Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40748966›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Knowledge transfer, knowledge gaps, and knowledge silos in citation networks.

Eoghan Cunningham, Derek Greene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eoghan CunninghamSchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0435-1962
Derek GreeneSchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advancement of science relies on the exchange of ideas across disciplines and the integration of diverse knowledge domains. However, tracking knowledge flows and interdisciplinary integration in rapidly evolving, multidisciplinary fields remains a significant challenge. This work introduces a novel network analysis framework to study the dynamics of knowledge transfer directly from citation data. By applying dynamic community detection to cumulative, time-evolving citation networks, we can identify research areas as groups of papers sharing knowledge sources and outputs. Our analysis characterises the life-cycles and knowledge transfer patterns of these dynamic communities over time. We demonstrate our approach through a case study of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research, an emerging interdisciplinary field at the intersection of machine learning, statistics, and psychology. Key findings include: (i) knowledge transfer between these important foundational topics and the contemporary topics in XAI research is limited, and the extent of knowledge transfer varies across different contemporary research topics; (ii) certain application domains exist as isolated "knowledge silos"; (iii) significant "knowledge gaps" are identified between related XAI research areas, suggesting opportunities for cross-pollination and improved knowledge integration. By mapping interdisciplinary integration and bridging knowledge gaps, this work can inform strategies to synthesise ideas from disparate sources and drive innovation. More broadly, our proposed framework enables new insights into the evolution of knowledge ecosystems directly from citation data, with applications spanning literature review, research planning, and science policy.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationKnowledgeArtificial IntelligenceHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID40748966
PMCPMC12316298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.