Fanelli D, Glänzel W (2013) Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66938.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066938
Abstract
The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences, first formulated in the 19
th
century, predicts that, moving from simple and general phenomena (e.g.
particle dynamics) to complex and particular (e.g. human behaviour),
researchers lose ability to reach theoretical and methodological
consensus. This hypothesis places each field of research along a
continuum of complexity and “softness”, with profound implications for
our understanding of scientific knowledge. Today, however, the idea is
still unproven and philosophically overlooked, too often confused with
simplistic dichotomies that contrast natural and social sciences, or
science and the humanities. Empirical tests of the hypothesis have
usually compared few fields and this, combined with other limitations,
makes their results contradictory and inconclusive. We verified whether
discipline characteristics reflect a hierarchy, a dichotomy or neither,
by sampling nearly 29,000 papers published contemporaneously in 12
disciplines and measuring a set of parameters hypothesised to reflect
theoretical and methodological consensus. The biological sciences had in
most cases intermediate values between the physical and the social,
with bio-molecular disciplines appearing harder than zoology, botany or
ecology. In multivariable analyses, most of these parameters were
independent predictors of the hierarchy, even when mathematics and the
humanities were included. These results support a “gradualist” view of
scientific knowledge, suggesting that the Hierarchy of the Sciences
provides the best rational framework to understand disciplines'
diversity. A deeper grasp of the relationship between subject matter's
complexity and consensus could have profound implications for how we
interpret, publish, popularize and administer scientific research.