ArticlePloS one2025
Knowledge transfer, knowledge gaps, and knowledge silos in citation networks.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neglected seed dispersers and research compartmentalisation: how much do we know about what we don't know?The New phytologist · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.