rebuttal.aux

\relax 
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Reviewer 1}{2}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Reviewer 2}{5}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces The disciplinary compositions of the three analytical datasets in our manuscript ap: applied physics, imm: immunology, and metab: metabolism were analyzed for the years, 1985, 1995, and 2005 using the Web of Science research area categorizations of \emph  {lsb: life sciences and biology, ps: physical sciences, tech: technology, ss: social sciences, and ah: arts \& humanities}. Both publications (pubs) and cited references (refs) were analyzed. The data show that while publications closely track their most similar research area, references have a greater cross disciplinary content--especially in the applied physics dataset but also for the other two. }}{7}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Effect of Research Discipline, Background Network, and Citation Count on Conventionality and Novelty. Data are shown for the applied physics (18,305), immunology (21,917), metabolism (97,405) and WoS (476,288) networks for 1995; numbers in parentheses are the count of publications in each network. Subfigures (a) and (b): the x-axis show publications classified into percentile groups based on citation counts (e.g., Top 1 indicates those publications in the top 1\%) and the y-axis shows the percent of publications in each set that are HC or HN. Based on the selected background network, z-scores are computed for each disciplinary network; thus, \emph  {imm} denotes the immunology network with immunology z-scores and \emph  {imm\_wos} denotes the immunology network with z-scores from WoS z-scores. }}{9}}
\newlabel{fig:Fig1}{{1}{9}}