Data for: Long-Distance Interdisciplinarity Leads to Higher Scientific Impact

<em>Data and figures for paper published in PLOS ONE</em> <strong>Abstract</strong>. Scholarly collaborations across disparate scientific disciplines are challenging. Collaborators are likely to have their offices in another building, attend different conferences, and publish in other venues; they might speak a different scientific language and value an alien scientific culture. This paper presents a detailed analysis of success and failure of interdisciplinary papers—as manifested in the citations they receive. For 9.2 million interdisciplinary research papers published between 2000 and 2012 we show that the majority (69.9%) of co-cited interdisciplinary pairs are “win-win” relationships, i.e., papers that cite them have higher citation impact and there are as few as 3.3% “lose-lose” relationships. Papers citing references from subdisciplines positioned far apart (in the conceptual space of the UCSD map of science) attract the highest relative citation counts. The findings support the assumption that interdisciplinary research is more successful and leads to results greater than the sum of its disciplinary parts.<em>发表于PLOS ONE的论文配套数据与图表</em> <strong>摘要</strong>。跨不同科学学科开展的学术合作往往充满挑战。合作各方可能办公地点相距甚远，参与的学术会议领域迥异，发表成果的学术载体也各不相同；他们或许使用不同的科学话语体系，且身处截然不同的科学文化语境中。本论文针对跨学科论文的成败展开详尽分析，其成败以论文获得的引用表现为体现形式。针对2000年至2012年间发表的920万篇跨学科研究论文，我们的研究表明，多数（69.9%）共引跨学科对呈现“双赢”关系，即引用这些论文的文献拥有更高的引用影响力，而仅存在3.3%的“双输”关系。在基于美国加州大学圣地亚哥分校（UCSD）科学地图的概念空间中，距离较远的子学科所提供的参考文献，会让引用它们的文献获得最高的相对引用量。本研究结果佐证了这一假设：跨学科研究更具成效，其产出成果远超各单一学科贡献的总和。