research policy makers

Abstract: Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

Abstract: This study examines how the dominant mode of cross-disciplinary knowledge combination has changed over time. It addresses a limitation of existing studies that document declining disruptiveness at the level of individual works but do not reveal whether the mechanisms of cross-disciplinary knowledge flow have themselves shifted. Drawing on 56 million publications and 816 million citations from OpenAlex (1960-2025), the study classifies cross-disciplinary citations into five types based on the set relationship between the subfield portfolios of citing and cited publications and introduces a semantic-distance measure derived from SPECTER-v2 embeddings of publication abstracts. It subsequently demonstrates that cross-disciplinary citations have shifted markedly away from configurations with no shared disciplinary ground toward types built on partially overlapping knowledge bases, a reorientation further reflected in a steady decline in average semantic distance between citing and cited fields. This shift co-occurs with a diffusion of brokerage positions across the network and a greater reliance on older literature, consistent with a system that has become broader and more decentralized in its interdisciplinary reach. Finally, this study discusses the implications of these findings for science policy and for the design of cross-disciplinary funding mechanisms.