Over the past decades, the diversity of areas explored by physicists has exploded, encompassing new topics from biophysics and chemical physics to network science. However, it is unclear how these new subfields emerged from the traditional subject areas and how physicists explore them. To map out the evolution of physics subfields, here, we take an intellectual census of physics by studying physicists’ careers. We use a large-scale publication data set, identify the subfields of 135,877 physicists and quantify their heterogeneous birth, growth and migration patterns among research areas. We find that the majority of physicists began their careers in only three subfields, branching out to other areas at later career stages, with different rates and transition times. Furthermore, we analyse the productivity, impact and team sizes across different subfields, finding drastic changes attributable to the recent rise in large-scale collaborations. This detailed, longitudinal census of physics can inform resource allocation policies and provide students, editors and scientists with a broader view of the field’s internal dynamics.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Jones, B. F. The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? Rev. Econ. Stud. 76, 283–317 (2009).
Clauset, A., Larremore, D. B. & Sinatra, R. Data-driven predictions in the science of science. Science 355, 477–480 (2017).
Fortunato, S. et al. Science of science. Science 359, eaao0185 (2018).
Deville, P. et al. Career on the move: geography, stratification, and scientific impact. Sci. Rep. 4, 4770 (2014).
Sinatra, R., Deville, P., Szell, M., Wang, D. & Barabási, A.-L. A century of physics. Nat. Phys. 11, 791 (2015).
Deville, P. Understanding social dynamics through big data. Thesis, Univ. Catholique Louvain (2015).
AIP Publishing. PACS 2010 regular edition. AIP https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/pacs/pacs-2010-regular-edition (2018).
APS Physics. APS data sets for research. APS https://journals.aps.org/datasets (2018).
Dyson, F. Birds and frogs. Not. AMS 56, 212–223 (2009).
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013).
Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A. & Evans, J. A. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80, 875–908 (2015).
Chen, P. & Redner, S. Community structure of the physical review citation network. J. Informetr. 4, 278–290 (2010).
Herrera, M., Roberts, D. C. & Natali, G. Mapping the evolution of scientific fields. PloS One 5, e10355 (2010).
Pan, R., Sinha, S., Kaski, K. & Saramäki, J. The evolution of interdisciplinarity in physics research. Sci. Rep. 2, 551 (2012).
Guevara, M. R., Hartmann, D., Aristarán, M., Mendoza, M. & Hidalgo, C. A. The research space: using career paths to predict the evolution of the research output of individuals, institutions, and nations. Scientometrics 109, 1695–1709 (2016).
Leslie, S. W. The Cold War and American Science. (Columbia University Press, New York, 1993).
Kaiser, D. I. Booms, busts, and the world of ideas: Enrollment pressures and the challenge of specialization. Osiris 27, 276–302 (2012).
Martin, J. Solid State Insurrection: How the Science of Substance made American Physics Matter. (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2018).
ATLAS. ATLAS experiment reports. CERN https://atlas.cern/updates/atlas-news/atlas-experiment-reports-its-first-physics-results-lhc (2018).
Jia, T., Wang, D. & Szymanski, B. K. Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution. Nat. Human. Behav. 1, 0078 (2017).
Kaiser, D. I. Whose mass is it anyway? particle cosmology and the objects of theory. Social. Stud. Sci. 36, 533–564 (2006).
Crosta, P. M. & Packman, I. G. Faculty productivity in supervising doctoral students? dissertations at cornell university. Econ. Educ. Rev. 24, 55–65 (2005).
Malmgren, R. D., Ottino, J. M. & Amaral, L. A. N. The role of mentorship in protégé performance. Nature 465, 622 (2010).
Chariker, J. H., Zhang, Y., Pani, J. R. & Rouchka, E. C. Identification of successful mentoring communities using network-based analysis of mentor–mentee relationships across nobel laureates. Scientometrics 111, 1733–1749 (2017).
Zuckerman, H. Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32, 391–403 (1967).
Ma, Y. & Uzzi, B. The scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09412 (2018).
Sekara, V. et al. The chaperone effect in science. PNAS (in the press).
Szell, M. & Sinatra, R. Research funding goes to rich clubs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 14749–14750 (2015).
Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C. & Barabási, A.-L. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science 354, aaf5239 (2016).
Liu, L. et al. Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers. Nature 559, 396–399 (2018).
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S. & Castellano, C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 17268–17272 (2008).
Pavlidis, I., Petersen, A. M. & Semendeferi, I. Together we stand. Nat. Phys. 10, 700 (2014).
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. & Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).
Shen, H.-W. & Barabási, A.-L. Collective credit allocation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 12325–12330 (2014).
Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. & Lautrup, B. Measures for measures. Nature 444, 1003–1004 (2006).
Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. & Lautrup, B. A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics 76, 369–390 (2008).
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., Rijcke, S. D. & Rafols, I. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520, 429–431 (2015).
Waltman, L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J. Informetr. 10, 365–391 (2016).
Lillquist, E. & Green, S. The discipline dependence of citation statistics. Scientometrics 84, 749–762 (2010).
Radicchi, F. & Castellano, C. Rescaling citations of publications in physics. Phys. Rev. E 83, 046116 (2011).
Newman, M. The first-mover advantage in scientific publication. EPL (Europhys. Lett.) 86, 68001 (2009).
Van Noorden, R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nat. News 525, 306 (2015).
Szell, M., Ma, Y. & Sinatra, R. A Nobel Opportunity for Interdisciplinarity. Nat. Phys. 14, 1075–1078 (2018).
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R. & Hua, X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534, 684–687 (2016).
arXiv. The arXiv repository. Cornell University Library https://arxiv.org/ (2018).
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. Coverage of highly-cited documents in google scholar, web of science, and scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 116, 2175–2188 (2018).
Farmer, J. D. Physicists attempt to scale the ivory towers of finance. Comput. Sci. & Eng. 1, 26–39 (1999).
May, R. M. The Scientific Wealth of Nations. Science 7, 793–796 (1997).
King, D. K. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430, 311–316 (2004).
Zhang, Q., Perra, N., Goncalves, B., Ciulla, F. & Vespignani, A. Characterizing scientific production and consumption in physics. Sci. Rep. 3, 1640 (2013).
Balassa, B. Trade liberalization and 'revealed' comparative advantage. Manchester School 33, 99–123 (1965).
This work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation Grant #61066 (A.-L.B., F.B., R.S. and M.S.), the Intellectual Themes Initiative (ITI) project ‘Just Data’, funded by Central European University (F.M. and R.S.), the National Science Foundation grant SBE 1829344 (D.W.) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research grants FA9550-15-1-0077 (A.-L.B., R.S. and M.S.), FA9550-15-1-0364 (A.-L.B. and R.S.), FA9550-15-1-0162 (D.W.) and FA9550-17-1-0089 (D.W.).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Battiston, F., Musciotto, F., Wang, D. et al. Taking census of physics. Nat Rev Phys 1, 89–97 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-018-0005-3
Scientific Reports (2020)
A Study of Grant Support from Russian Scientific Foundations to Domestic Publications in Leading International Journals (based on Data from Scopus and Web of Science, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the Russian Science Foundation)
Scientific and Technical Information Processing (2020)
Scientific Reports (2020)
Journal of Physics: Complexity (2020)