Scientific methodologies for interdisciplinary research: an empirical solution to the demarcation problem

Background Scientific interdisciplinary research must involve disciplines which share a factually common core of scientific methodological features. Methods This paper suggests a theoretical framework to solve the demarcation problem, by referring to inductive vs. deductive/abductive, topical vs. contextual and experimental vs. observational properties within the cognitive-epistemic aspects of science. It compares alternative H-indices (from H-index based on articles to net per-capita per-year H-index based on articles) as common outcomes of scientific activity to measure different scientific methodologies characterising different disciplines and subjects, by constructing a representative dataset based on a cross-disciplinary balanced sample (10,000 authors with at least one article indexed in 2006-2015 Scopus covering 25 disciplines and 4 subjects). It validates this distance metric for both disciplines and subjects, by using it to highlight the overall methodological difference between disciplines and subjects. Results Subjects are statistically comparable, apart from a significant difference between Physical vs. Social Sciences (they differ for all six methodological features) and a slightly significant difference between Life vs. Health Sciences (topical vs. contextual) and Life vs. Social Sciences (topical vs. contextual and experimental vs. observational). Most disciplines are statistically comparable, apart from a significant difference between Physics & Astronomy and Chemistry vs. some other disciplines (the significant dissimilarity observed for subjects is due to the peculiarity characterising these two disciplines). Conclusions A continuous range of scientific methodologies is empirically identified, by characterising interdisciplinary science as referring to six properties to different extents and spanning from Arts & Humanities to Physics & Astronomy. The validated theoretical framework enables the separation of scientific from non-scientific articles (although each article can be characterised by different degrees of methodological properties) as well as the separation of scientific from non-scientific publication history (although each publication history can be characterised by different percentages of methodological features).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
F1000Research
Published
2026-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.192463.1
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Scientific methodologies for interdisciplinary research: an empirical solution to the demarcation problem

Fabio Zagonari
F1000Research
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
article

Scientific methodologies for interdisciplinary research: an empirical solution to the demarcation problem

Fabio Zagonari
article en

Abstract

Background Scientific interdisciplinary research must involve disciplines which share a factually common core of scientific methodological features. Methods This paper suggests a theoretical framework to solve the demarcation problem, by referring to inductive vs. deductive/abductive, topical vs. contextual and experimental vs. observational properties within the cognitive-epistemic aspects of science. It compares alternative H-indices (from H-index based on articles to net per-capita per-year H-index based on articles) as common outcomes of scientific activity to measure different scientific methodologies characterising different disciplines and subjects, by constructing a representative dataset based on a cross-disciplinary balanced sample (10,000 authors with at least one article indexed in 2006-2015 Scopus covering 25 disciplines and 4 subjects). It validates this distance metric for both disciplines and subjects, by using it to highlight the overall methodological difference between disciplines and subjects. Results Subjects are statistically comparable, apart from a significant difference between Physical vs. Social Sciences (they differ for all six methodological features) and a slightly significant difference between Life vs. Health Sciences (topical vs. contextual) and Life vs. Social Sciences (topical vs. contextual and experimental vs. observational). Most disciplines are statistically comparable, apart from a significant difference between Physics & Astronomy and Chemistry vs. some other disciplines (the significant dissimilarity observed for subjects is due to the peculiarity characterising these two disciplines). Conclusions A continuous range of scientific methodologies is empirically identified, by characterising interdisciplinary science as referring to six properties to different extents and spanning from Arts & Humanities to Physics & Astronomy. The validated theoretical framework enables the separation of scientific from non-scientific articles (although each article can be characterised by different degrees of methodological properties) as well as the separation of scientific from non-scientific publication history (although each publication history can be characterised by different percentages of methodological features).

F1000ResearchVol. 15
University of Bologna (IT)
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon