Interdisciplinary research attracts greater attention from policy documents: evidence from COVID-19

Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is increasingly recognized as crucial for addressing complex scientific and societal challenges. While the link between IDR and attention from the scientific community and society has been studied, the relationship with policy document attention remains unclear. This study aims to address this gap by examining COVID-19 publications. The researchers hypothesize that interdisciplinary research receives more attention from policy documents than single-discipline research. This is significant because policy attention indicates the potential for research to influence policy formulation and implementation, transforming scientific knowledge into concrete societal actions. This transformation, combining scientific research with societal needs, maximizes research impact and drives social and economic development. The study uses COVID-19 as a focal point due to the large volume of research generated and the significant policy response, providing a rich dataset for analysis.

Existing research explores the relationship between interdisciplinarity and various forms of attention. Some studies use citation-based metrics to assess scientific attention, finding mixed results regarding the impact of interdisciplinarity on citation counts. The inconsistencies may be due to varying measurement methods and datasets. Other research examines societal attention, indicated by public engagement or research funding, again with varying findings. However, a crucial gap exists concerning the relationship between interdisciplinarity and policy attention. This study aims to fill this gap by examining whether interdisciplinary research receives more attention in policy documents compared to single-discipline research.

The study uses data from OpenAlex, a scientific knowledge graph, and Overton, a policy document database, focusing on COVID-19 publications from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. The researchers matched publications from both datasets using DOIs, resulting in a dataset of 175,950 publications. After further data processing, a final dataset of 159,957 observations was used for analysis. Interdisciplinarity was measured using three dimensions (variety, balance, and disparity) and two composite indicators (RS and DIV). The dependent variable was whether a publication was cited in a policy document. Multiple linear regression models, including fixed effects for disciplines and time, were used to assess the relationship between interdisciplinarity and policy citation. Coarsened exact matching (CEM) was employed to minimize the influence of confounding factors. Additionally, separate regression analyses were conducted for different fields (medical science, natural sciences, social science, engineering and technology, and humanities and arts) to explore disciplinary differences.

The study found a statistically significant positive correlation between interdisciplinarity and policy citation across almost all fields. Variety exhibited the most pronounced positive impact on policy attention. The correlation remained robust after controlling for potential confounding factors using CEM. While the magnitude of the effect varied across disciplines, with medicine and natural science showing higher average policy citations regardless of interdisciplinarity level, the positive correlation between interdisciplinarity and policy citations generally held true. The analysis of different interdisciplinarity dimensions revealed that variety consistently showed a positive correlation with policy citation, disparity showed inconsistent effects, and balance showed mixed effects, with positive impacts in some fields and negative impacts in others. Composite interdisciplinarity indicators (RS and DIV) also displayed generally positive relationships with policy citation across most disciplines. These results highlight that higher interdisciplinarity is associated with a greater likelihood of scientific publications attracting attention from policy documents.

The findings confirm the hypothesis that interdisciplinary research is more likely to receive attention from policy documents. This supports the argument that IDR has a greater potential to influence policy outcomes. For researchers, these results emphasize the importance of interdisciplinarity for maximizing societal impact. For policymakers, this study underscores the value of integrating insights from interdisciplinary research into policy decisions. The positive correlation between variety and policy citation suggests that policy-makers are more likely to consider publications involving diverse disciplines.

This study demonstrates a significant positive correlation between interdisciplinarity in scientific publications and their citation in policy documents, especially highlighting the impact of 'variety'. The results offer valuable insights for researchers seeking to influence policy and for policymakers seeking to leverage scientific knowledge. Future research could expand the scope beyond COVID-19 and refine the measurement of both interdisciplinarity and policy attention. Further investigation into the mechanisms driving this correlation, exploring the interaction of different types of interdisciplinarity and the context of policy decisions, would further enhance our understanding.

The study's primary limitation is its focus on COVID-19 research, limiting generalizability. The measurement of policy attention, based solely on citations, may be an oversimplification. Future research should consider more nuanced measures of policy influence. The study also acknowledges limitations in the universally accepted measurement of interdisciplinarity and suggests that incorporating additional control variables in future research may improve model reliability.