Interdisciplinarity in research is generally seen as desirable, and it is likely to be an important factor that can bring about new perspectives and solutions to our increasingly sophisticated and multi-faceted research pursuits today. However, the impact of interdisciplinarity —or to put simply, the effect of diversity of research in an article,  journal, or institute— on the scientific quality and merit is a matter of debate, and there does not seem to be simple answers. Some authors suggest that 'distance' between disciplines may play a crticial role in the effectiveness of interdisciplinarity \cite{Jensen_2013,Zhang_2015}, and some claim a 'U-shaped' relationship \cite{Wang_2015}, while the discussion gives also leads to various other theories and findings \cite{Yegros_Yegros_2015,Barry_2008}. The unresolved debate and possible impact of results on policy making invites more studies in this direction.
As was described in previous section, the goal of our study is to investigate the domain of scientific publications form an interdisciplinarity perspective and examine any patterns—for instance, are there fields that seem to yield higher-impact results when they collaborate, or if being an interdisciplinary researcher lead to more publications. In order to explore the effects of interdisciplinarity and  scientific collaboration patterns, we aim to model the domain of of scientific publications using an ontology, and populate it using a bibliometric databases such as Elsevier's Pure \cite{pure}, RISIS \cite{20172017}, and Web Of Science \cite{analytics2017}. In interdiciplinarity research, like other meta-scientific research topics, this bibliometric approach is an often used and considered an effective method \cite{Roessner_2012,Mugabushaka_2016,Zulueta_1999,Perianes_Rodriguez_2016,Cardona}.

Methodology

A description of the methodology that is used in the construction of the ontology (100-200 words)

Ontology Creation and Revisions

In order to create a model of the domain, a first prototype of an ontology was developed during the past month as part of the course, and this model was revised and improved through project meetings.  As the ontology progressed —and the student gained more experience—methodological changes ocurred and the ontology was significantly changed between revisions. Most notably, the range and class restrictions that were often applied with 'rdfs:range' and 'rdfs:domain' properties were completely removed due to the reasoning errors and inflexibility they lead to, and also as per expert recommendations (now, these restrictions are applied through equivalency and subclass relationships). The latest version of the ontology features more sophisticated class definitions (see Fig. \ref{490596}) through equivalency statements and this results in a more stable ontology and more reliable inferences. Besides the technical advancements, the structure of the ontology was updated based on project meetings and the current version consists of a more comprehensive and accurate model of the domain.