Open Access
Research Article
Exploring the diffusion of anthropocene concept across interdisciplinary research fields
Swapan Paulmlisc.swapanpaul@gmail.comTamralipta Mahavidyalaya TamlukPurba Medinipur, West Bengal, 721636, India0000-0001-6183-236XView full profile → , *Bidyarthi DuttaCorresponding authorbidyarthi.bhaswati@gmail.comDépartement of Library Information Science Vidyasagar University MedinipurPaschim Medinipur, West Bengal, 721102, India0000-0001-6049-5445View full profile →
* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details
- Published Online:
- 01 Dec 2025
- Article type:
- Research Article
- Language:
- EN
- Article no.:
- CJSIM-2025-02002
- Pages:
- 215–228
Abstract
This study examines the exponential growth and interdisciplinary diffusion of the Anthropocene concept, highlighting its significance for global sustainability research and policy. Using a quantitative bibliometric approach, 10,552 Scopus-indexed publications from 2001–2023 were analyzed through cumulative counts and correlation metrics to track publication growth, subject-domain adoption, and shifts in core and multidisciplinary journal dynamics. Results show a dramatic rise in output—from a single paper in 2001 to 1,648 in 2023—and expansion across 27 subject areas. Environmental Science emerged as the dominant field, while Agricultural Sciences declined and Social Sciences gained influence, indicating evolving priorities and greater attention to societal dimensions. Correlation among top subject domains weakened over time, signalling diversification and the emergence of new interdisciplinary linkages. Policy implications include the need for integrated climate governance, cross-disciplinary funding mechanisms, and inclusive, participatory strategies that reflect the Anthropocene’s socio-ecological complexity. The study’s value lies in mapping two decades of scholarly evolution to guide evidence-based sustainability policies and strengthen science–policy interfaces. Its originality lies in combining growth trends with subject-dynamic correlations, providing actionable insights into how shifts in academic focus inform adaptive climate strategies and the development of equitable, knowledge-driven responses to planetary change.
Keywords
References
[1] B. Latour, “Anthropology at the time of the Anthropocene: A personal view of what is to be studied,” The Anthropology of Sustainability: Beyond Development and Progress, pp. 35–49 (2017), doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-56636-2_2
[2] S. Belli, “Mapping a controversy of our time: The Anthropocene,” Lo Sguardo - rivista di filosofia, vol. 22 (III), pp. 33–49 (2016). [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/101935
[3] H. G. Brauch, “The Anthropocene concept in the natural and social sciences, the humanities and law – A bibliometric analysis and a qualitative interpretation,” Paul J. Crutzen and the Anthropocene: A New Epoch in Earth’s History, vol. 1, pp. 289–336 (2022), doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-82202-6_22
[4] N. Garai, A. Roy, and K. Pramanick, “Understanding the research interlinkages between Anthropocene, Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals: A global bibliometric analysis,” Anthropocene Science, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 123–140 (2023), doi: 10.1007/s44177-023-00055-3
[5] E. Garfield, “Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies,” Science, vol. 178, no. 4060, pp. 471–479 (1972), doi: 10.1126/science.178.4060.471.
[6] E. Garfield, “Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas,” Science, vol. 122, no. 3159, pp. 108–111 (1955), doi: 10.1126/science.122.3159.108.
[7] D. J. de S. Price, “Networks of scientific papers,” Science, vol. 149, no. 3683, pp. 510–515 (1965), doi: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510
[8] H. Small, “Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 265–269 (1973), doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406
[9] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Free Press (2003).
[10] H. D. White and B. C. Griffith, “Author co-citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 163–171 (1981), doi: 10.1002/asi.4630320302.
[11] D. A. King, “The scientific impact of nations,” Nature, vol. 430, no. 6997, pp. 311–316 (2004), doi: 10.1038/430311a.
[12] A. L. Porter and I. Rafols, “Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time,” Scientometrics, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 719–745 (2009), doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2.
[13] G. Eysenbach, “Citation advantage of open access articles,” PLoS Biol., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 692–698 (2006), doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.
[14] A. L. Barabási and R. Albert, “Emergence of scaling in random networks,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5439, pp. 509–512 (1999), doi: 10.1126/science.286.5439.509.
[15] T. N. van Leeuwen and R. J. Tijssen, “Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: Analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows,” Res. Eval., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 183–187 (2000), doi: 10.3152/147154400781777.
[16] T. Amjad and A. Ali, “Uncovering diffusion trends in computer science and physics publications,” Library Hi Tech, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 794–810 (2019).
[17] Y. Zhu and E. Yan, “Dynamic subfield analysis of disciplines: An examination of the trading impact and knowledge diffusion patterns of computer science,” Scientometrics, vol. 104, pp. 335–359 (2015).
[18] E. Yan, “Disciplinary knowledge production and diffusion in science,” J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 2223–2245 (2016).
[19] C. Wu, C. Hill, and E. Yan, “Disciplinary knowledge diffusion in business research,” J. Informetrics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 655–668 (2017).
[20] J. Wang and L. Zhang, “Proximal advantage in knowledge diffusion: The time dimension,” J. Informetrics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 858–867 (2018).
[21] Y. Liu and R. Rousseau, “Knowledge diffusion through publications and citations: A case study using ESI-fields as unit of diffusion,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 340–351 (2010).
[22] E. Rinia, T. van Leeuwen, E. Bruins, H. van Vuren, and A. van Raan, “Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science,” Scientometrics, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 347–362 (2002).
[23] C. Howarth and D. Viner, “Integrating adaptation practice in assessments of climate change science: The case of IPCC Working Group II reports,” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 135, pp. 1–5 (Sep. 2022).
[24] H. Lee, K. Calvin, D. Dasgupta, G. Krinner, A. Mukherji, P. Thorne, C. Trisos, J. Romero, P. Aldunce, K. Barret, G. Blanco and A. C. Ruane, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team: H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC (2023).
[25] K. Calvin, D. Dasgupta, G. Krinner, A. Mukherji, P. W. Thorne, C. Trisos, J. Romero, P. Aldunce, K. Barrett, G. Blanco and W. W. Cheung. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team: H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, Jul. 25 (2023).
[26] R. P. Allan, P. A. Arias, S. Berger, J. G. Canadell, C. Cassou, D. Chen, A. Cherchi, S. L. Connors, E. Coppola, F. A. Cruz and A. Diongue-Niang. “Summary for Policymakers,” in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 3–32 (2023).
Views: 134Downloads: 11Citations: 0
