Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights

Interdisciplinary research will never take off:... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480" }, "headline": "Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights", "datePublished": "2026-04-07T04:53:23", "dateModified": "2026-04-07T04:53:23", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fabio Zagonari" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The focus on either epistemological or (demand and supply) institutional obstacles to interdisciplinary research (IDR) in higher education precludes the empirical evaluation of their relative importance and the empirical suggestion of the main policies to cope with these obstacles. Methods This paper characterises IDR in terms of What, How, Where, Why and Who. It presents theoretical insights about internal obstacles (epistemological in What and How arising from cognitive issues) vs. external obstacles (institutional in Who due to lack of demand by journals or lack of supply by scientists) to the possible future achievements of IDR. It constructs a representative dataset on the interdisciplinary literature (Scopus articles with “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in title and abstract to measure genuine and trendy IDR, respectively) based on the average citations per article and H-indexes for authors across 25 disciplines from 2001 to 2020. It applies fixed-effects panel-data estimations with discipline dummy variables to the numbers and percentages of IDR articles in terms of trends and linkages with citations and H-indexes. Results This paper empirically shows that (non-existent) epistemological obstacles < (non-significant) institutional obstacles due to lack of demand < (significant) institutional obstacles due to lack of supply, where linkages with abstracts (trendy IDR) < linkages with titles (genuine IDR). It reviews the main theoretical policies to deal with obstacles to IDR. Conclusions This paper reviews the main theoretical policies to deal with obstacles to IDR, by empirically concluding that, because of rooted views and vested interests within disciplines, the long-run public institutional changes (e.g., top-down regulations such as applying a net per-capita per-year H index with extras for IDR scientists) needed to provide incentives to the short-run private cognitive changes (e.g., bottom-up scientific collaborations) are unlikely: 10% of trendy and genuine IDR articles are expected in 2030 and 2334. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480", "name": "Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results..." } } ] } Home Browse Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Zagonari F. Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178221.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] Fabio Zagonari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9872-8731 Fabio Zagonari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9872-8731 PUBLISHED 07 Apr 2026 Author details Author details Dipartimento di Scienze per la Qualità della Vita, Universita degli Studi di Bologna, Rimini, 47921, Italy Fabio Zagonari Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background The focus on either epistemological or (demand and supply) institutional obstacles to interdisciplinary research (IDR) in higher education precludes the empirical evaluation of their relative importance and the empirical suggestion of the main policies to cope with these obstacles. Methods This paper characterises IDR in terms of What, How, Where, Why and Who. It presents theoretical insights about internal obstacles ( epistemological in What and How arising from cognitive issues) vs. external obstacles ( institutional in Who due to lack of demand by journals or lack of supply by scientists) to the possible future achievements of IDR. It constructs a representative dataset on the interdisciplinary literature (Scopus articles with “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in title and abstract to measure genuine and trendy IDR, respectively) based on the average citations per article and H-indexes for authors across 25 disciplines from 2001 to 2020. It applies fixed-effects panel-data estimations with discipline dummy variables to the numbers and percentages of IDR articles in terms of trends and linkages with citations and H-indexes. Results This paper empirically shows that (non-existent) epistemological obstacles < (non-significant) institutional obstacles due to lack of demand < (significant) institutional obstacles due to lack of supply, where linkages with abstracts (trendy IDR) < linkages with titles (genuine IDR). It reviews the main theoretical policies to deal with obstacles to IDR. Conclusions This paper reviews the main theoretical policies to deal with obstacles to IDR, by empirically concluding that, because of rooted views and vested interests within disciplines, the long-run public institutional changes (e.g., top-down regulations such as applying a net per-capita per-year H index with extras for IDR scientists) needed to provide incentives to the short-run private cognitive changes (e.g., bottom-up scientific collaborations) are unlikely: 10% of trendy and genuine IDR articles are expected in 2030 and 2334. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Interdisciplinary research, panel data, Scopus disciplines, citations, H-indexes; epistemological issues, institutional changes Corresponding Author(s) Fabio Zagonari ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Fabio Zagonari Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Zagonari F. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Zagonari F. Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178221.1 ) First published: 07 Apr 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178221.1 ) Latest published: 07 Apr 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178221.1 ) 1. Introduction An established literature defines inter-disciplinary research (IDR) (e.g., 1 ), by highlighting the main contexts Where IDR can achieve the largest benefits (e.g., solving problems across naturally complex and socially relevant challenges, by relying on alternative scientific knowledge and management strategies) (e.g., 2 ) and the main reasons Why IDR should be implemented (e.g., solving today’s grand challenges, which are too complex to any discipline to tackle alone; generating new research avenues and challenging established beliefs, by enhancing creativity and fostering innovation) (e.g., 3 ). Consequently, IDR has become a catchword in current higher education and science policies across the world. However, interdisciplinary promises in policy discourses are not realised in work practices, since academics confront cognitive-epistemological and institutional-organisational challenges. In particular, a recent literature discusses the main epistemological obstacles to deal with in implementing IDR (e.g., 4 , 5 ). For example, researchers should renounce to prejudices in favour of, and accept simplifications within, their own discipline; researchers should asking themselves the origin of their assumptions, in applying the usual procedures to similar topics within IDR; scientists retain incomplete understanding and respect to, or discrimination against, other disciplines; scientists associate IDR with intellectual fashion rather than research substance; IDR is often focused on applied issues and so it is perceived of lower scientific rigor by theoretical scientists; IDR is still risky, poorly defined and variable in terms of interdisciplinary integration. In addition, a recent literature discusses the main institutional obstacles to be coped with by inter-disciplinary scientists (e.g., 6 ). For example, as for IDR supply (e.g., 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ), funding is limited to core sciences; researchers should renounce to funds in favour of other disciplines; academic career is based on publications in few mainstream journals; insufficient training in, early exposure to, opportunities for and encouragement toward IDR; IDR faces difficulty in identifying best collaborating scientists from different disciplines as well as in managing coordination and integration of distributed knowledge; IDR requires higher initiation effort and time, whereas academic career is based on many latest publications with many overall citations; IDR activities dilutes core disciplinary expertise; IDR focus is more likely to lead to short-term employment rather than tenure jobs in unidisciplinary departments, with possible near-term income risk. Similarly, as for IDR demand (e.g., 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ), difficult assessment of contributions to IDR due to its complex project management and authorship; few brave editors, since journals are ranked in terms of citations and standard articles are more likely to be quoted in the short-run; reviewers are biased against, or lack understanding of, IDR or scientific methods of other disciplines; reviewers ignore the strength of a papers due to its interdisciplinarity. However, the focus on either epistemological or (demand and supply) institutional obstacles precludes the evaluation of their relative importance in barring IDR (GAP 1). Next, the use of (unreliable and inadequate) data gathered for a small number of years or a small number of disciplines precludes the consideration of the differences across disciplines in restraining IDR (GAP 2). The purpose of this paper is to bridge these gaps, by summarising the theoretical literature on inter-disciplinary science (IDR) (THEORETICAL GOAL 1 in Section 2 on issues; THEORETICAL GOAL 2 in Section 4 on solutions) to empirically rank the main obstacles that are preventing its launch (EMPIRICAL GOAL 1 in Section 3) and to empirically suggest the main policies which could favour its launch (EMPIRICAL GOAL 2 in Section 5). To do so, I will theoretically characterise IDR in terms of What , How , Where , Why and Who , by linking epistemological obstacles with What (i.e., a set of eight methodologies) and How IDR is implemented (i.e., realism and neutrality) and by linking institutional obstacles with scientists Who implement IDR (i.e., fewer citations of IDR articles and a discriminatory bibliometric indexes to assess IDR scientists). Moreover, I will construct a representative dataset on the interdisciplinary literature (i.e., articles in Scopus with “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in title or abstract) as well as average citations per article and average H-indexes for authors across all disciplines from 2001 to 2020 (i.e., scientific articles are indexed in Scopus). Finally, I will empirically rank the epistemological obstacles, the institutional obstacles due to lack of demand and the institutional obstacles due to lack of supply, by referring to the number of IDR articles, the percentages of IDR articles over the total articles in terms of trends and linkages with citations and H-indexes. In other words, the research questions can be summarised as follows: 1) (GOAL 1) What is the relative importance of epistemological and (demand and supply) institutional obstacles faced by interdisciplinary scientists? 2) (GOAL 2) Which (long-run and institutional) changes are suggested for scientists to have lower barriers in implementing interdisciplinary research? The topical contribution of the present paper can be summarised as follows: • It finds that epistemological obstacles are irrelevant, while the institutional obstacles due to lack of demand by journals are non-significant and the institutional obstacles due to lack of supply by scientists would be termed the driving variable within the complex system theory (EMPIRICAL GOAL 1). • It shows that long-run public institutional changes (e.g., top-down regulations such as a net per-capita per-year H index with extras for IDR scientists) are required to foster short-run private cognitive changes (e.g., bottom-up scientific collaborations), by compensating interdisciplinary scientists for current private opportunity costs (i.e., a 74% lower H-index for a CV characterised by a 10% higher IDR) (EMPIRICAL GOAL 2). In addition, the methodological contribution of the present paper can be summarised as follows: • It constructs the most reliable dataset (i.e., academic and non-academic authors and articles in Scopus) and most comprehensive dataset (i.e., all disciplines over 20 years) used in the literature (GAP 1). • It applies the most reliable statistical analysis (i.e., fixed effects panel data with discipline dummies) used in the literature (GAP 2). Note that I will disregard trans-disciplinary research, 19 since the focus here is on research- rather than decision-making, although the engagement of stakeholders in decisions is crucial in some contexts (e.g., environmental sustainability in 20 ) and problematic in all contexts (e.g., stakeholder’s representativeness and knowledge in 21 ). Moreover, I will provide examples from the publication experience of the author to support “positive existence statements”, since the lived experience is a legitimate source of information in research and the author is characterised by a net per-capita per-year H-index (i.e., the only version of H-index being suitable to compare inter-disciplinary scientists) ( 22 , 23 ) at 2.5, with an inter-disciplinary degree 24 at 40%, with the main focus of his 25 years CV on the most popular topic in IDR (i.e., environmental ethics, sustainability and decisions). 25 Finally, I will disregard IDR education, although it could increase the sensitivity degree of future researchers in the long-run. 26 The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical literature on obstacles to IDR, by characterising IDR in terms of What & How , Where & Why , and Who (i.e., epistemological and institutional lack of demand and supply) (THEORETICAL GOAL 1). Section 3 empirically ranks those obstacles, by relying on an original dataset (i.e., epistemological < institutional lack of demand < institutional lack of supply) (EMPIRICAL GOAL 1). Section 4 discusses the theoretical solutions from the literature for the main obstacles empirically identified (THEORETICAL GOAL 2), by stressing strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies adopted in the present paper. Section 5 suggests empirical solutions for the main obstacles ranked in the present paper (EMPIRICAL GOAL 2), by resting on the potential synergies of sequential solutions. 2. Methods This section will summarise the main theoretical obstacles to IDR (THEORETICAL GOAL 1). To do so, I will review the literature which characterises IDR in terms of What , How , Where , Why and Who , by linking epistemological (i.e., cognitive) obstacles with What and How IDR is implemented (i.e., there is consensus on the social benefits of IDR – epistemological Where and Why ) and institutional (i.e., organisational) obstacles with scientists Who implement IDR (i.e., there is no consensus on private costs of IDR - institutional Where and Why ). 2.1. What & how The literature agrees on distinguishing IDR (with knowledge integration) from multidisciplinary research (without integration) from transdisciplinary research (with involvement of non-academic actors in knowledge creation) ( 27 , 28 ). However, Valikangas 29 shows that some disciplines (e.g., arts, behavioural sciences, social sciences other than economics, humanities) are not given equal opportunities to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration, with an inferior position compared to natural and technical sciences, since they are not aimed at achieving production or innovation, with related potential markets. Thus, the focus here is on IDR including Social Sciences and Humanities to account for ethical issues in private and public decisions and ethical values in integrated different disciplines (e.g., 30 ) as well as Hard Sciences to provide new critical, theoretical and analytical tools for cultural studies (e.g., 31 ). The definition of science as a human activity (i.e., the demarcation problem) was extensively debated within philosophy of science some decades ago (e.g., 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ). In particular, its main definitions are based on its ontological, epistemological, methodological, or teleological features. In order to acknowledge the same scientific dignity to all disciplines involved in IDR, I will focus here on a factual set of scientific methodological features that is shared by all disciplines, by referring to all meaningful intersections of inductive vs. abductive, topical vs. contextual, and experimental vs. observational properties. 36 Note that those eight properties are a social convention, although evolutionism supports a winning approach to epistemology, ranging from philosophy and religion (a pure theoretical way of thinking) to science (a theoretical thinking supported by empirical observations). 37 Moreover, Maki 38 stresses the semantic and methodological incommensurability of disciplines, whereas Andersen & Wagenknecht 39 highlight the potential complementarity of disciplines and cooperation between scientists. Finally, some mix of properties (e.g., experimental and contextual science) are inconsistent with a scientific activity. 40 Thus, a common IDR definition requires a larger understanding of, and a smaller discrimination against, it. Let us assume that a consensus on the definition of science (i.e., what ) is reached. However, two main epistemological issues (i.e., How ) still remain: realism and neutrality. As for the realism of science, the literature identifies alternative perspectives (e.g., 41 ): realism, instrumentalism, constructivism, internal realism, perspectival realism, anti-realism. Note that instrumentalism and constructivism enable to include music and painting in (emotional) sciences (e.g., it is true that a sad emotion is more likely if a minor tone is used) (e.g., 42 ). Moreover, perspectival could be replaced by contextual (i.e., the identified relationship depends on the context considered or the perspective adopted). Finally, the concepts of feasibility (i.e., realistically successful as prevailing in normative sciences aiming at explaining) and reliability (i.e., practically trustworthy as prevailing in positive sciences aiming at understanding) could be introduced in contextual and observational science to depict tight (rather than true) and diriment relationships (e.g., 43 ). Thus, a comprehensive IDR requires the acceptance of different degrees of realism. However, from the author’s expertise on environmental sustainability, there is no a real IDR: any adopted definition of ecological resilience is an abductive simplification of complicated interactions between ecosystems; the adopted assumption of rationality is an abductive simplification of convergent behaviours of individuals (i.e., these are not true but functioning simplifications). As for the neutrality of science, the literature identifies alternative approaches (e.g., 44 ): axiological, functionalist, consequentialist, cooperative and systemic. Note that some disciplines (e.g., behavioural sciences, humanities) could play the mediator role, to favour communication between disciplines. 29 Moreover, natural world has no meaning, but social world has a meaning which is included whenever a decision is expected to be taken (i.e., understand includes explain). Finally, scientists involved in IDR have to learn how to make their skills and expertise interlocking, by breaking cognitive and methodological barriers. 45 Thus, a comprehensive IDR requires the acceptance of different degrees of neutrality. However, from the author’s expertise on environmental sustainability, there is no a neutral IDR: the adopted definition of ecological resilience (e.g., distance from another stable equilibrium vs. the amount of disruption leading to another stable equilibrium) might imply that the current status of the environment is resilient and so no policies are required; the assumption of welfare as unit together with complete information, perfect information, competitive markets and perfect substitution between types of capitals implies that the current status of the environment is sustainable and so no policies are required. These are not neutral but pregnant assumptions. Note that modifying the concept of biodiversity (i.e., a stock of possible environmental services that future generations could obtain from it instead of the number of species in a given ecosystem that favours its resilience) to make it fit into the economic models represents an unscientific research (i.e., it is against other theoretical papers). Similarly, assuming the unrealistic assumption of absolute decoupling to make the economic models leading to ecological sustainability represents an unscientific research (i.e., it is against other empirical papers). In summary, a consensus on the definition of IDR (i.e., What ) as well as on a common perception about science performance in terms of realism and neutrality (i.e., How ) require a private cognitive change, by including the agreed process to reach a methodological consensus. In other words, it is possible to find a common epistemological background for all disciplines, but researchers in each discipline should accept some compromise about the relative importance of the eight methodologies (i.e., all new disciplines based on the possible combinations of these methodologies are included) and the different degrees of realism and neutrality (i.e., all scientists must renounce to some peculiar features of their disciplines about realism and must clarify the ethical assumptions and implications within their disciplines). Note that the required increased specialisation of scientists coupled with the increased complexity of problems imply larger organisational problems of scientific teams to solve the epistemological problems behind IDR. 46 Moreover, scientists coping with epistemological issues combine human efforts and institutional contexts (e.g., IDR requires more individual time which regulations should properly evaluate; IDR requires more organisational time which institutions could properly tackle). 47 Finally, for relatively simple problems, cognitive diversity may not benefit science epistemologically, since the required consensus on a theory or hypothesis could converge to partially inadequate theories or hypotheses. 48 Therefore, an agreed What and How IDR is possible in theory, but the process of integration and coordination of concepts, methods and expertise across various disciplines may encounter various challenges and require significant additional efforts from researchers (and institutions). Note that epistemological (i.e., What and How ) concerns of IDR will be depicted in Section 3 by comparing absolute and relative numbers of articles characterised as interdisciplinary. As for policies about What and How , Murray et al. 49 specifically suggest an interdisciplinary, experiential graduate education program focused on the scientific topic of interest (e.g., food, energy and water systems), since epistemological issues are different for different topics. 2.2. Where & why If a decision must be taken, then ethics is combined with science. 50 Similarly, if a system is analysed, then many disciplines must be combined. 51 The most popular topic in the literature with these features is environmental sustainability, since it involves both public and private decisions (i.e., a solution to collective action problems) and social and ecological dynamics (i.e., a balance between interconnected influences). 52 Examples of IDR with religious and secular ethics applied to environmental sustainability includes Zagonari, 53 Zagonari, 54 Zagonari, 25 Zagonari, 55 and Zagonari. 56 Note that I mentioned only recent (i.e., last 5 years) papers on environmental sustainability by Zagonari which involve both Arts & Humanities and Mathematics & Statistics (i.e., as a maximum degree of interdisciplinary disparity) with a single author (i.e., as a maximum degree of interdisciplinary CV). 57 Therefore, Where and Why issues of IDR, from an epistemological perspective, is a matter of diffusion rather than of consensus (i.e., no doubts on the social benefits of IDR). Note that these features will be depicted in Section 3 by including all disciplines, whereas specific policies are redundant. In contrast, from an organisational perspective, there is a huge debate about Where IDR should be implemented (i.e., in universities as mainly public institutions or in professional and funding agencies as mainly private institutions) (e.g., 58 , 59 ) and Why IDR should be incentivised (i.e., to get research funds at individual or institutional levels or to achieve better placements at an individual level) (e.g., 60 , 61 ). Note that Where and (public) Why concerns of IDR will be depicted in Section 3 by including all research institutions, whereas (private) Why aspects are described in next subsection about Who. As for specific policies (e.g., 62 ) about organisational issues, Barringer et al. 63 suggest both administrative support and interdisciplinary research grants; Leahey et al. 64 suggest interdisciplinary centres; Salmela et al. 65 suggest research platforms; Ahn et al. 66 suggest internal funding programs; Arnold et al. 67 suggest increasing communication between faculties, departments, centres and institutes within universities. 2.3. Who The definition of science as a social system was extensively debated within philosophy of science some decades ago (e.g., 68 ). In particular, the literature highlights professional activities, social and ethical norms, community aspects of science work, and the relationships of science with technology and society. In order to identify and measure the possible institutional obstacles to IDR, I will focus here on peer review in community aspects of scientific work and on research assessment and fund rising in professional activities. Indeed, as for demand for IDR, peer reviewer has traditionally been a discipline-based practice, with its shared qualitative standards, and it may be biased against interdisciplinary papers, if these standards are inapplicable and inconsistent with a mainstream research. 69 As example from the author’s experience, “not enough economics” from Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (then published as Zagonari 53 ), “too simple methodology” from Journal of Economic Theory (then published as Zagonari 70 ), “no causal relationships without experiments” from Nature Scientific Reports (then published as Zagonari 30 ). As for supply of IDR, participation in IDR are likely to disadvantage (early) career scholars, since evidence of individual contribution and scientific purity are required for promotion and career advancement. 71 As example from the author’s experience, four “class A” articles for each discipline are required to get a position as a full professor in Italian University, where there is no “Environmental Science” as a discipline. 72 Moreover, Social Sciences and Humanities are likely to be excluded from interdisciplinary fields in research funding. 29 Finally, institutions do not compensate for extra (time) costs of pursuing novel and risky lines of IDR. 3 As example from the author’s experience, by referring to Zagonari & Foschi 23 for the gamma distributions of the alternative H-indices and by assuming 2.4 Million scientists as 0.03% of the world’ population, the H-index of the author is 14 (i.e., he is within the first 200,688 scientists), the net per-capita per-year H-index of the author is 2.5 (i.e., he is within the first 586 scientists), the net per-capita per-year H-index of the author with an extra of 296% based on his 40% interdisciplinary CV (i.e., 40 x 7.4 as estimated in Section 3) is 7.4 (i.e., he would be the first interdisciplinary scientist). In summary, it is possible to find a shared non-discriminatory assessment of IDR for all disciplines, from both the demand and supply side (i.e., Who ), but researchers in each discipline should change their approach to IDR papers and their attitude towards co-author citations (e.g., groups of researchers citing each other), co-authorship (e.g., accepting additional authors who did not contribute to the article in exchange for other benefits), and long-standing authorship (e.g., old heads of departments accumulating blurred articles and citations). In other words, all scientists might renounce to some peculiar features of their CV. Therefore, Who IDR is a matter of revolution rather than of diffusion or consensus. Note that private costs of IDR will be depicted in Section 3 by using H-indexes for authors. As for policies about (private) Why or Who , Zagonari & Foschi 23 specifically suggest an improved (i.e., net per-capita per-year) H-index to reduce discrimination against interdisciplinary scientists, although it cannot be tested in the present study due to the Lucas critique (i.e., in general, it is naïve to predict the effects of a change in economic policy entirely on the basis of relationships observed in historical data, especially with highly aggregated historical data; in particular, it is impossible to test the impacts of a change in H-index on IDR, since scientists took their past decisions by referring to the currently prevailing H-index and they will take different decisions by referring to the possibly improved version of the H-index). 3. Results The previous section highlighted some theoretical obstacles to IDR. This section will empirically evaluate the relative importance of these obstacles and the consequences on the future achievements of IDR (EMPIRICAL GOAL 1). To do so, I will construct a representative dataset of IDR for all disciplines and I will refer to the observed behaviours by scientists in all disciplines. As for dependent and independent variables, Table 1 compares the main aspects of the recent empirical studies about the impacts of IDR on scientific actors with the main aspects of the present study. Concisely, the present study combines methodologies used by previous papers, by referring to the averages of citations (CIT) and H-indexes (HIN) across properly represented disciplines to enlarge the sample up to all articles in Scopus about IDR in 20 years and up to a representative random sample of 10,000 authors about CIT and HIN in all countries in all disciplines. In particular, within pros, one should stress that the use of Scopus is more reliable than other bibliometric datasets (e.g., 73 ) and that the focus is on articles as peer-reviewed publications, by neglecting reviews, editorials, and book chapters. However, within cons, one should stress that some specific features of authors (e.g., academic, gender, education background, original discipline) are missed as control variables (e.g., 74 ) and that the use of CIT and HIN are proxies for Impact Factors and University Placements or Funds for journals and authors, respectively. Table 1. Main features of the recent (i.e., last 10 years) empirical literature about impacts (i.e., citations CIT for journals, H-index HIN for authors) of IDR on scientific actors (i.e., journals as demand, authors as supply). Abbreviations: MAG = Microsoft Academic Graph, WoS = Web of Science, * = used as independent variable, ABS = articles’ abstract, TIT = articles’ title. The present study Lyu et al. 75 Fontana et al. 74 Hackett et al. 76 Leahey et al. 78 Yegros-yegros et al. 77 Analysis units Authors & Articles Authors Articles Articles Authors Articles Database Scopus Scopus MAG WoS & Scopus WoS WoS Only universities No Yes Yes No No No Sample sizes: • No. authors 10,000 84,910 6,105 894 • No. countries All 6 1 All 1 All • No. disciplines All All 19 5 3 4 • No. articles 507,557 23,926 398,378 32,000 62,408 • No. years 20 1 5 1 1 1 • No. citations 562,688 52,051 366,024 385,566 1,868,662 • No. journals 31,950 112 IDR indicator Semantic for ABS & TIT Disciplinary shift by authors Cited articles in references Semantic for ABS & TIT Authors’ CVs & departments Cited articles in references Aspect of diversity • Variety Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes • Balance No No Yes Yes Yes Yes • Disparity No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Measure of impact on journal CIT CIT CIT CIT & JIF* CIT Measure of impact on authors HIN Placements HIN* PUB Panel data Yes No Yes No No No Regression controls Fixed effects Yes Yes & Fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Note that I disregarded papers based on surveys (e.g., 79 ) and multiple case studies (e.g., 80 ), since they are based on perceived and subjective rather than observed and objective values of the relevant variables. Moreover, measuring IDR for each author by relying on the citing articles of his/her papers from outside its discipline when his/her articles are produced with many co-authors might overestimate the interdisciplinary degree of each author (e.g., 77 ): for example, a statistician could apply the same method to different topics by producing papers with co-authors from different disciplines. Finally, I disregarded papers on societal impacts (e.g., 81 , 82 ) and technological impacts (e.g., 83 , 84 ), since they are not focused on private costs and risks in realizing IDR. In summary, the empirical purpose of the present study (i.e., ranking the main obstacles preventing IDR from taking off: epistemological, institutional on the demand side, institutional on the supply side) suggested to consider both actors (i.e., journals represented by CIT as the demand side; authors represented by HIN as the supply side) and articles, by using the averages of CIT and HIN across disciplines to link the two units of observations. As for the IDR dataset, I will use data on all articles in the Scopus dataset with “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in title or abstract across 27 disciplines (see Table S1 in Extended data at http://osf.io/b3cj6 for the list of disciplines) from 2001 to 2020, whereas I will use the average citations per article and the average H-indexes for authors across 25 disciplines from 2006 to 2015 from a sample of 10,000 authors extracted from the Scopus dataset (i.e., Health Professions and Multidisciplinary disciplines are not well represented in the sample of authors). In particular, I applied a stratified sampling procedure to the reference population of authors with at least one publication in the Scopus dataset from 2006 to 2015, by partitioning this population according to the 25 scientific disciplines used by Scopus. By preserving the percentages of authors in each discipline, I then randomly chose 10,000 authors, by attaching each author to a single discipline, according to the attribution suggested by Scopus (i.e., an author is linked to the discipline with the largest percentage of publications). Note that I used the Scopus dataset, since it was showed to be less easily manipulated than other bibliometric dataset and more reliable as a set of scientific articles ( 85 , 73 ). Moreover, although there are many examples of bad practices within the peer review process (e.g., acceptance of papers conditional to some quotations of the journal), I trusted it as a crucial community aspect of scientific work. Consequently, I disregarded books, reviews, and proceedings, since these are less likely to be peer refereed. Similarly, I compared articles with “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in abstract from articles with “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in title to distinguish trendy from genuine IDR (i.e., more and more journals mention “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their “aims and scope”), under the assumption that peer reviewers highlight a possible inconsistency between titles and methodologies, whereas they do not pay attention to the use of the same words in abstracts (see 86 , 87 and 88 for established and recent examples of bibliometric measures of papers’ interdisciplinarity, respectively). Finally, I used the average citations per article as a proxy of the IDR publication incentives for journals (i.e., the opportunity cost of IDR for journals) and the average H-indexes for authors as a proxy of the IDR incentives for scientists (i.e., the opportunity cost of IDR for scientists). As for the scientists’ behaviours, I will link epistemological obstacles to the difference between absolute and relative numbers of published IDR articles. Indeed, epistemological issues in writing an IDR paper do not depend on the proportion of written papers and they are successfully tackled if this paper is published as a scientific article. In other words, epistemological problems are said to be solved, if the increasing dynamics of absolute IDR articles is significantly larger than the increasing dynamics of relative IDR articles. Moreover, I will link institutional obstacles on the demand side to the relationship between percentages of IDR articles and the average citations per article for all disciplines. Indeed, journals are ranked in terms of impact factors (i.e., an index based on the number of citations per year) and IDR articles are likely to be quoted to a smaller extent (i.e., only brave and forward-looking editors accept these papers). In other words, institutional obstacles on the demand side are said to be unsolved, if there is a negatively significant relationship between the average citations per article and the proportion of IDR articles across disciplines. Finally, I will link institutional obstacles on the supply side to the relationship between percentages of IDR articles and the average H-indexes for authors for all disciplines. Indeed, scientists are evaluated according to their H-indexes and the academic career is likely to be slower or the access to research funds is likely to be harder for IDR scientists. In other words, institutional obstacles on the supply side are said to be unsolved, if there is a negatively significant relationship between the average H-indexes for authors and the proportion of IDR articles across disciplines. Thus, a significant difference between the dynamics of absolute vs. relative numbers of published IDR articles means that the epistemological obstacles are irrelevant. In particular, I will compare exponential and linear dynamics. Moreover, a significantly negative relationship between percentages of IDR articles (in abstracts ABS or titles TIT) and the average citations per article (CIT) means that the institutional obstacles on the demand side are relevant (i.e., lack of demand). In particular, I will refer to the following equations: (1) CIT i , t = η 0 + η 1 ABS i , t + η 2 YEA + θ + ε i , t Or (2) CIT i , t = η 0 + η 1 TIT i , t + η 2 YEA + θ + ε i , t Where YEA depicts the yearly trend and θ depicts the discipline fixed effects. Finally, a significantly negative relationship between percentages of IDR articles (in abstracts ABS or titles TIT) and H-indexes for authors (HIN) means that the institutional obstacles on the supply side are relevant (i.e., lack of supply). In particular, I will refer to the following equations: (3) HIN i , t = η 0 + η 1 ABS i , t + η 2 YEA + θ + ε i , t Or (4) HIN i , t = η 0 + η 1 TIT i , t + η 2 YEA + θ + ε i , t Where YEA depicts the yearly trend and θ depicts the discipline fixed effects. Note that I did not analyse papers with “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” as a keyword, since they do not provide additional insights (see Figure S1 to Figure S4 in Extended data at http://osf.io/b3cj6 ) and they could include contrasting interests between editors, referees and authors. Indeed, editors often modify keywords suggested by authors to increase citations and referees rarely argue on keywords suggested by authors. Moreover, the yearly trend YEA combined with the discipline fixed effects θ enable to register the effect of a change in interdisciplinarity on CIT and HIN, while sorting out potential confounding factors and the influence of a change in other dimensions. In other words, YEA and θ allow to compare only articles with similar characteristics, by considering different sources of unobserved heterogeneity which may interfere with the effect that interdisciplinarity has on the scientific impact of an article (e.g., different citation patterns across disciplines, different co-authorship practices across disciplines). Finally, CIT is different from HIN, since HIN includes the number of articles, although journals can affect citations (e.g., management of peer review processes, policy of open access) and authors can affect H-index (e.g., reciprocal co-author citations to increase the number of citations, large teams of co-authors to increase the number of articles). 3.1. Abstracts This section will focus on the absolute and relative number of articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their abstracts. Figures 1 and 2 depict the absolute number (N) of articles in each discipline and for all disciplines, respectively. Note that almost all dynamics for disciplines are exponential over time and the overall dynamics is also exponential over time with an yearly growth rate at 0.1164. In particular, Medicine 19 and Social Sciences 26 seem to have properly tackled the epistemological issues. Figure 1. Absolute number of articles (N) with ID in abstracts for disciplines D j . Figure 2. Absolute number of articles (N) with ID in abstracts for all disciplines D j . An exponential dynamic of N with ∆N/N = 0.1164. Figures 3 and 4 depict the relative number (%) of articles in each discipline and for all disciplines, respectively. Note that few dynamics for disciplines are exponential over time and the overall dynamics is linear over time. Comparing Figure 1 and Figure 3 shows that some exponential dynamics continue (e.g., Arts & Humanities 2, Environmental Science 14, Psychology 25, Social Sciences 26), while some exponential dynamics vanish (e.g., Engineering 13, Medicine 19). Figure 3. Relative number of articles (%) with ID in abstracts for disciplines D j . Figure 4. Relative number of articles (% PER) with ID in abstracts for all disciplines D j : PER = 0.008 YEA - 16.009. Comparing Figure 2 and Figure 4 suggests that the failure of a trendy IDR is due to institutional rather than epistemological issues. Note that the small percentage of IDR articles in 2000 (i.e., slightly below 0.1%) and in 2020 (i.e., slightly above 0.2%) confirms that the sample of articles in the period 2000 to 2020 does not miss relevant information. Table 2 and Table 3 depict the impacts of Abstracts in percentages on average Citations per article with and without the yearly trend, respectively, based on the panel data robust estimations with fixed effects (i.e., the demand side of institutional issues in equation (1) . Table 4 and Table 5 depict the impacts of Abstracts in percentages on the average H-index of scientists with and without the yearly trend, respectively, based on the panel data robust estimations with fixed effects (i.e., the supply side of institutional issues in equation (3) . Table 2. Demand side: Citations (CIT) per article vs. Abstracts (ABS) in percentages with the yearly trend (YEA). CONS = constant, σ u = 3.5453168, σ e = 4.1376226, ρ = 0.42336185, Prob > F = 0. CIT Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] ABS 4.217782 12.47208 0.34 0.738 −21.52332 29.95889 YEA −1.377915 .1280387 −10.76 0.000 −1.642174 −1.113656 CONS 2775.318 256.3705 10.83 0.000 2246.195 3304.44 Table 3. Demand side: Citations (CIT) per article vs. Abstracts (ABS) in percentages without the yearly trend. CONS = constant, σ u = 10.206999, σ e = 5.3197282, ρ = 0.78639032, Prob > F = 0.0035. CIT Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] ABS −48.74497 15.07737 −3.23 0.004 −79.86314 −17.6268 CONS 16.28037 3.205681 5.08 0.000 9.66417 22.89657 Table 4. Supply side: H-index (HIN) for scientists vs. Abstracts (ABS) in percentages with the yearly trend (YEA). CONS = constant, σ u = 0.94372682, σ e = 0.77650877, ρ = 0.59629657, Prob > F = 0. HIN Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] ABS 2.695203 1.673686 1.61 0.120 −.7591148 6.149522 YEA −.3479692 .0346511 −10.04 0.000 −.4194856 −.2764529 CONS 700.4491 69.38591 10.09 0.000 557.2436 843.6546 Table 5. Supply side: H-index (HIN) for scientists vs. Abstracts (ABS) in percentages without the yearly trend. CONS = constant, σ u = 2.2140865, σ e = 1.1480871, ρ = 0.78809581, Prob > F = 0.0001. HIN Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] ABS −10.67965 2.336397 −4.57 0.000 −15.50173 −5.857563 CONS 3.700642 .4967538 7.45 0.000 2.675393 4.725892 Note that I used “impacts”, since the reverse causality is meaningless in my context. Indeed, it is well-known that IDR reduces the average citations per article and the average H-index for authors so it is unlikely to have editors and scientists who increase their degree of interdisciplinarity to increase impact factors and personal H-indexes, respectively. Let us focus on Table 2 for the demand side, since journals are interested in impact factors for a short period of time (i.e., with the yearly trend) and on Table 5 for the supply side, since scientists are concerned for the scientific assessment of their work for a long period of time (i.e., without the yearly trend). Table 2 shows a significant negative yearly trend (i.e., more recent articles are less likely to be quoted) and a non-significant positive impact of Abstracts in percentages on the average number of Citations (i.e., articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their abstracts do not decrease their average number of citations). Note that Table 3 shows a significant negative impact of Abstracts in percentages on the number of Citations over the whole period under consideration (i.e., 2.99% of smaller average citations per year). Table 5 shows a significant negative impact of Abstracts in percentages on the average H-index (i.e., scientists who publish articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their abstracts decrease their H-indexes). Note that Table 4 shows a non-significant positive impact of Abstracts in percentages on the average H-index per year (i.e., articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their abstracts do not decrease the yearly average H-index). Comparing impacts in Table 2 and in Table 5 (i.e., P values at 0.738 and 0, respectively) suggests that the institutional issues of a trendy IDR are due to a lack of supply. Note that the yearly trend in Table 2 is −1.37 per year. Moreover, the average H-index in Table 5 is 3.70. Finally, ρ (i.e., the proportion of the total variance contributed by the panel-level variance component is large and a panel estimation is better than a the pooled estimation) is positive both in Table 2 and in Table 5 , although its value is larger for H-indexes than for Citations (i.e., disciplines differ each other for H-indexes to a greater extent than for citations). In order to compare the impacts for each single discipline, Table S2 and Table S3 in Extended data at http://osf.io/b3cj6 present the same estimations, where fixed effects are replaced by dummies for each discipline. 3.2. Titles The previous section focused on the absolute and relative number of articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their abstracts. However, these words in abstracts do not ensure that IDR is actually implemented in the article, since they do not commit the authors to do IDR and reviewers could accept these words (i.e., it could be a matter of fashion). In order to enable comparisons, this section will perform the same analyses previously implemented, by focusing on the absolute and relative number of articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their titles. Indeed, these words in the title commit authors to perform IDR and reviewers would stress an inconsistency between title and content of these papers. Figures 5 and 6 depict the absolute number (N) of articles in each discipline and for all disciplines, respectively. Note that almost all dynamics for disciplines are exponential over time and the overall dynamics is also exponential over time with an yearly growth rate at 0.1005. In particular, Medicine 19 and Social Sciences 26 seem to have properly tackled the epistemological issues. Figure 5. Absolute number of articles (N) with ID in titles for disciplines D j . Figure 6. Absolute number of articles (N) with ID in titles for all disciplines D j . An exponential dynamic of N with ∆N/N = 0.1005. Figures 7 and 8 depict the relative number (%) of articles in each discipline and for all disciplines, respectively. Note that few dynamics for disciplines are exponential over time and the overall dynamics is linear over time. Comparing Figure 5 and Figure 7 shows that some exponential dynamics continue (e.g., Arts & Humanities 2, Environmental Science 14), while some exponential dynamics vanish (e.g., Medicine 19, Social Sciences 26). Figure 7. Relative number of articles (%) with ID in titles for disciplines D j . Figure 8. Relative number of articles (% PER) with ID in titles for all disciplines D j : PER = 0.0011 YEA - 2.2464. Comparing Figure 1 and Figure 5 suggests that the genuine implementation of IDR does not pay in terms of individual benefits for most disciplines. In particular, a genuine IDR is implemented in Arts & Humanities 2, Environmental Science 14; a trendy IDR is implemented in Psychology 25 and Social Sciences 26; IDR is not implemented in Engineering 13 and Medicine 19. Comparing Figure 6 and Figure 8 suggests that the failure of a genuine IDR is due to institutional rather than epistemological issues. Note that the small percentage of IDR articles in 2000 (i.e., slightly below 0.03%) and in 2020 (i.e., slightly above 0.04%) confirms again that the sample of articles in the period 2000 to 2020 does not miss relevant information. Table 6 and Table 7 depict the impacts of Titles in percentages on average Citations per article with and without the yearly trend, respectively, based on the panel data robust estimations with fixed effects (i.e., the demand side of institutional issues in equation (2) . Table 8 and Table 9 depict the impacts of Titles in percentages on the average H-index of scientists with and without the yearly trend, respectively, based on the panel data robust estimations with fixed effects (i.e., the supply side of institutional issues in equation (4) . Table 6. Demand side: Citations (CIT) per article vs. Titles (TIT) in percentages with the yearly trend (YEA). CONS = constant, σ u = 2.8885932, σ e = 4.1327591, ρ = 0.32819696, Prob > F = 0. CIT Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] TIT −13.7201 13.54233 −1.01 0.321 −41.67009 14.22989 YEA −1.313504 .1256613 −10.45 0.000 −1.572856 −1.054152 CONS 2647.294 252.7757 10.47 0.000 2125.59 3168.997 Table 7. Demand side: Citations (CIT) per article vs. Titles (TIT) in percentages without the yearly trend. CONS = constant, σ u = 3.7754271, σ e = 5.6191011, ρ = 0.31102828, Prob > F = 0.0177. CIT Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] TIT −72.60982 28.50954 −2.55 0.018 −131.4506 −13.76903 CONS 8.968591 1.198397 7.48 0.000 6.495222 11.44196 Table 8. Supply side: H-index (HIN) for scientists vs. Titles (TIT) in percentages with the yearly trend (YEA). CONS = constant, σ u = .46016911, σ e = .78300047, ρ = 0.25672159, Prob > F = 0. HIN Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] TIT −.932498 3.821232 −0.24 0.809 −8.819133 6.954137 YEA −.3212753 .0267509 −12.01 0.000 −.3764864 −.2660641 CONS 647.3931 53.71722 12.05 0.000 536.5262 758.26 Table 9. Supply side: H-index (HIN) for scientists vs. Titles (TIT) in percentages without the yearly trend. CONS = constant, σ u = .69563733, σ e = 1.2174036, ρ = 0.2461422, Prob > F = 0.0146. HIN Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] TIT −15.33657 5.829839 −2.63 0.015 −27.36877 −3.304372 CONS 2.074657 .245057 8.47 0.000 1.568884 2.58043 Note that I used again “impacts”, since the reverse causality is meaningless in my context). Moreover, comparing Figure 2 and Figure 6 shows that both dynamics are exponential, but the latter is at a smaller level than the former. Finally, comparing Figure 4 and Figure 8 shows that both dynamics are linear, but the latter is at a smaller level than the former. In particular, the 10% of articles with trendy and genuine IDR (i.e., “interdisciplinary” of “interdisciplinarity” in abstract and title, respectively) are expected in 2030 and 2334, respectively. Let us focus on Table 6 for the demand side (i.e., with the yearly trend) and on Table 9 for the supply side (i.e., without the yearly trend). Table 6 shows a significant negative yearly trend (i.e., more recent articles are less likely to be quoted) and a non-significant negative impact of Titles in percentages on the average number of Citations (i.e., articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their titles do not increase their average number of citations). Note that Table 7 shows a significant negative impact of Titles in percentages on the number of Citations over the whole period under consideration (i.e., 8.10% of smaller average citations per year). Comparing Table 6 with Table 2 suggests that a trendy IDR might be beneficial for journals, whereas a genuine IDR might be detrimental for journals. Table 9 shows a significant negative impact of Titles in percentages on the average H-index (i.e., scientists who publish articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their titles decrease their H-indexes). Note that Table 8 shows a non-significant negative impact of Titles in percentages on the average H-index per year (i.e., articles with the words “interdisciplinary” or “interdisciplinarity” in their titles do not increase the yearly average H-index). Comparing Table 9 with Table 5 suggests that a genuine IDR is detrimental for scientists (i.e., −7.4% of H-index for +1% of IDR based on 15.33/2.07) much more than a trendy IDR (i.e., −2.8% of H-index for +1% of IDR based on 10.67/3.70). Comparing impacts in Table 6 and in Table 9 (i.e., P values at 0.321 and 0.015, respectively) suggests that the institutional issues of a genuine IDR are due to a lack of supply. Note that the yearly trend in Table 6 is −1.31 per year, which is similar to the value estimated for Abstracts. Moreover, the average H-index in Table 9 is 2.07, which is smaller than the value estimated for Abstracts (i.e., a genuine as opposed to a trendy IDR reduces the average H-index from 3.70 to 2.07). Finally, ρ is positive both in Table 6 and in Table 9 , although its value is smaller for H-indexes than for Citations (i.e., disciplines differ each other for H-indexes to a smaller extent than for citations). In other words, the individual cost for a genuine IDR is more similar across disciplines than for a trendy IDR. In order to compare the impacts for each single discipline, Table S4 and Table S5 in Extended data at http://osf.io/b3cj6 present the same estimations, where fixed effects are replaced by dummies for each discipline. 4. Discussion The previous section ranked the main obstacles to IDR. This section will review the theoretical literature to suggest some solutions (THEORETICAL GOAL 2), by referring to the empirical literature to highlight the main methodological advances of the present paper. Note that the most complicated issue in theory (i.e., the institutional obstacles on the supply side which requires a revolution) turned out to be the most urgent issue in practice (i.e., a structural break is required). The main theoretical solutions to the epistemological obstacles suggested in the literature are as follows: • An improved division of cognitive labour and scheduling of joint epistemic work and evaluation could favour an adequate organisational arrangement, since IDR can be represented as a cognitive coordination problem to be characterised in terms of heuristics 89 • Leaders could play a crucial role in coordinating team interaction by facilitating the sharing, consideration, evaluation, and integration of relevant knowledge 90 • A better focus on epistemological issues of IDR could favour the development of scientific standard, since there are few models and practical guides for IDR teams 91 The main theoretical solutions to the institutional obstacles on the demand side suggested in the literature are as follows: • handle editors should be identified with an interdisciplinary culture to appreciate the novelty across disciplines. • more time should be spent for interdisciplinary papers to find a compromise about concepts and methods, although this might require a second round of the referee process and postpone the payment of the publication fee. • editors in chief should be identified with a forward-looking perspective to get rid of the short-run rule of getting money. The main theoretical solutions to the institutional obstacles on the supply side suggested in the literature are as follows: • larger trainings on IDR for undergraduate and graduate students could favour interpersonal communication and collaborative skills 92 • better selection of interdisciplinary scientists could increase commitment to and patience with the cross disciplinary process, since IDR does not require only disciplinary depth and expertise ( 93 , 71 ) • supporting structures (e.g., reorganisation of university research to target IDR funding calls and programmes) and incentivizing regulations (e.g., new indexes for research assessment and funding) could increase the number of interdisciplinary collaborations ( 6 , 65 , 94 ) The methodological strength of the present study is threefold: 1. I referred to all disciplines within IDR rather than to few disciplines (e.g., 29 ). This is theoretically supported by a broad definition of science, where all disciplines accepting its methodologies have the same scientific dignity. 2. I distinguished genuine from trendy IDR, by referring to abstracts and titles, respectively. I used text analysis rather than citation analysis. Otherwise, IDR could be over evaluated for some more interdisciplinary disciplines, deliberately “ex-ante” IDR could be under evaluated, and unintentionally “ex-post” IDR could be over evaluated. 3. I used a comprehensive dataset for all disciplines in the last 20 years rather than small samples (e.g., 71 ). This is empirically supported by the few percentages of IDR, both for trendy and genuine IDR. The methodological weakness of the present study is the reference to different observation units. Indeed, I did not link the interdisciplinary degree of each single author with his/her H-index and the average citations of his/her articles, but I used interdisciplinary indexes (i.e., dynamics of trendy and genuine IDR) which refer to all articles, I used the H-indexes (i.e., the costs of writing IDR papers by authors) which refers to some scientists, and I used the citations (i.e., the costs of accepting IDR papers by editors) which refer to articles published by the same scientists. However, I linked these variables by calculating their averages across the 25 disciplines. In particular, the different sizes of the different disciplines are represented by the proportions of sampled scientists and by the percentages of all articles, whereas the additional differences between disciplines are caught by applying the fixed effects method. Note that the use of bibliometric indexes to suggest an empirical solution to epistemological and institutional obstacles to IDR lead the present paper to disregard educational issues (e.g., 95 , 96 , 97 ) and administrative issues (e.g., 98 , 99 , 100 ). 5. Conclusion The purpose of this paper was to empirically rank the main obstacles that prevent the IDR launch. By relying on indexes from informetrics, Section 3 empirically showed that institutional obstacles due to lack of supply > institutional obstacles due to lack of demand > epistemological obstacles (EMPIRICAL GOAL 1), whereas Section 4 reviewed some theoretical solutions (THEORETICAL GOAL 2). However, the relative empirical importance of obstacles leads to a sequence of suggested practical solutions (EMPIRICAL GOAL 2), by referring to the short-side theory in economics. First, the adoption of a net per-capita per-year H-index to evaluate scientific activity, with a bonus for IDR, would foster academic careers of interdisciplinary scientists and favour their access to research funds (i.e., supply side of institutional obstacles). Second, a larger group of (old) interdisciplinary reviewers would increase the awareness of the IDR potentials and the publication of IDR articles (i.e., demand side of institutional obstacles). Third, a greater probability of publication would increase the demand for training on IDR by (young) undergraduate and graduate students (i.e., epistemological obstacles). Note that this sequence would avoid the IDR take off to be based on few heroic scientists (i.e., around 0.03% of scientists, if each IDR scientist publishes around one IDR article per-capita per year) who bear a private opportunity cost to produce a public benefit (i.e., IDR is a collective action problem). Moreover, it would reduce times to move from trendy to genuine IDR, by keeping the characterisation of IDR. Finally, it would increase the likelihood of an institutional change which is needed to break the vested interests (i.e., IDR scientists are not behind the veil of ignorance by Rawls). The present study could be developed by considering transdisciplinary science instead of IDR. However, the theoretical insights should include additional frameworks such as engagement of stakeholders and communication of information. Similarly, empirical results should rely on a larger dataset to include variables such as average or top-down decisions and majority or bottom-up decisions by representative and informed stakeholders. Data availability statement Extended data are available at http://osf.io/b3cj6 OSF [IDR will never take off]. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B3CJ6 . IDR will never take off. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B3CJ6 includes all supplementary files: • Dataset – F1RdataPanel.txt • Figures. F1RdataFigures.xlsx • Supplementary Materials. F1RSupMaterials.docx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) . Ethical approval: Not applicable. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Consent for Human Participants: Not applicable. Code availability (only if used): Not applicable. References 1. Boon M, Van Baalen S: Epistemology for interdisciplinary research – shifting philosophical paradigms of science. Eur J Philos Sci. 2019; 9 : art. no. 16. 2. Pipere A, Lorenzi F: The dialogical potential of transdisciplinary research: challenges and benefits. World Futures. 2021; 77 : 559–590. Publisher Full Text 3. Rolin K, Koskinen I, Kuorikoski J, et al. : Social and cognitive diversity in science: introduction. Synthese. 2023; 202 : 36–46. Publisher Full Text 4. Krauss A: Science of science: A multidisciplinary field studying science. Heliyon. 2024; 10 : art. no. e36066. 5. MacLeod M: What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese. 2018; 195 : 697–720. 6. Koskinen I: How institutional solutions meant to increase diversity in science fail. Synthese. 2022; 200 : 483–503. Publisher Full Text 7. Kwon S: Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2022; 181 : art. no. 121767. 8. De Sandes-Guimarães LV, Velho R, Plonski GA: Interdisciplinary research and policy impacts: Assessing the significance of knowledge coproduction. Research Evaluation. 2022; 31 (3): 344–354. Publisher Full Text 9. Chen A, Wang X: The effect of facilitating interdisciplinary cooperation on the research productivity of university research teams: The moderating role of government assistance. Research Evaluation. 2021; 30 (1): 13–25. Publisher Full Text 10. Gibson C, Stutchbury T, Ikutegbe V, et al. : Challenge-led interdisciplinary research in practice: Program design, early career research, and a dialogic approach to building unlikely collaborations. Research Evaluation. 2019; 28 (1): 51–62. Publisher Full Text 11. Müller R, Kaltenbrunner W: Re-disciplining Academic Careers? Interdisciplinary Practice and Career Development in a Swedish Environmental Sciences Research Center. Minerva. 2019; 57 (4): 479–499. Publisher Full Text 12. Ribeiro FM: Interdisciplinarity in ferment: The role of knowledge networks and department affiliation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 2016; 113 : 240–247. Publisher Full Text 13. Schölvinck A-F, Uygun-Tunç D, Lakens D, et al. : How qualitative criteria can improve the assessment process of interdisciplinary research proposals. Res Eval. 2024; 33 : art. no. rvae049. 14. Petersen AM, Arroyave F, Pavlidis I: Methods for measuring social and conceptual dimensions of convergence science. Research Evaluation. 2023; 32 (2): 256–272. Publisher Full Text 15. Hesselmann F, Schendzielorz C, Sorgatz N: Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices. Research Evaluation. 2021; 30 (3): 382–392. Publisher Full Text 16. Zhang L, Sun B, Jiang L, et al. : On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects on academic and broader impact. Research Evaluation. 2021; 30 (3): 256–268. Publisher Full Text 17. Baimpos T, Dittel N, Borissov R: Unravelling the panel contribution upon peer review evaluation of numerous, unstructured and highly interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation. 2020; 29 (3): 316–326. Publisher Full Text 18. Lindvig K, Hillersdal L: Strategically Unclear? Organising Interdisciplinarity in an Excellence Programme of Interdisciplinary Research in Denmark. Minerva. 2019; 57 (1): 23–46. 19. Renn O: Transdisciplinarity: synthesis towards a modular approach. Futures. 2021; 130 : art. no. 102744. 20. Nagatsu M, Davis T, DesRoches CT, et al. : Philosophy of science for sustainability science. Sustainability Science. 2020; 15 : 1807–1817. Publisher Full Text 21. Gugerell K, et al. : Systemic knowledge integration in transdisciplinary and sustainability transformation research. Futures. 2023; 150 : art. no. 103177. 22. Zagonari F: Coping with the inequity and inefficiency of the H-index: a cross-disciplinary analytical model. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2019a; 35 : 285–300. Publisher Full Text 23. Zagonari F, Foschi P: Coping with the inequity and inefficiency of the H-index: A cross-disciplinary empirical analysis. Publications. 2024; 12 : art. no. 12. 24. Zagonari F: Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined. Publications. 2019b; 7 . Publisher Full Text 25. Zagonari F: Environmental Ethics, Sustainability and Decisions: Literature Problems and Suggested Solutions. Springer; 2022. 26. Masweli NT, et al. : Transdisciplinary teaching practices for data science education: a comprehensive framework for integrating disciplines. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2023; 8 : art. no. 100628. 27. Russell YI: Three problems of interdisciplinarity. Avant. 2022; 13 : 1–21. Publisher Full Text 28. Klein JT: Boundary Discourse of Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Sector Research: Refiguring the Landscape of Science. Minerva. 2023; 61 : 31–52. Publisher Full Text 29. Valikangas A: The limited role of social sciences and humanities in interdisciplinary funding: what are its effects. Soc Epistemol. 2023; 38 . Publisher Full Text 30. Zagonari F: Both religious and secular ethics to achieve both happiness and health: panel data results based on a dynamic theoretical model. PLoS ONE. 2024a; 19 : e0301905. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 31. Zagonari F: An empirical support of Schopenhauer’s ethics: a dynamic panel data analysis on developed and developing countries. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2023a; 8 : 100706. Publisher Full Text 32. Harker D: Demarcation and the created controversy. Philosophia. 2017; 45 : 247–256. Publisher Full Text 33. Fernandez-Beanato D: The multi-criterial approach of the problem of demarcation. J Gen Philos Sci. 2020; 51 : 375–390. 34. Ohlhorst J: Epistemic austerity: limits to entitlement. Synthese. 2021; 199 : 13771–13787. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Boudry M: Diagnosing Pseudoscience – by Getting Rid of the Demarcation Problem. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 2022; 53 : 83–101. Publisher Full Text 36. Zagonari F: Science is a method; it is not a subject. Qual Quant. 2025. (under review). 37. Faye J: A debate in need of change. Global Philosophy. 2023; 33 : 1–32. 38. Maki U: Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why How?. Eur J Philos Sci. 2016; 6 : 327–342. Publisher Full Text 39. Andersen H, Wagenknecht S: Epistemic dependence in interdisciplinary groups. Synthese. 2013; 190 : 1881–1898. Publisher Full Text 40. Nowel L, et al. : Interdisciplinary mixed methods systematic reviews: Reflections on methodological best practices, theoretical considerations, and practical implications across disciplines. Social Sciences and Humanities Open. 2022; 6 : art. no. 100295. 41. Emmel N: Post-disciplinary realism. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2021; 24 : 95–108. Publisher Full Text 42. Zagonari F, Giacomoni E: Social benefits and individual costs of creativity in art and science: A statistical analysis based on a theoretical framework. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17 : e0265446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 43. Zagonari F: (Moral) philosophy and (moral) theology can function as (behavioral) science: a methodological framework for interdisciplinary research. Qual Quant. 2019c; 53 : 3131–3158. Publisher Full Text 44. Reznik DB, Elliot KC: Science, values, and the new demarcation problem. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 2023; 54 : 259–286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 45. Politi V: Specialisation, interdisciplinarity, and incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 2017; 31 : 301–317. Publisher Full Text 46. Mäkinen EI: Complexity leadership theory and the leaders of transdisciplinary science. Inform Sci. 2018; 21 : 135–155. 47. Thelwall M, et al. : Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?. Res Policy. 2023; 52 : art. no. 104829. 48. Baaden P, et al. : On the emergence of interdisciplinary scientific fields: (how) does it relate to science convergence?. Res Policy. 2024; 53 : art. no. 105026. 49. Murray RT, et al. : A curricular model to train doctoral students in interdisciplinary research at the food-energy-water nexus. Front Educ. 2023; 8 : art. no. 1114529. 50. Malecka M: Knowledge, behaviour, and policy: questioning the epistemic presuppositions of applying behavioural science in public policymaking. Synthese. 2021; 199 : 5311–5338. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 51. Weaver S: The harms of ignoring the social nature of science. Synthese. 2019; 196 : 355–375. Publisher Full Text 52. MacLeod M, Nagatsu M: What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 2018; 67 : 74–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 53. Zagonari F: Both de-growth and a-growth together to achieve both strong and weak sustainability: a theoretical model, empirical results, some ethical insights. Front Sustain. 2024b; 5 : 1351841. 54. Zagonari F: Sustainable business models and conflict indices for sustainable decision-making: an application to decommissioning vs. reusing offshore gas platforms. Bus Strat Environ. 2023b. Publisher Full Text 55. Zagonari F: Religious and secular ethics offer complementary strategies to achieve environmental sustainability. Nature – Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2021; 8 : art. no. 124. 56. Zagonari F: Environmental sustainability is not worth pursuing unless it is achieved for ethical reasons. Nature – Palgrave Communications. 2020; 8 : art. no. 108. 57. Zagonari F: Ethicametrics: a new interdisciplinary science. STATS. 2025; 8 : art. no. 50. Publisher Full Text 58. D’Este P, Llopis O, Rentocchini F, et al. : The relationship between interdisciplinarity and distinct modes of university-industry interaction. Res Policy. 2019; 48 : art. No. 103799. Publisher Full Text 59. Leahey E, Barringer SN: Universities’ commitment to interdisciplinary research: To what end?. Res Policy. 2020; 49 : art. No. 103910. Publisher Full Text 60. Sun Y, Livan G, Ma A, et al. : Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance. Communications Physics. 2021; 4 : 263–270. Publisher Full Text 61. Qi F, et al. : Facilitating interdisciplinarity: the contributions of boundary-crossing activities among disciplines. Scientometrics. 2024. 62. Klein JT, Falk-Krzesinski HJ: Interdisciplinary and collaborative work: Framing promotion and tenure practices and policies. Research Policy. 2017; 46 : 1055–1061. Publisher Full Text 63. Barringer SN, Leahey E, Salazar K: What Catalyzes Research Universities to Commit to Interdisciplinary Research?. Research in Higher Education. 2020; 61 : 679–705. Publisher Full Text 64. Leahey E, Barringer SN, Ring-Ramirez M: Universities’ structural commitment to interdisciplinary research. Scientometrics. 2019; 118 : 891–919. Publisher Full Text 65. Salmela M, MacLeod M, Munck af Rosenschöld J: Internally Incentivized Interdisciplinarity: Organizational Restructuring of Research and Emerging Tensions. Minerva. 2021; 59 : 355–377. Publisher Full Text 66. Ahn S, et al. : Encouraging Innovation: Should Internal Funding Programs Favor Faculty Who Are Already Productive?. J Res Adm. 2022; 53 : 144–161. 67. Arnold A, Cafer A, Green J, et al. : Perspective: Promoting and fostering multidisciplinary research in universities. Res Policy. 2021; 50 : art. no. 104334. Publisher Full Text 68. Erduran S, Dagher ZR, McDonald CV: Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education. 2019; 28 : 311–328. Publisher Full Text 69. Mäkinen EI: The power of peer review on transdisciplinary discovery. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2019; 44 : 1020–1047. Publisher Full Text 70. Zagonari F: Learning and dynamic choices under uncertainty: from weighted regret and rejoice to expected utility. Managerial and Decision Economics. 2019d; 40 : 292–308. Publisher Full Text 71. Moore M, et al. : Transdisciplinary in research: perspectives of early career faculty. Res Soc Work Pract. 2018; 28 : 254–264. 72. Abramo G, et al. : Do research assessment systems have the potential to hinder scientists from diversifying their research pursuits?. Scientometrics. 2024. 73. Loan FA, et al. : Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar H-index?. Libr Hi Tech. 2022; 40 : 676–684. 74. Fontana M, Iori M, Leone Sciabolazza V, et al. : The interdisciplinarity dilemma: Public versus private interests. Res Policy. 2022; 51 : art. no. 104553. Publisher Full Text 75. Lyu W, et al. : The multifaced influence of multidisciplinary background on placement and academic progression of faculty. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2024; 11 : art. No. 350. 76. Hackett EJ, et al. : Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research. Res Policy. 2021; 50 : art. No. 104069. 77. Yegros-Yegros A, Rafols I, D’Este P: Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? the different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10 : e0135095. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 78. Leahey E, et al. : Prominent but Less Productive: The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Scientists’ Research. Admin Sci Q. 2017; 62 : 105–139. 79. Zhang X, Wang X, Zhao W: Social capital and knowledge integration in interdisciplinary research teams: a multilevel analysis. Management Decision. 2021; 59 : 1972–1989. Publisher Full Text 80. Tkachenko O, Ardichvili A: Critical factors impacting interdisciplinary university research teams of small size: A multiple-case study. Team Perform Manag. 2020; 26 : 53–69. 81. D’Este P, Robinson-Garcia N: Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields. Res Policy. 2023; 52 : art. No. 104609. 82. Fontana M, Iori M, Montobbio F, et al. : New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity. Research Policy. 2020; 49 : 104063. Publisher Full Text 83. Li B, et al. : Interdisciplinary affects the technological impact of scientific research. Scientometrics. 2023; 128 : 6527–6559. 84. Llopis O, D'Este P, McKelvey M, et al. : Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science. Technovation. 2022; 110 : 102367. Publisher Full Text 85. Harzing A-W, Alakangas S: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics. 2016; 106 (2): 787–804. Publisher Full Text 86. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Zhang L: A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list. Journal of Informetrics. 2018; 12 : 1182–1193. Publisher Full Text 87. Herzog PS, Ai J, Ashton J: Applying Bibliometric Techniques: Studying Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education Curriculum. Computation. 2022; 10 : art. no. 26. 88. Zhang Y, et al. : Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research. J Informetr. 2024; 18 : art. No. 101468. 89. Rijula S, et al. : The division of cognitive labor and the structure of interdisciplinary problems.2023; 201 : 214–234. 90. Salazar MR, Lant TK: Facilitating innovation in interdisciplinary teams: the role of leaders and integrative communication. Inform Sci. 2018; 21 : 157–178. 91. Lorenzetti L, Jacobsen M, Lorenzetti DL, et al. : Fostering Learning and Reciprocity in Interdisciplinary Research. Small Group Research. 2022; 53 : 755–777. Publisher Full Text 92. Bammer G, et al. : Setting parameters for developing undergraduate expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving at a university-wide scale: a case study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2023; 10 : art. no. 208. 93. Curran M, Bloom Q, Brint S: Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output, Collaborations, and Impact? Results from a National Study of U.S. Research Universities. Minerva. 2020; 58 (4): 585–605. Publisher Full Text 94. Mäkinen EI, Evans ED, McFarland DA: The Patterning of Collaborative Behavior and Knowledge Culminations in Interdisciplinary Research Centers. Minerva. 2020; 58 (1): 71–95. Publisher Full Text 95. Rana K, Aitken SJ, Chimoriya R: Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral and Higher Research Education: An Integrative Scoping Review. Educ Sci. 2025; 15 (1): art. no. 72. 96. van Goch MM : Interdisciplinary students’ reflections on the development of their epistemic fluency. Front Educ. 2023; 8 : art. no. 1145227. 97. Woiwode H, Froese A: Two hearts beating in a research centers’ chest: how scholars in interdisciplinary research settings cope with monodisciplinary deep structures. Stud High Educ. 2021; 46 (11): 2230–2244. 98. Pryor KN, Steinberg LJ: Fostering an Interdisciplinary Campus Community: Faculty Hiring Committee-Work as Successful Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Innov High Educ. 2023; 48 (5): 813–835. 99. D'Isanto T, Esposito G, Gaetano A, et al. : Scientific identity and epistemology of movement, exercise, and sport sciences through the analysis of scientific production of Italian full professors. Front Educ. 2024; 9 : art. no. 1176632. 100. Mäkinen EI, Evans ED, McFarland DA: Interdisciplinary Research, Tenure Review, and Guardians of the Disciplinary Order. J High Educ. 2025; 96 (1): 54–81. Comments on this article Comments (1) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Apr 2026 Reader Comment 06 May 2026 Giovanni Angelini , Universita degli Studi di Bologna Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Italy 06 May 2026 Reader Comment The paper addresses an interesting and timely question concerning the incentives and obstacles faced by interdisciplinary research. I particularly appreciate the attempt to distinguish between different forms of interdisciplinarity and ... Continue reading The paper addresses an interesting and timely question concerning the incentives and obstacles faced by interdisciplinary research. I particularly appreciate the attempt to distinguish between different forms of interdisciplinarity and to connect this distinction with measurable academic outcomes such as citations and career-related indicators. The paper is clearly motivated and speaks to an important debate on how research evaluation systems may affect scholars’ incentives. This makes the contribution potentially relevant not only for bibliometric research, but also for broader discussions on research policy and academic careers. At the same time, the empirical measure of interdisciplinarity could be further strengthened. The distinction between “trendy” and “genuine” interdisciplinary research is appealing, but it would be useful to validate it more carefully and to complement the text-based classification with established bibliometric measures, such as diversity of references, disciplinary distance, or cross-field citation patterns. This would make the empirical evidence more persuasive and would help clarify whether the results are driven by genuine interdisciplinary integration or by rhetorical use of the term “interdisciplinary.” The paper is well positioned within an important debate, and its main argument is relevant: academic incentives may not fully reward interdisciplinary work, especially when impact materializes only with delay or when evaluation procedures rely on conventional metrics. This is a useful and policy-relevant point. The paper also has the merit of presenting the argument in a clear and accessible way. However, the literature review would benefit from some updating and sharpening. Since the paper deals with research evaluation, citations, career incentives, and interdisciplinarity, it should engage more explicitly with recent work on delayed citation impact, responsible research metrics, tenure and promotion incentives, and bibliometric measures of interdisciplinary research. Updating the references would also help moderate some of the stronger claims in the paper. A more balanced conclusion would probably be more convincing: the results suggest that current academic incentive systems may create significant barriers to interdisciplinary research, rather than proving that interdisciplinary research cannot succeed. The paper addresses an interesting and timely question concerning the incentives and obstacles faced by interdisciplinary research. I particularly appreciate the attempt to distinguish between different forms of interdisciplinarity and to connect this distinction with measurable academic outcomes such as citations and career-related indicators. The paper is clearly motivated and speaks to an important debate on how research evaluation systems may affect scholars’ incentives. This makes the contribution potentially relevant not only for bibliometric research, but also for broader discussions on research policy and academic careers. At the same time, the empirical measure of interdisciplinarity could be further strengthened. The distinction between “trendy” and “genuine” interdisciplinary research is appealing, but it would be useful to validate it more carefully and to complement the text-based classification with established bibliometric measures, such as diversity of references, disciplinary distance, or cross-field citation patterns. This would make the empirical evidence more persuasive and would help clarify whether the results are driven by genuine interdisciplinary integration or by rhetorical use of the term “interdisciplinary.” The paper is well positioned within an important debate, and its main argument is relevant: academic incentives may not fully reward interdisciplinary work, especially when impact materializes only with delay or when evaluation procedures rely on conventional metrics. This is a useful and policy-relevant point. The paper also has the merit of presenting the argument in a clear and accessible way. However, the literature review would benefit from some updating and sharpening. Since the paper deals with research evaluation, citations, career incentives, and interdisciplinarity, it should engage more explicitly with recent work on delayed citation impact, responsible research metrics, tenure and promotion incentives, and bibliometric measures of interdisciplinary research. Updating the references would also help moderate some of the stronger claims in the paper. A more balanced conclusion would probably be more convincing: the results suggest that current academic incentive systems may create significant barriers to interdisciplinary research, rather than proving that interdisciplinary research cannot succeed. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Comment ADD YOUR COMMENT Author details Author details Dipartimento di Scienze per la Qualità della Vita, Universita degli Studi di Bologna, Rimini, 47921, Italy Fabio Zagonari Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 07 Apr 2026, 15:480 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178221.1 Copyright © 2026 Zagonari F. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Zagonari F. Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178221.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Apr 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Swain DK. Reviewer Report For: Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196585.r474023 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1#referee-response-474023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 25 Apr 2026 Dillip K Swain , KIIT Deemed to by University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196585.r474023 An informative summary of interdisciplinary research based on theoretical insights. It constructs a representative dataset on the interdisciplinary literature retrieved from Scopus to measure genuine and trendy IDR, respectively) based on the average citations per article and H-indexes for authors across ... Continue reading READ ALL An informative summary of interdisciplinary research based on theoretical insights. It constructs a representative dataset on the interdisciplinary literature retrieved from Scopus to measure genuine and trendy IDR, respectively) based on the average citations per article and H-indexes for authors across 25 disciplines from 2001 to 2020. Moreover, this paper reviews the main theoretical policies to deal with impediment to interdisciplinary research. However, to strengthen the manuscript, the author must pay attention to the following points: A few more studies of 2024 and 2025 could be taken into the purview of literature review to ensure the study recent and up-to-date. Use of future tense (I will do) sounds like the work is unfinished just like a pre-registration PhD synopsis. The author is supposed to report the results instead of prediction. Two significant facets like Implications and scope for future research need to be added. It is suggested to strengthen the discussion by highlighting practical applications, policy relevance, and societal impact, ensuring alignment with the study’s conclusions and better integration of theoretical insights. These could be articulated more clearly and explicitly linked to the findings. The conclusion is not the summary. It’s an essential section that allows the author to ventilate his observation, experiences and knowledge. Conclusion needs to be fine-tuned! The manuscript needs to be thoroughly checked and proofread. Overall, the study makes a significant contribution to the body of existing literature and is cohesive and well-structured. It could be deemed scientifically sound and ready for indexing, if possible, after the aforementioned changes. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Information literacy, user studies, bibliometic studies, Research productivity and metric studies, electronic resource management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Swain DK. Reviewer Report For: Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196585.r474023 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1#referee-response-474023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (1) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Apr 2026 Reader Comment 06 May 2026 Giovanni Angelini , Universita degli Studi di Bologna Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Italy 06 May 2026 Reader Comment The paper addresses an interesting and timely question concerning the incentives and obstacles faced by interdisciplinary research. I particularly appreciate the attempt to distinguish between different forms of interdisciplinarity and ... Continue reading The paper addresses an interesting and timely question concerning the incentives and obstacles faced by interdisciplinary research. I particularly appreciate the attempt to distinguish between different forms of interdisciplinarity and to connect this distinction with measurable academic outcomes such as citations and career-related indicators. The paper is clearly motivated and speaks to an important debate on how research evaluation systems may affect scholars’ incentives. This makes the contribution potentially relevant not only for bibliometric research, but also for broader discussions on research policy and academic careers. At the same time, the empirical measure of interdisciplinarity could be further strengthened. The distinction between “trendy” and “genuine” interdisciplinary research is appealing, but it would be useful to validate it more carefully and to complement the text-based classification with established bibliometric measures, such as diversity of references, disciplinary distance, or cross-field citation patterns. This would make the empirical evidence more persuasive and would help clarify whether the results are driven by genuine interdisciplinary integration or by rhetorical use of the term “interdisciplinary.” The paper is well positioned within an important debate, and its main argument is relevant: academic incentives may not fully reward interdisciplinary work, especially when impact materializes only with delay or when evaluation procedures rely on conventional metrics. This is a useful and policy-relevant point. The paper also has the merit of presenting the argument in a clear and accessible way. However, the literature review would benefit from some updating and sharpening. Since the paper deals with research evaluation, citations, career incentives, and interdisciplinarity, it should engage more explicitly with recent work on delayed citation impact, responsible research metrics, tenure and promotion incentives, and bibliometric measures of interdisciplinary research. Updating the references would also help moderate some of the stronger claims in the paper. A more balanced conclusion would probably be more convincing: the results suggest that current academic incentive systems may create significant barriers to interdisciplinary research, rather than proving that interdisciplinary research cannot succeed. The paper addresses an interesting and timely question concerning the incentives and obstacles faced by interdisciplinary research. I particularly appreciate the attempt to distinguish between different forms of interdisciplinarity and to connect this distinction with measurable academic outcomes such as citations and career-related indicators. The paper is clearly motivated and speaks to an important debate on how research evaluation systems may affect scholars’ incentives. This makes the contribution potentially relevant not only for bibliometric research, but also for broader discussions on research policy and academic careers. At the same time, the empirical measure of interdisciplinarity could be further strengthened. The distinction between “trendy” and “genuine” interdisciplinary research is appealing, but it would be useful to validate it more carefully and to complement the text-based classification with established bibliometric measures, such as diversity of references, disciplinary distance, or cross-field citation patterns. This would make the empirical evidence more persuasive and would help clarify whether the results are driven by genuine interdisciplinary integration or by rhetorical use of the term “interdisciplinary.” The paper is well positioned within an important debate, and its main argument is relevant: academic incentives may not fully reward interdisciplinary work, especially when impact materializes only with delay or when evaluation procedures rely on conventional metrics. This is a useful and policy-relevant point. The paper also has the merit of presenting the argument in a clear and accessible way. However, the literature review would benefit from some updating and sharpening. Since the paper deals with research evaluation, citations, career incentives, and interdisciplinarity, it should engage more explicitly with recent work on delayed citation impact, responsible research metrics, tenure and promotion incentives, and bibliometric measures of interdisciplinary research. Updating the references would also help moderate some of the stronger claims in the paper. A more balanced conclusion would probably be more convincing: the results suggest that current academic incentive systems may create significant barriers to interdisciplinary research, rather than proving that interdisciplinary research cannot succeed. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Comment ADD YOUR COMMENT keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 Version 1 07 Apr 26 read Dillip K Swain , KIIT Deemed to by University, Bhubaneshwar, India Comments on this article All Comments (1) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Swain D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 25 Apr 2026 | for Version 1 Dillip K Swain , KIIT Deemed to by University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha, India 0 Views copyright © 2026 Swain D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions An informative summary of interdisciplinary research based on theoretical insights. It constructs a representative dataset on the interdisciplinary literature retrieved from Scopus to measure genuine and trendy IDR, respectively) based on the average citations per article and H-indexes for authors across 25 disciplines from 2001 to 2020. Moreover, this paper reviews the main theoretical policies to deal with impediment to interdisciplinary research. However, to strengthen the manuscript, the author must pay attention to the following points: A few more studies of 2024 and 2025 could be taken into the purview of literature review to ensure the study recent and up-to-date. Use of future tense (I will do) sounds like the work is unfinished just like a pre-registration PhD synopsis. The author is supposed to report the results instead of prediction. Two significant facets like Implications and scope for future research need to be added. It is suggested to strengthen the discussion by highlighting practical applications, policy relevance, and societal impact, ensuring alignment with the study’s conclusions and better integration of theoretical insights. These could be articulated more clearly and explicitly linked to the findings. The conclusion is not the summary. It’s an essential section that allows the author to ventilate his observation, experiences and knowledge. Conclusion needs to be fine-tuned! The manuscript needs to be thoroughly checked and proofread. Overall, the study makes a significant contribution to the body of existing literature and is cohesive and well-structured. It could be deemed scientifically sound and ready for indexing, if possible, after the aforementioned changes. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Information literacy, user studies, bibliometic studies, Research productivity and metric studies, electronic resource management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Swain DK. Peer Review Report For: Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results based on theoretical insights [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :480 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196585.r474023) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1#referee-response-474023 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Interdisciplinary research will never take...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Zagonari F'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480", templates : { twitter : "Interdisciplinary research will never take off: empirical results.... Zagonari F, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-480/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/178221/196585") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "196585"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "477447": 0, "477446": 0, "477445": 0, "477444": 0, "477443": 0, "477442": 0, "480320": 0, "477451": 0, "477450": 0, "477449": 0, "477448": 0, "475415": 0, "475414": 0, "475413": 0, "474015": 0, "474014": 0, "475422": 0, "475421": 0, "475420": 0, "475419": 0, "475418": 0, "475417": 0, "475416": 0, "474023": 15, "474022": 0, "474021": 0, "474020": 0, "474019": 0, "474018": 0, "474017": 0, "474016": 0, "480311": 0, "480319": 0, "480318": 0, "480317": 0, "480316": 0, "480315": 0, "480314": 0, "480313": 0, "480312": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "4c36e3c0-e459-48ca-8b2d-a4e786d97069"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });