English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We propose an operationalization of the rural and urban analogy introduced inBecher and Trowler [2001]. According to them, a specialism is rural if it isorganized into many, smaller topics of research, with higher author mobilityamong them, lower rate of collaboration and productivity, lower competition forresources and citation recognitions compared to an urban specialism. It isassumed that most humanities specialisms are rural while science specialismsare in general urban: we set to test this hypothesis empirically. We firstpropose an operationalization of the theory in most of its quantifiableaspects. We then consider specialisms from history, literature, computerscience, biology, astronomy. Our results show that specialisms in thehumanities present a sensibly lower citation and textual connectivity, inagreement with their organization into more, smaller topics per specialism, assuggested by the analogy. We argue that the intellectual organization of ruralspecialisms might indeed be qualitative different from urban ones, discouragingthe straightforward application of citation-based indicators commonly appliedto urban specialisms without a dedicated re-design in acknowledgement of thesedifferences.

An empirical investigation of the Tribes and their Territories: are research specialisms rural and urban?