Not necessarily dear Emad. I will give an example. Mathematics develops with its own intrinsic rate of growth, simply from the activities of mathematicians and applied mathematicians pick what are necessary for their use. But at times there are cases where applied scientists could not find available mathematical theory to handle their problem and that will lead to a new kind of theory of mathematics. In this case a concept of an applied field emerges that requires new kind of mathematics, unlike the older times where applied science simply uses the techniques of the available mathematics.

The other indicator is that the advancement of technology and the sophisticated products in a supersonic speed is very recent. These products utilize mathematics to grow, and change rapidly in content, design and efficiency, but mathematics exists since antiquity.

No, I do think so. There are emerging scientific fields that are faster in terms of funds, interests, profit, significance...

First, it depends on the needs of the industries,companies, cooperate organisations, government agencies, and society at large. New fields of research are evolving day-in-day out from already established areas of research. They just coined them new names. Nothing happens to the foundation courses. For example, what is Data Science Discipline? It's just like "new wine in an old bottle". Another example, how effective is rubric as an instrument to assess student learning in science and applied courses in the colleges, when you can prepare a comprehensive model answer and marking guide?

Second, interest of funding agencies also play a role in continuity of the field.

Not necessarily dear Emad. I will give an example. Mathematics develops with its own intrinsic rate of growth, simply from the activities of mathematicians and applied mathematicians pick what are necessary for their use. But at times there are cases where applied scientists could not find available mathematical theory to handle their problem and that will lead to a new kind of theory of mathematics. In this case a concept of an applied field emerges that requires new kind of mathematics, unlike the older times where applied science simply uses the techniques of the available mathematics.

The other indicator is that the advancement of technology and the sophisticated products in a supersonic speed is very recent. These products utilize mathematics to grow, and change rapidly in content, design and efficiency, but mathematics exists since antiquity.

Research activities are developing in the environment that helps them to grow, especially in applied scientific fields. Therefore, research in the field of medical sciences occupies the advanced ranks in the scientific and research classification for the great support it receives at various levels, followed by other applied sciences, because most of them revolve mainly within the movement of capital for companies and industrial and commercial sectors. The other disciplines will inevitably be in lower sequences than previously mentioned. Therefore, not all scientific disciplines have a starting point and starting equal.

I do think, but the the below Systems theory.

Systems theory is the transdisciplinary study of systems in general, with the goal of elucidating principles that can be applied to all types of systems in all fields of research. The term does not yet have a well-established, precise meaning, but systems theory can reasonably be considered a specialization of systems thinking and a generalization of systems science. The term originates from Bertalanffy's General System Theory (GST) and is used in later efforts in other fields, such as the action theory of Talcott Parsons and the system-theory of Niklas Luhmann.

I agree with Mr. Ljubomir Jacić

Of course No. I agree with all RG Colleagues.

I'm not sure that all scientific disciplines can be measured by growth. For example, philosophy of science or Religionswissenschaft (the scientific study of religion) becomes more discerning over time in being able to better explain available phenomena through refined methods and theories, but they don't really grow. So comparing, say, physics with either of these sciences is comparing apples and oranges.

Not sure Emad , mine I can say yes , not research per se but people's demand . In the field of communications from wired (Copper) to Fiber to Protocols , to electronics and optics the growth of IoT (as I have already mentioned ) .

With other fields may be fundamental physics , some in chemistry with nano-technology again all need $$$ (government or other funding ).

Some fields are being saturated ....

Difficult to be up-to-date with progress in all disciplines, but I would say that in recent years - to give you one example that I am aware of - astrophysics and related subjects have had tremendous growth maybe more than other subjects.

No not at all.

Technology is growing very rapidly. But scientific developments does not take place in all fields. Scientific developments depends on the research area, fund, infrastructure and possibility.

Hi dear and thanks for sharing your question. I do not think so because some fields urgently grow faster depending on people's needs and scientists 's interests. Regards.

In my own opinion, i don't think so. Growth in scientific discipline may not be on the same level.

Thank you

Oluwaseun

No not at all.

I think the answer is both yes and no.Researchers are more interested in application oriented subjects because the return is more. Applied medical science is one such example. On the other hand in conceptual fields the human resource inputs are less because they are difficult and less rewarding. Moreover getting meaningful result in a conceptual fields takes more time and effort compared to an application oriented research..

In general depends on the budget set for the scientific field, especially for multinational companies, and the rate of growth of one at the expense of the other also depends on the requirements of the market according to the modernization and development required for years to come

Quite frankly, no and i agree with other researchers.

Thanks for the invitation my brother. No... the pace of development in the diverse scientific disciplines depends on the hard work of researchers in the field and their passion to dig all the caverns of the study area to solve the problems of mankind. In some disciplines, many researchers are incessantly exploring the field, arresting the cankers of society via research in the field.

Another factor is the number of researchers who are rigorous researchers in the field. Some disciplines are fortunate to have a high number of researchers who tow their line of research while others often walk alone with very few and distant relationship in research dispersed globally.

Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear,

Thanks for sharing.

My answer is no and this is very difficult to occur.

Regards.

Frankly, I am thinking of creating specific evaluation parameters, means, CiteScore metrics for Engineering, and one for medicine, ...etc and it will be meaningless to compare CiteScore for engineering with that of Economy for example based on the core idea or basis behind this question! What are your opinion my colleagues??

Emad

Of course no! I am agree with all of your comments, given to us!

Dear Prof. Dr. Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz , Sir

Thank you so much for your scientific comment, really Chemistry considered as a pulsing heart of all other disciplines and always in touch with our life and health so it requires a periodic updating. By the way doctor, very nice personal photo on your main Twitter profile.

Regards, Emad

No dear not all

Regards, Azzam

Thank you so much dear Dr.Azzam for your post.

Emad

There are disciplines (mainly those supposed to bring immediate profit) heavily supported and such (e.g. organismal - non-molecular - biology) whose progress is effectively hampered - of course it would be irrealistic to expect them to develop comparably...

You are right dear Sofia Cividini , I do agree with your kind point of view.

Thank,

Emad