Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 1345-1360

  Qiu, Jun Ping ^a   Dong, Ke ^a   Yu, Hou Qiang ^a  

^a WUHAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Author bibliographic coupling; Author co citation analysis; Bibliometrics; Co authorship analysis; Correlation analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939894468     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1315-6     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: an empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies,43(5), 957–983.
2. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,54(6), 550–560.
3. Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis (Version 6.102). Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
4. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(12), 2389–2404.
5. Cabanac, G. (2011). Accuracy of inter-researcher similarity measures based on topical and social clues. Scientometrics,87(3), 597–620.
6. Chen, L.-C., & Lien, Y.-H. (2011). Using author co-citation analysis to examine the intellectual structure of e-learning: A MIS perspective. Scientometrics,89(3), 867–886.
7. Chen, C., Paul, R. J., & O’Keefe, B. (2001). Fitting the jigsaw of citation: Information visualization in domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,52(4), 315–330.
8. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (Vol. 27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. de Solla Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist,21(11), 1011.
10. Ding, Y. (2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. Journal of informetrics,5(1), 187–203.
11. Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing and Management,47(1), 80–96.
12. Egghe, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). The relation between Pearson’s correlation coefficient r and Salton’s cosine measure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(5), 1027–1036.
13. Eslami, H., Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2013). Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: The case of biotechnology in Canada. Scientometrics,97(1), 99–119.
14. Fox, M. F. (2008). Collaboration between science and social science: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy,16, 17–30.
15. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
16. Garfield, E. (1996). Significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals: Scientist, Incorporated.
17. Garfield, E., & Merton, R. K. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities (Vol. 8). New York: Wiley.
18. Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics,87(2), 251–265.
19. Groh, G., & Fuchs, C. (2011). Multi-modal social networks for modeling scientific fields. Scientometrics,89(2), 569–590.
20. He, T. (2009). International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries. Scientometrics,80(3), 571–582.
21. Hubert, L., & Schultz, J. (1976). Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 29(2), 190–241.
22. Johnson, B., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? Journal of Documentation, 63(5), 609–637.
23. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation,14(1), 10–25.
24. Kim, S., & Cho, S. (2013). Characteristics of Korean personal names. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(1), 86–95.
25. Kretschmer, H. (2004). Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web. Scientometrics,60(3), 409–420.
26. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science,35(5), 673–702.
27. Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(12), 1616–1628.
28. Lin, W.-Y. C., & Huang, M.-H. (2012). The relationship between co-authorship, currency of references and author self-citations. Scientometrics,90(2), 343–360.
29. Ma, R. (2012). Author bibliographic coupling analysis: A test based on a Chinese academic database. Journal of Informetrics,6(4), 532–542.
30. McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,41(6), 433–443.
31. Newman, M. E. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64 (1), 016131.
32. Newman, M. E. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64 (1), 016132.
33. Newman, M. E. (2001c). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,98(2), 404–409.
34. Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,101(Suppl 1), 5200–5205.
35. Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2013a). Visualizing and comparing four facets of scholarly communication: producers, artifacts, concepts, and gatekeepers. Scientometrics, 94 (3), 1161–1173.
36. Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., & Jiang, J. (2013b). Venue‐author‐coupling: A measure for identifying disciplines through author communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (2), 265–279.
37. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information Science,28(6), 441–453.
38. Rousseau, R. (2010). Bibliographic coupling and co-citation as dual notions. A Festschrift in Honour of Peter Ingwersen, Special Volume of the e-Zine of the ISSI,2010, 173–183.
39. Salton, G. (1989). Automatic text processing: The transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
40. Schneider, J. W., Larsen, B., & Ingwersen, P. (2009). A comparative study of first and all-author co-citation counting, and two different matrix generation approaches applied for author co-citation analyses. Scientometrics,80(1), 103–130.
41. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(4), 265–269.
42. Song, M., & Kim, S. (2013). Detecting the knowledge structure of bioinformatics by mining full-text collections. Scientometrics,96(1), 183–201.
43. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics,81(1), 177–193.
44. Strotmann, A., & Bleier, A. (2013). Author name co-mention analysis: Testing a poor man’s author co-citation analysis method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.5256.
45. Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining.
46. Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2010). A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Research Evaluation,19(1), 55–65.
47. Torvik, V. I., Weeber, M., Swanson, D. R., & Smalheiser, N. R. (2005). A probabilistic similarity metric for medline records: A model for author name disambiguation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,56(2), 140–158.
48. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Appropriate similarity measures for author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(10), 1653–1661.
49. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics,84(2), 523–538.
50. van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy,37(8), 1255–1266.
51. Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics,62(1), 3–26.
52. Wallace, M. L., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices. PLoS One,7(3), e33339.
53. White, H. D. (2003). Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,54(5), 423–434.
54. White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for information Science,32(3), 163–171.
55. White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1982). Authors as markers of intellectual space: Co-citation in studies of science, technology and society. Journal of Documentation,38(4), 255–272.
56. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,49(4), 327–355.
57. White, H. D., Wellman, B., & Nazer, N. (2004). Does citation reflect social structure?: Longitudinal evidence from the “Globenet” interdisciplinary research group. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,55(2), 111–126.
58. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(10), 2107–2118.
59. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2012). Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(7), 1313–1326.
60. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008a). Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science. Journal of Informetrics,2(3), 229–239.
61. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008b). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(13), 2070–2086.
62. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008c). Information science during the first decade of the web: An enriched author cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(6), 916–937.
63. Zitt, M., Lelu, A., & Bassecoulard, E. (2011). Hybrid citation-word representations in science mapping: Portolan charts of research fields? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(1), 19–39.