聚合科学的重大挑战和新兴模式
Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science
摘要：
为了解决复杂的问题，学者们越来越多地面临着整合不同知识领域的挑战。我们分析了这种融合范式在脑科学广泛生态系统中的演变，这为评估跨领域整合的两种模式提供了实时测试平台-通过扩展学习和领域专家之间的跨学科合作进行学科领域探索。我们发现，涉及这两种模式的研究具有16%的引用溢价相对于单学科基线。进一步比较研究整合邻近与遥远的研究领域表明，跨学科的模式是必要的跨学科距离相对较大的整合。然而，我们发现，仅利用跨领域主题领域探索的研究-一种融合捷径-以每年约3%的速度增长，明显快于替代的跨学科模式，尽管在整合领域方面效率较低，影响力明显较低。通过测量2013年前后5年时间间隔内不同融合模式的流行程度和影响的变化，我们的研究结果表明，这些适得其反的模式可能与全球人脑旗舰资助计划相关的竞争压力有关。如果没有额外的政策指导，这种大挑战旗舰可能会无意中激励这种趋同捷径，从而削弱跨学科团队在应对要求趋同的挑战方面的优势。
英文摘要：
To address complex problems, scholars are increasingly faced with challenges of integrating diverse knowledge domains. We analyzed the evolution of this convergence paradigm in the broad ecosystem of brain science, which provides a real-time testbed for evaluating two modes of cross-domain integration - subject area exploration via expansive learning and cross-disciplinary collaboration among domain experts. We show that research involving both modes features a 16% citation premium relative to a mono-disciplinary baseline. Further comparison of research integrating neighboring versus distant research domains shows that the cross-disciplinary mode is essential for integrating across relatively large disciplinary distances. Yet we find research utilizing cross-domain subject area exploration alone - a convergence shortcut - to be growing in prevalence at roughly 3% per year, significantly faster than the alternative cross-disciplinary mode, despite being less effective at integrating domains and markedly less impactful. By measuring shifts in the prevalence and impact of different convergence modes in the 5-year intervals before and after 2013, our results indicate that these counterproductive patterns may relate to competitive pressures associated with global Human Brain flagship funding initiatives. Without additional policy guidance, such Grand Challenge flagships may unintentionally incentivize such convergence shortcuts, thereby undercutting the advantages of cross-disciplinary teams in tackling challenges calling on convergence.
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。
