数学研究领域的声望和地位
The prestige and status of research fields within mathematics
摘要：
虽然对“科学的等级”进行了广泛的分析，但对某一科学领域内各分领域的地位却没有相应的研究。我们使用文献计量学数据表明，数学的子领域有不同的“立场”在数学界。排名靠前的院系往往更专注于某些子领域，而同样的子领域在最具选择性的数学期刊或最高奖项的获得者中也占有一席之地。此外，在观察期间（1984- 2016年），子领域的地位发生了显着变化，一些子领域的地位有所提高，另一些则有所下降。子领域的地位与不同的出版习惯有关，但其中一些差异与考虑科学领域等级时观察到的差异相反。我们研究了不同子字段的“状态”的可能解释。一些自然的解释-资金的可获得性、应用程序的重要性-似乎不起作用，这表明该学科的内部因素在起作用。我们提出了一种不同类型的解释，基于一个子领域的“焦点”概念，可能是也可能不是数学特有的。
英文摘要：
While the ``hierarchy of science'' has been widely analysed, there is no corresponding study of the status of subfields within a given scientific field. We use bibliometric data to show that subfields of mathematics have a different ``standing'' within the mathematics community. Highly ranked departments tend to specialize in some subfields more than in others, and the same subfields are also over-represented in the most selective mathematics journals or among recipients of top prizes. Moreover this status of subfields evolves markedly over the period of observation (1984--2016), with some subfields gaining and others losing in standing. The status of subfields is related to different publishing habits, but some of those differences are opposite to those observed when considering the hierarchy of scientific fields. We examine possible explanations for the ``status'' of different subfields. Some natural explanations -- availability of funding, importance of applications -- do not appear to function, suggesting that factors internal to the discipline are at work. We propose a different type of explanation, based on a notion of ``focus'' of a subfield, that might or might not be specific to mathematics.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
