Paper detail

The prestige and status of research fields within mathematics

While the ``hierarchy of science'' has been widely analysed, there is no corresponding study of the status of subfields within a given scientific field. We use bibliometric data to show that subfields of mathematics have a different ``standing'' within the mathematics community. Highly ranked departments tend to specialize in some subfields more than in others, and the same subfields are also over-represented in the most selective mathematics journals or among recipients of top prizes. Moreover this status of subfields evolves markedly over the period of observation (1984--2016), with some subfields gaining and others losing in standing. The status of subfields is related to different publishing habits, but some of those differences are opposite to those observed when considering the hierarchy of scientific fields. We examine possible explanations for the ``status'' of different subfields. Some natural explanations -- availability of funding, importance of applications -- do not appear to function, suggesting that factors internal to the discipline are at work. We propose a different type of explanation, based on a notion of ``focus'' of a subfield, that might or might not be specific to mathematics.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.