Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41474526›Full record

ArticleeLife2025

The evolution of interdisciplinarity and internationalization in scientific journals.

Huaxia Zhou, Luis A Nunes Amaral

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 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. Article
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.

Huaxia ZhouDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2822-0091
Luis A Nunes AmaralDepartment of Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics, Northwestern University, Evanston, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3762-789X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a widely held perception that science is becoming more international-through multi-national collaborations-and interdisciplinary, drawing on knowledge from multiple domains. However, these hypothesized trends have not yet been quantitatively characterized. With the publication metadata from OpenAlex, we examine trends in two groups of journals: disciplinary journals in natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences, and multidisciplinary journals that publish articles in multiple fields. Supporting existing perceptions, we find an almost universal trend towards increasing internationalization of both sets of journals. Nevertheless, we find disparities: medicine journals are less international than journals in other disciplines and do not increase their levels of internationalization, whereas physics journals appear to be segregating between those that are international and those that are not. We also find that multidisciplinary journals have undergone significant shifts in their disciplinary focuses over the past century, whereas disciplinary journals appear to have largely maintained their degree of interdisciplinarity.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationInterdisciplinary ResearchInternationalityPeriodicals as TopicHumanscollaborationnonephysics of living systemsscientific enterprisescientific publishing

Identifiers

PMID41474526
PMCPMC12755879

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.