ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019
Shorter distances between papers over time are due to more cross-field references and increased citation rate to higher-impact papers.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review Articles on Soccer Performance Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Trends and Emerging Themes.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Machine learning misclassification networks reveal a citation advantage of interdisciplinary publications only in high-impact journals.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Citation analysis of computer systems papers.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023Article
- Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?Brain communications · 2023Review
- Statistics in everyone's backyard: An impact study via citation network analysis.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- The narrowing of literature use and the restricted mobility of papers in the sciences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Patient-centric characterization of multimorbidity trajectories in patients with severe mental illnesses: A temporal bipartite network modeling approach.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2022Article
- Global citation inequality is on the rise.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Examining association between cohesion and diversity in collaboration networks of pharmaceutical clinical trials with drug approvals.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics.Scientometrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The exponential increase in the number of scientific publications raises the question of whether the sciences are expanding into a fractured structure, making cross-field communication difficult. On the other hand, scientists may be motivated to learn extensively across fields to enhance their innovative capacity, and this may offset the negative effects of fragmentation. Through an investigation of the distances within and clustering of cross-sectional citation networks, this study presents evidence that fields of science become more integrated over time. The average citation distance between papers published in the same year decreased from ∼5.33 to 3.18 steps between 1950 and 2018. This observation is attributed to the growth of cross-field communication throughout the entire period as well as the growing importance of high-impact papers to bridge networks in the same year. Three empirical findings support this conclusion. First, distances decreased between almost all disciplines throughout the time period. Second, inequality in the number of citations received by papers increased, and, as a consequence, the shortest paths in the network depend more on high-impact papers later in the period. Third, the dispersion of connections between fields increased continually. Moreover, these changes did not entail a lower level of clustering of citations. Both within- and cross-field citations show a similar rate of slowly growing clustering values in all years. The latter findings suggest that domain-spanning scholarly communication is partly enabled by new fields that connect disciplines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.