Alexander Michael Petersen , Felber J. Arroyave , Fabio Pammolli
{"title":"The disruption index suffers from citation inflation: Re-analysis of temporal CD trend and relationship with team size reveal discrepancies","authors":"Alexander Michael Petersen , Felber J. Arroyave , Fabio Pammolli","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Measuring the rate of innovation in academia and industry is fundamental to monitoring the efficiency and competitiveness of the knowledge economy. To this end, a disruption index (CD) was recently developed and applied to publication and patent citation networks (<span><span>Wu et al., 2019</span></span>; <span><span>Park et al., 2023</span></span>). Here we show that CD systematically decreases over time due to secular growth in research production, following two distinct mechanisms unrelated to innovation – one behavioral and the other structural. Whereas the behavioral explanation reflects shifts associated with techno-social factors (e.g. self-citation practices), the structural explanation follows from ‘citation inflation’ (CI), an inextricable feature of real citation networks attributable to increasing reference list lengths, which causes CD to systematically decrease. We demonstrate this causal link by way of mathematical deduction, computational simulation, multi-variate regression, and quasi-experimental comparison of the disruptiveness of PNAS versus PNAS Plus articles, which differ primarily in their lengths. Accordingly, we analyze CD data available in the SciSciNet database and find that disruptiveness incrementally increased from 2005-2015, and that the negative relationship between disruption and team-size is remarkably small in overall magnitude effect size, and shifts from negative to positive for team size ≥ 8 coauthors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 1","pages":"Article 101605"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724001172","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Measuring the rate of innovation in academia and industry is fundamental to monitoring the efficiency and competitiveness of the knowledge economy. To this end, a disruption index (CD) was recently developed and applied to publication and patent citation networks (Wu et al., 2019; Park et al., 2023). Here we show that CD systematically decreases over time due to secular growth in research production, following two distinct mechanisms unrelated to innovation – one behavioral and the other structural. Whereas the behavioral explanation reflects shifts associated with techno-social factors (e.g. self-citation practices), the structural explanation follows from ‘citation inflation’ (CI), an inextricable feature of real citation networks attributable to increasing reference list lengths, which causes CD to systematically decrease. We demonstrate this causal link by way of mathematical deduction, computational simulation, multi-variate regression, and quasi-experimental comparison of the disruptiveness of PNAS versus PNAS Plus articles, which differ primarily in their lengths. Accordingly, we analyze CD data available in the SciSciNet database and find that disruptiveness incrementally increased from 2005-2015, and that the negative relationship between disruption and team-size is remarkably small in overall magnitude effect size, and shifts from negative to positive for team size ≥ 8 coauthors.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.