<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Jaccard index-Based Assessing the Similarity of Research Fields in Dimensions</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>rhiy Shtov</string-name>
          <email>shtovba@vntu.edu.ua</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mykol</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Vinnytsia National Technical University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Khmelnytske Shose, 95, Vinnytsia, 21021</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UA">Ukraine</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>We calculated the similarity of 10878 pairs of the research fields for 2010-2019 and for 2000-2009 on base of Dimensions data. The similarity of the research fields is assessed by Jaccard index. The most tied research fields for 2010-2019 are Specialist Studies in Education and Curricular and Pedagogy, whereas this pair holds rank #6 for 2000-2009. Dynamics of Jaccard index distributions does not confirm a hypothesis about increasing the share of interdisciplinary research over time. It is detected that the most collaborated research field for the both time intervals is Mechanical Engineering. This research field has maximum sum of Jaccard indexes with all the other research fields (so called stickiness index). It is detected that the most tied triad of research fields for the both time intervals are Commercial Services, Marketing, and Tourism. Distribution of similarity of the research fields, distribution of stickiness of single research field, and distribution of stickiness of triad of the research fields look like to Zipf law with 3 stable zones.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>scientometrics</kwd>
        <kwd>research field</kwd>
        <kwd>similarity</kwd>
        <kwd>interdisciplinary</kwd>
        <kwd>Dimensions</kwd>
        <kwd>Jaccard index</kwd>
        <kwd>stickiness index</kwd>
        <kwd>distribution</kwd>
        <kwd>categorization</kwd>
        <kwd>Zipf law</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        The question of how strong the various research fields are interconnected has a long
history. The relevance of the quantitative assessment of a similarity of the research
fields has intensified recently, when we are increasingly hearing about
interdisciplinary research, about PhD theses on boarding line of specialties, about multi-skill
research team etc. Traditionally, a similarity of the research fields is assessed by
experts. The assessment is based on subject matters under investigation and can be
associated with an essentialist view. In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] information-theoretic measure of linguistic
similarity to investigate the organization and evolution of scientific fields is proposed.
An analysis of almost 20M papers from the past three decades reveals that the
linguistic similarity is related but different from experts and citation-based classifications,
leading to an improved view on the organization of science.
      </p>
      <p>
        Recently, citations-based approach to similarity assessment of the research fields is
most widely used. This approach is based on Porter’s metrics of paper
interdisciplinary [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. The metrics is used as source data a number of citations from current paper
with certain research field to papers with other research fields and vice versa. A
relation of the paper to some research fields is inherited by their journal status.
2Ddistribution by research fields in axes “References to outside the research field –
Citation from outside the research field” is shown in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. This 2D-distribution allows
identifying most interdisciplinary (high stickiness) research fields.
      </p>
      <p>
        Due to the different content of various papers of the same journal the journal-based
classification to research field produces some errors. Moreover the journal-based
classification would not allow categorize grants, patents, books etc. It is the reason to
create in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] a new approach to paper categorization approach using machine learning
techniques. The title and abstract of the paper are source data for this categorization.
That machine learning approach for paper categorization is implemented in
Dimensions – the newest platform of indexing the research papers. Now, Dimensions is
worldwide biggest one with good searching services, hence it is reasonable to try
evaluating the similarities of the researches fields using Dimensions data and compare
new detected dynamics of interdisciplinary with results of previous study in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ].
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>System of research fields in Dimensions</title>
      <p>Dimensions uses a short version of the Australian and New Zealand Standard
Research Classification. There are 154 fields of research and 22 domains. For example,
domain 01 – Mathematical Sciences contains the following research fields: 0101 –
Pure Mathematics; 0102 – Applied Mathematics; 0103 – Numerical and
Computational Mathematics; 0104 – Statistics; 0105 – Mathematical Physics.</p>
      <p>At the moment, Dimensions indexes 106M research papers. Each paper is assigned
to one or several research fields. Most filled research field is Clinical Sciences with
9.3M papers. Distributions of papers by the research fields for 2010-2019 and for
2000-2010 are shown in Figure 1. Both distributions look pretty much as Zipf law in
almost whole range.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Jaccard index for two research fields</title>
      <p>Dimensions provides a number of papers assigned with some research field.
Additionally Dimensions provides number of above mentioned papers, which assigned
with each other of the research fields. It allows obtain data for calculation a similarity
of any pair of research fields using just 2 queries. For processing all the research
fields it is necessary one query per one research field.</p>
      <p>We propose to assess a similarity of two research fields A and B by Jaccard index:
S( A, B) </p>
      <p>N AB
N A  N B  N AB
,
where N A denotes a number of papers in research field A, N B denotes a number of
papers in research field B, N AB denotes a number of papers assigned to research
field A and to research field B simultaneously.</p>
      <p>Consider the following example with the real data. There are 74519 papers
assigned to Marketing in 2010 – 2019, 11843 of them also belong to Tourism. Research
field Tourism has 36274 papers, hence the similarity of Marketing and Tourism
equals to 11843 / (74519+36274-11843)=0.12.</p>
      <p>
        Distributions of Jaccard index for two research fields are shown in Figure 2. For
reliability reason tiny research fields with less than 1000 papers for any of the decades
are out of consideration. In total 147 research fields are considered, hence the
similarity of 10878 pairs of the research fields for 2010-2019 and for 2000-2010 are
calculated. Most of the research fields have zero similarity. Both distributions look like
as three-zone Zipf law: the first zone for high similar research fields; the second zone
for low similar research fields; the third zone for tiny similar research fields. A strong
decreasing the similarity over ranks takes place for the first and the third zones.
Figure 2 shows that the leaders for 2000-2010 have higher Jaccard indexes than
leaders for 2010-2019. But, distribution for 2010-2019 has more heavy tail. It allows
to inference by eye that there is no significant difference in change of interdisciplinary
research share over time. This conclusion concordances with a result in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] about
science is becoming more interdisciplinary during 1975 – 2005, but in small steps.
Moreover, sum of Jaccard indexes for all the pairs of the research fields shows a
slight decreasing of interdisciplinary research share over time. This sum equals to
19.6 for 2000-2010, and equals to 18.7 for 2010-2019.
      </p>
      <p>The following pairs of the research fields from top-halves of the distributions in
Figure 2 changed their Jaccard index drastically during the last decade:
Environmental Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering – +254.5%; Atmospheric Sciences
and Aerospace Engineering – -67.1%.</p>
      <p>Twenty most tied pairs of the research fields are ranked in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Similarity of all the research fields in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are reasonable. There is
one significant change over years in the tops-20 – Specialist Studies in Education with
Curricular and Pedagogy moved from #6 for 2000-2009 to #1 for 2010-2019.</p>
      <p>As an example, Figure 5 shows similarity of research fields that belong to
Information and Computer Sciences domain. There are 8 research fields (A), (B), …, (H)
in the domain. They are contoured by a blue rectangle in the Figure 5. Seven research
fields that most tied with research fields (A), (B), …, (H) are also shown on Figure 5.
Among those seven research fields Communications Technologies is most tied with
Information and Computer Sciences domain.</p>
      <p>Let’s introduce stickiness index G( A) of a research field A as a sum of all Jaccard
indexes between A and other research fields as follows:</p>
      <p>G( A) </p>
      <p> S( A, p) ,
p: pF, p A
where F denotes a set of the research fields. Stickiness indexes allow to detect
research fields with the highest attractive to collaboration, with the highest ability to
interdisciplinary. The distributions of single research field stickiness indexes are
shown in Figure 6. Both distributions have very heavy tails, hence difference in 5-10
positions is not important.</p>
      <p>Fig. 5. Similarity of research fields that belong to Information and Computer Sciences domain
(data for 2010-2019)</p>
      <p>The highest stickiness index has Mechanical Engineering for both time intervals
(Figure 7 and Figure 8). Comparing the top-rank lists, it is found that Mechanical
Engineering has lost their gap. Some significant differences in Figure 6 and Figure 8
are as follows: Environmental Science and Management jumped from #17 to #2,
Condensed Matter Physics descended from #2 to #20+. The following research fields
from the top halves of the distributions changed their stickiness indexes significantly
during the last decade:</p>
      <p>Ecological Applications –
Aerospace Engineering –
Atmospheric Sciences –
Optical Physics –
Language Studies –
Astronomical and Space Sciences –
Genetics –
Environmental Science and Management –
Condensed Matter Physics –
Soil Sciences –
Curriculum and Pedagogy –
Civil Engineering –
+46.7%;
-37.7%;
-28.2%;
+27.6%;
-27.4%;
-25.9%;
+25.0%;
+24.6%;
-24.6%;
+23.9%;
+22.7%;
-20.5%.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Similarity of triad of research fields</title>
      <p>A similarity of triad of research fields (A, B, C) is proposed assess by so called triad
stickiness index G( A, B, C) as follows:</p>
      <p>G(A, B, C)  S(A, B)  S(A, C)  S(B, C)</p>
      <p>We found 110451 triads for 2000 – 2009 and 135503 triads for 2010 – 2019 with
non-zero stickiness index. Distributions of the triad stickiness indexes (Figure 9) and
distributions of Jaccard indexes of pairs of research fields (Figure 2) have the same
shape.</p>
      <p>Dozens of the most tied triads are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. All the triads are
reasonable. Leader for the both time intervals is Commercial Services, Marketing and
Tourism. For this triad we constructed iteratively a map of science with nearest
research fields (Figure 10). On each iteration we choose a research field that maximizes
new net stickiness index. The iteration traces are present at right part of Figure 10. It
starts with Business and management, and finishes on Historical Studies. Figure 10
shows that research fields with the same domains are stronger tied each other than
with research fields from different domains. It may considerate as an indirect support
for proposed stickiness index.</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Research fields in the triad Commercial Services Marketing Tourism</title>
        <p>Film, Television and Digital Media
Journalism and Professional Writing
Communication and Media Studies
Urban and Regional Planning
Transportation and Freight Services
Human Geography
Education Systems
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Specialist Studies In Education
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Specialist Studies In Education
Linguistics
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Specialist Studies In Education
Sociology
Ecological Applications
Environmental Science and Management
Ecology
Geochemistry
Geology
Geophysics
Design Practice and Management
Art Theory and Criticism
Visual Arts and Crafts
Civil Engineering
Urban and Regional Planning
Transportation and Freight Services
Art Theory and Criticism
Performing Arts and Creative Writing
Visual Arts and Crafts
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Specialist Studies In Education
Psychology
Stickiness index
0.4669</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>Research fields in the triad Commercial Services Marketing Tourism</title>
        <p>Urban and Regional Planning
Transportation and Freight Services
Human Geography
Film, Television and Digital Media
Journalism and Professional Writing
Communication and Media Studies
Civil Engineering
Urban and Regional Planning
Transportation and Freight Services
Language Studies
Linguistics
Literary Studies
Geochemistry
Geology
Geophysics
Design Practice and Management
Art Theory and Criticism
Visual Arts and Craft
Building
Commercial Services
Tourism
Geochemistry
Geology
Physical Geography and Environmental Geoscience
Architecture
Urban and Regional Planning
Transportation and Freight Services
Art Theory and Criticism
Visual Arts and Crafts
Curatorial and Related Studies
Environmental Science and Management
Urban and Regional Planning
Transportation and Freight Services
Stickiness index
0.5307</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>For the first time similarity of the research fields in form of Jaccard index are assessed
by Dimensions data. Source information for Jaccard index calculation is the statistics
of categorized papers in Dimensions. It is calculated the similarity of 10878 pairs of
the research fields for 2010-2019 and for 2000-2009. The most tied pair of the
research fields for 2010-2019 is Specialist Studies in Education and Curricular and
Pedagogy, whereas they hold rank #6 for 2000-2009. The following pairs of the
research fields changed their Jaccard index drastically during the last decade:
Environmental Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering jumped on 254.5%, Atmospheric
Sciences and Aerospace Engineering dropped on 67.1%.</p>
      <p>Stickiness index of a research field is introduced as an assessment of its
attractiveness to be a member in an interdisciplinarity group. Stickiness index is a sum of all
Jaccard indexes related to current research field. The highest stickiness index has
Mechanical Engineering for both time intervals. The following research fields
changed their stickiness indexes drastically during the last decade: Ecological
Applications jumped on 47%, Aerospace Engineering dropped on 38%.</p>
      <p>The most tied triads of research fields are detected on base of the proposed
stickiness index. All the triads are reasonable. Leader among the triads is Commercial
Services, Marketing and Tourism for the both time intervals.</p>
      <p>Possible applications of proposals similarity index is categorization of researchers,
universities, journals, which act in various research topics. Similarity index allows
taking into account tails in the research profile for more correct categorization.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dias</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gerlach</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scharloth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Altmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Using text analysis to quantify the similarity and evolution of scientific disciplines</article-title>
          .
          <source>Royal Society Open Science. 5</source>
          , (
          <year>2018</year>
          ). doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .1098/rsos.171545.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Porter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cohen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Roessner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Perreault</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity</article-title>
          .
          <source>Scientometrics</source>
          .
          <volume>72</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>117</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>147</lpage>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ).
          <source>doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1700-5.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Noorden</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Interdisciplinary research by the numbers</article-title>
          .
          <source>Nature</source>
          .
          <volume>525</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>306</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>307</lpage>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ). doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .1038/525306a.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Herzog</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kierkegaard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Response to the letter “Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity”</article-title>
          .
          <source>Scientometrics</source>
          .
          <volume>117</volume>
          .
          <fpage>641</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>645</lpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ). doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .1007/s11192-018-2854-z.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Porter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rafols</surname>
          </string-name>
          , I.:
          <article-title>Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time</article-title>
          .
          <source>Scientometrics</source>
          .
          <volume>81</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>719</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>745</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
          <source>doi: 10.1007/s11192- 008-2197-2.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>