Artificial intelligence and network science as tools to illustrate academic research evolution in interdisciplinary fields: The case of Italian design

Daniele Pretolesi; Ilaria Stanzani; Stefano Ravera; Andrea Vian; Annalisa Barla

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315216

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 3, 2024
1 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Diego R. Amancio, Editor PONE-D-24-17407Artificial intelligence and network science as tools to illustrate academic research evolution in interdisciplinary fields: the case of Italian designPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Barla, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Diego R. Amancio Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work is partially funded by the European Union - NextGenerationEU and by the Ministry of University and Research (MUR), National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.5, project “RAISE - Robotics and AI for Socio-economic Empowerment” (ECS00000035) as A. Barla is part of the RAISE Innovation Ecosystem.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This work is partially funded by the European Union - NextGenerationEU and by the Ministry of University and Research (MUR), National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.5, project “RAISE - Robotics and AI for Socio-economic Empowerment” (ECS00000035) as A. Barla is part of the RAISE Innovation Ecosystem.” We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This work is partially funded by the European Union - NextGenerationEU and by the Ministry of University and Research (MUR), National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.5, project “RAISE - Robotics and AI for Socio-economic Empowerment” (ECS00000035) as A. Barla is part of the RAISE Innovation Ecosystem.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article is very interesting and applies a new way of analysing the literature on a subject. In general, I believe it fulfils the scope of the Journal. However, I would like to make a few specific observations: 1) Firstly, I missed a figure summarising for the reader the method used, I believe this would have greatly enriched the article; 2) in the description of the research sources, it was not clear which sources were chosen and which were not. I believe that in order to reproduce the study, it is essential to identify the sources researched, such as WoS, Scopus, etc. The method needs to be described so that other researchers interested in the topic can reproduce it with the same parameters indicated by the authors. 3) In Figures 2 and 3, include the cut-off date for the last year of research. This could be given in a note or in the figure itself. 4) Figure 6 is difficult for the reader to understand what information you want to express. 5) In general, the quality of the figures needs to be improved. I wish you a good review Reviewer Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I really appreciate your paper. To improve it please find my comments below: 1. IT would be helpful to explain the logic underlining the "silos development of knowledge". I mean some lines about the logic of specialization that prevailed over the logic of integration. nowadays, the incremental utility of specialization is low in a society characterized by complexity. 2. I suggest to clarify that in the past the integration was a competence/responsibility of decision makers. Artificial intelligence create the opportunity to apply integration at different steps: problem definition, framing, modelling, support to problem solving. 3. I also suggest to clarify that interdisciplinary approach can be used both for design of algorithms and data collection to train artificial intelligence. 4. If i did not lost it, i suggest to say something about the characteristic of different kind of artificial intelligence, I mean non supervised, supervised, machine learning and deep learning. What are the implications for your case? 5. Do you think that artificial intelligence is helpful to strengthen the integration dimension or also to strengthen specialization/vertical dimension of knowledge? Please clarify these aspects. 6. I suggest to say something about the potential misuse of artificial intelligence in your case. I mean potential bias or opportunistic use. How is it possible to prevent this potential misuse? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Marcio Pereira Basilio Reviewer #2: Yes: Elio Borgonovi ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315216.r001
Revision 1
14 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our article. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and provide additional clarity on certain aspects of our research. Reviewer 1 R1: Firstly, I missed a figure summarising for the reader the method used, I believe this would have greatly enriched the article; A figure showing our methodology has been added to the work. R1: In the description of the research sources, it was not clear which sources were chosen and which were not. I believe that in order to reproduce the study, it is essential to identify the sources researched, such as WoS, Scopus, etc. The method needs to be described so that other researchers interested in the topic can reproduce it with the same parameters indicated by the authors. We appreciate your emphasis on the importance of transparency in describing research sources to ensure reproducibility. In our manuscript, we explicitly stated that OpenAlex was the primary research source, and the rationale behind its selection is explained in detail at the end of the introduction. Additionally, in the materials section, we provided further information on how we leveraged the OpenAlex repository, including the specific parameters used for data extraction. We believe these sections collectively provide a clear explanation of both the chosen research sources and the methodology used to ensure that other researchers can reproduce the study. R1: In Figures 2 and 3, include the cut-off date for the last year of research. This could be given in a note or in the figure itself. When Figures 2 and 3 are introduced, a sentence was added providing some context about the cut-off date of our visualisations. R1: Figure 6 is difficult for the reader to understand what information you want to express. Figure 6 has now been improved by bringing forward the legend which was previously too small to read. Reviewer 2 R2: IT would be helpful to explain the logic underlining the "silos development of knowledge". I mean some lines about the logic of specialization that prevailed over the logic of integration. nowadays, the incremental utility of specialization is low in a society characterized by complexity. We agree that it is important to provide a clearer explanation of the logic underpinning the "silos development of knowledge." In response, we have revised the Introduction section of the manuscript to better explain how the traditional division into disciplines reflects a historical need for specialisation and organisation. However, in the context of contemporary complex, multidisciplinary challenges, this approach is becoming less effective. We have emphasised that while specialisation was crucial for past scientific advancement, it now offers diminishing utility in addressing today's interconnected and complex problems. This revision highlights the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and integration in modern scientific inquiry. R2: I suggest to clarify that in the past the integration was a competence/responsibility of decision makers. Artificial intelligence create the opportunity to apply integration at different steps: problem definition, framing, modelling, support to problem solving. In response to your feedback, we have revised the introduction to include this clarification. We now highlight that AI allows integration to occur at various stages such as problem definition, framing, modelling, and supporting problem-solving. This addition emphasises the evolving role of AI in addressing multidisciplinary challenges and improving integration throughout the research process. R2: If i did not lost it, i suggest to say something about the characteristic of different kind of artificial intelligence, I mean non supervised, supervised, machine learning and deep learning. What are the implications for your case? While we recognize the importance of these AI distinctions, we believe that a detailed exploration of these topics would fall outside the scope of this paper, which is focused on network science. The core of our study is not directly related to the various AI methodologies but rather the application of network science principles. Therefore, we feel that including this additional discussion would not significantly enhance the quality or focus of the work. R2: Do you think that artificial intelligence is helpful to strengthen the integration dimension or also to strengthen specialization/vertical dimension of knowledge? Please clarify these aspects. We have revised the conclusion to include this perspective. Specifically, we have added a sentence highlighting that AI can enhance integration by uncovering new connections and patterns across disciplines while also supporting specialisation by enabling more detailed and focused analyses within specific domains. This dual capability of AI provides valuable tools for navigating and addressing the complexities of modern research. R2: I suggest to say something about the potential misuse of artificial intelligence in your case. I mean potential bias or opportunistic use. How is it possible to prevent this potential misuse? We understand the importance of addressing potential risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI), such as bias or opportunistic use. However, in the context of our study, which employs AI and network science as tools to illustrate the evolution of academic research in interdisciplinary fields, we do not foresee significant risks of misuse. Our focus is on leveraging these tools to provide a clearer understanding of research trends and collaboration patterns. That said, we acknowledge that AI can present challenges related to bias and misuse in broader applications. While these concerns are important, they fall outside the scope of our current research, which primarily aims to demonstrate methodological applications rather than addressing these broader ethical considerations. We appreciate your understanding and hope this clarification aligns with the focus of our work. Once again, we appreciate your thoughtful reviews and feedback, and we are committed to addressing any further concerns or suggestions you may have. Sincerely, The Authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315216.r002
22 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Diego R. Amancio, Editor Artificial intelligence and network science as tools to illustrate academic research evolution in interdisciplinary fields: the case of Italian design PONE-D-24-17407R1 Dear Dr. Barla, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Diego R. Amancio Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed the suggestions made in the first round of revision. I therefore have no further suggestions to make. I wish you success with your projects. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, your answers to my comments have been satisfied. i suggest to publish and to continue your research that is interesting for the scientific community ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Marcio Pereira Basilio Reviewer #2: Yes: Elio Borgonovi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315216.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Diego R. Amancio, Editor PONE-D-24-17407R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Barla, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Diego R. Amancio Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315216.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .