scientometrics2021; 126(11): 8861–8886.
47.
AbramoGD’AngeloCADi CostaF.The effect of multidisciplinary collaborations on research diversification. Scientometrics2018; 116(1): 423–433.
48.
PorterACohenADavid RoessnerJ, et al. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics2007; 72(1): 117–147.
49.
ZhaoZBuYLiJ.Characterizing scientists leaving science before their time: evidence from mathematics. Inform Process Manag2021; 58(5): 102661.
50.
MattssonPSundbergCJLagetP.Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics2011; 87(1): 99–105.
51.
TscharntkeTHochbergMERandTA, et al. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol2007; 5(1): e18.
52.
Paul-HusAMongeonPSainte-MarieM, et al. The sum of it all: revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements. J Informetr2017; 11(1): 80–87.
53.
ChanderSVijayaP.3 – unsupervised learning methods for data clustering. In: BinuDRajakumarBR (eds). Artificial intelligence in data mining. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2021, pp. 41–64.
StirlingA.A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J R Soc Interface2007; 4(15): 707–719.
56.
GiniCW. Measurement of inequality of incomes. Econ J1921; 31(121): 124–125.
57.
CharlesVGhermanTPalizaJC.The Gini index: a modern measure of inequality. In: CharlesVEmrouznejadA (eds). Modern indices for international economic diplomacy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 55–84.
58.
HajiSHJacksiKSalahRM.A semantics-based clustering approach for online laboratories using K-means and HAC algorithms. Mathematics2023; 11(3): 548.
59.
RousseeuwPJ.Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math1987; 20: 53–65.
60.
SaltonGBergmarkD.A citation study of computer science literature. IEEE T Prof Commun1979; PC-22(3): 146–158.
61.
SimpsonEH.Measurement of diversity. Nature1949; 163(4148): 688.
62.
LiuXShenZLiaoY, et al. The research about the improved disruption index and its influencing factors (in Chinese). Libr Inf Serv2020; 64(24): 84–91.
63.
WuLWangDEvansJA.Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature2019; 566(7744): 378–382.
64.
WangJ.Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics2013; 94(3): 851–872.
65.
BornmannLTeklesA.Disruption index depends on length of citation window. Prof Inform2019; 28(2): e280207.
66.
ZhangLSunBJiangL, et al. On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects on academic and broader impact. Res Evaluat2021; 30(3): 256–268.
67.
ThelwallMKoushaKAbdoliM, et al. Why are coauthored academic articles more cited: higher quality or larger audience?J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2023; 74(7): 743–881.
68.
SmithMJWeinbergerCBrunaEM, et al. The scientific impact of nations: journal placement and citation performance. PLoS One2014; 9(10): e109195.
69.
WangXLvTHamerlyD.How do altmetric sources evaluate scientific collaboration? An empirical investigation for Chinese collaboration publications. Libr Hi Tech2020; 38(3): 563–576.
70.
RuanXLyuDGongK, et al. Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances. Technol Forecast Soc2021; 172: 121071.
71.
MammolaSFontanetoDMartínezA, et al. Impact of the reference list features on the number of citations. Scientometrics2021; 126(1): 785–799.
72.
ShangYSivertsenGCaoZ, et al. Gender differences among first authors in research focused on the sustainable development goal of gender equality. Scientometrics2022; 127(8): 4769–4796.
73.
LiuMYangSBuY, et al. Female early-career scientists have conducted less interdisciplinary research in the past six decades: evidence from doctoral theses. Hum Soc Sci Commun2023; 10(1): 918.
ThelwallMWilsonP.Regression for citation data: an evaluation of different methods. J Informetr2014; 8(4): 963–971.
76.
MacLeodM.What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese2018; 195(2): 697–720.
77.
KlugerMOBartzkeG.A practical guideline how to tackle interdisciplinarity – a synthesis from a post-graduate group project. Hum Soc Sci Commun2020; 7(1): 47.
78.
HallRStevensRTorralbaT.Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind Cult Act2002; 9(3): 179–210.
79.
NewmanJ.Incentivising interdisciplinary research collaboration: evidence from Australia. J High Educ Policy Manag2024; 46(2): 146–165.
D’EstePRobinson-GarcíaN.Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: the advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields. Res Policy2023; 52(2): 104609.
LuXSuL.Determining individual or time effects in panel data models. J Econom2020; 215(1): 60–83.
84.
CaoZZhangLHuangY. How researchers collaborate across disciplines? Patterns of interdisciplinary collaboration based on a dual-perspective framework. In: 27th International conference on science, technology and innovation indicators (STI 2023). Leiden, Netherlands, 2023.
85.
LeibelCBornmannL.What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature. Scientometrics2024; 129(1): 601–639.
