Mixed-indicators model for identifying emerging research areas

Scientometrics

Volumn 89, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 421-435

  Guo, Hanning ^a,b   Weingart, Scott ^b   Börner, Katy ^b  

^a DALIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Burst detection; Emerging trend; Prediction; Temporal dynamics

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052641909     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0433-7     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Adamson, I. (1992). Access and retrieval of information as coordinates of scientific development and achievement in Nigeria. Scientometrics, 23(1), 191-199.
2. Bettencourt, L., Kaiser, D., Kaur, J., Castillo-Chavez, C., & Wojick, D. (2008). Population modeling of the emergence and development of scientific fields. Scientometrics, 75(3), 495-518.
3. Boyack, K. W. (2004). Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(Suppl 1), 5192-5199.
4. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1987). One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact of 107 countries, 1978-1980. Scientometrics, 11(1), 9-15.
5. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989a). Assessing assessments of British science: Some facts and figures to accept or decline. Scientometrics, 15(3), 165-170.
6. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989b). The newest version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation impact: A collection of relational charts, 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 15(1-2), 13-20.
7. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321-325.
8. Chen, C. (2006). Citespace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377.
9. Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 191-209.
10. Chu, H. (1992). Communication between Chinese and non-Chinese scientists in the discovery of high-TC superconductors: II. The informal perspective. Scientometrics, 25(2), 253-277.
11. Garfield, E., & Small, H. (1989). Identifying the change frontiers of science. In M. Kranzberg, Y. Elkana, & Z. Tadmor (Eds.), Conference proceedings of innovation: At the crossroads between science and technology (pp. 51-65). Haifa, Israel: The S. Neaman Press.
12. Goffman, W. (1966). Mathematical approach to the spread of scientific ideas: The history of mast cell research. Nature, 212(5061), 452-499.
13. Goffman, W. (1971). A mathematical method for analyzing the growth of a scientific discipline. Journal of Association for Computing Machinery, 18(2), 173-185.
14. Goffman, W., & Harmon, G. (1971). Mathematical approach to the prediction of scientific discovery. Nature, 229(5280), 103-104.
15. Goffman, W., & Newill, V. A. (1964). Generalization of epidemic theory: An application to the transmission of ideas. Nature, 204(4955), 225-228.
16. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102(46), 16569-16572.
17. Kajikawa, Y., Yoshikawaa, J., Takedaa, Y., & Matsushima, K. (2008). Tracking emerging technologies in energy research: Toward a roadmap for sustainable energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(6), 771-782.
18. Kim, M.-J. (2001). A bibliometric analysis of physics publications in Korea, 1994-1998. Scientometrics, 50(3), 503-521.
19. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 455-476.
20. Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7(4), 373-397.
21. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Lee, W. H. (2008). How to identify emerging research fields using scientometrics: An example in the field of information security. Scientometrics, 76(3), 1588-2861.
23. Lewison, G. (1991). The scientific output of the EC's less favoured regions. Scientometrics, 21(3), 383-402.
24. Leydesdorff, L., & Schank, T. (2008). Dynamic animations of journal maps: Indicators of structural changes and interdisciplinary developments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1810-1818.
25. Lucio-Arias, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Knowledge emergence in scientific communication: From "Fullerenes" to "nanotubes". Scientometrics, 70(3), 603-632.
26. Mane, K., & Börner, K. (2004). Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 101(Suppl 1), 5287-5290.
27. Menard, H. W. (1971). Science: Growth and change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press.
28. Merton, R. K. (1968). The matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
29. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719-745.
30. Price, D. J. D. S. (1970). Citation measures of hard science, softscience, technology, and nonscience. In C. E. A. P. Nelson, D. (Ed.), Communication among scientists and engineers (pp. 3-12): Heath Lexington Books, Massachusetts.
31. Rao, C. R. (1982). Diversity: Its measurement, decomposition, apportionment and analysis. Sankhy: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A, 44(1), 1-22.
32. Scharnhorst, A., and amp; Garfield, E. (2010 in press). Tracing scientific influence. Dynamic of Socio-Economic System, 2(1).
33. 2 Team. (2009a). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool: Indiana University and SciTech Strategies, Inc. http://sci2.cns.iu.edu. Accessed 8 June 2010.
34. 2 Team. (2009b). Stop word list. http://nwb.slis.indiana.edu/svn/nwb/trunk/plugins/preprocessing/edu.iu.nwb.preprocessing.text.normalization/src/edu/iu/nwb/preprocessing/text/normalization/stopwords.txt. Accessed 11 June 2010.
35. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., & Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008). Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 3-23.
36. Small, H. (2006). Tracking and predicting growth areas in science. Scientometrics, 63(3), 595-610.
37. Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707-719.
38. Takeda, Y., & Kajikawa, Y. (2009). Optics: A bibliometric approach to detect emerging research domains and intellectual bases. Scientometrics, 78(3), 543-558.
39. Thomson Reuters (2010). Web of science. http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/products/wos/. Accessed 8 June 2010.
40. Tsipouri, L. (1991). Effects of EC R&D policy on Greece: Some thoughts in view of the stride programme. Scientometrics, 21(3), 403-416.
41. van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science. Scientometrics, 47(2), 1588-2861.
42. Watts, R. J., & Porter, A. L. (2003). R&D cluster quality measures and technology maturity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(8), 735-758.
43. Weingart, S., Guo, H., Börner, K., Boyack, K. W., Linnemeier, M. W., & Duhon, R. J., et al. (2010). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool User Manual. http://sci2.wiki.cns.iu.edu. Accessed 28 Jan 2011.
44. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2008). Challenges for scientometric indicators: Data de-mining, knowledge flows measurements and diversity issues. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 49-60.