  In this work, we extend our previous work on largeness tracing among
physicists to other fields, namely mathematics, economics and biomedical
science. Overall, the results confirm our previous discovery, indicating that
scientists in all these fields trace large topics. Surprisingly, however, it
seems that researchers in mathematics tend to be more likely to trace large
topics than those in the other fields. We also find that on average, papers in
top journals are less largeness-driven. We compare researchers from the USA,
Germany, Japan and China and find that Chinese researchers exhibit consistently
larger exponents, indicating that in all these fields, Chinese researchers
trace large topics more strongly than others. Further correlation analyses
between the degree of largeness tracing and the numbers of authors,
affiliations and references per paper reveal positive correlations -- papers
with more authors, affiliations or references are likely to be more
largeness-driven, with several interesting and noteworthy exceptions: in
economics, papers with more references are not necessary more largeness-driven,
and the same is true for papers with more authors in biomedical science. We
believe that these empirical discoveries may be valuable to science
policy-makers.
