Correction: Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature (PLoS ONE (2017) 12:3 (e0172778) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172778);Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2017, Pages

  Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan ^a   Erbis, Serkan ^a   Isaacs, Jacqueline A ^a   Kamarthi, Sagar ^a  

^a Northeastern University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; FIELD STUDY; HUMAN; SAFETY; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; KNOWLEDGE; LITERATURE; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; SCIENCE;

HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SCIENCE;

EID: 85015821095     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185771     Document Type: Erratum

References (29)

1. Zhang J, Xie J, Hou W, Tu X, Xu J, Song F, et al. Mapping the knowledge structure of research on patient adherence: knowledge domain visualization based co-word analysis and social network analysis. PloS one. 2012 Apr 5; 7(4):e34497. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034497 PMID: 22496819
2. Peters HP, van Raan AF. Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling. Research Policy. 1993 Feb 28; 22(1):23-45.
3. Su HN, Lee PC. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: a first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics. 2010 Oct 1; 85(1):65-79.
4. Law J, Bauin S, Courtial J, Whittaker J. Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics. 1988 Sep 26; 14(3-4):251-64.
5. Amez L. Mapping the field of Arts and Economics. InPaper 16th International Conference on Cultural Economics, ACEI, Copenhagen 2010.
6. Law J, Whittaker J. Mapping acidification research: A test of the co-word method. Scientometrics. 1992 Mar 26; 23(3):417-61.
7. Courtial JP. A coword analysis of scientometrics. Scientometrics. 1994 Nov 1; 31(3):251-60.
8. Ding Y, Chowdhury GG, Foo S. Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using coword analysis. Information processing & management. 2001 Nov 30; 37(6):817-42.
9. Cambrosio A, Limoges C, Courtial JP, Laville F (1993). Historical scientometircs? Mapping over 70 years of biological safety research with co-word analysis. Scientometrics 27: 119-143.
10. Cambrosio A, Limoges C, Courtial JP, Laville F. Historical scientometrics? Mapping over 70 years of biological safety research with coword analysis. Scientometrics. 1993 Jun 1; 27(2):119-43.
11. An XY, Wu QQ. Co-word analysis of the trends in stem cells field based on subject heading weighting. Scientometrics. 2011 Apr 5; 88(1):133-44.
12. Liu ZY, Xu ZL, Pang J, Liang YX, HOU JH, HOU HY. Mapping modern engineering fronts and strategies of independence innovation in China. Studies in Science of Science. 2007; 25:193-203.
13. Chen C. Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004 Apr 6; 101(suppl 1):5303-10.
14. Chen C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology. 2006 Feb 1; 57 (3):359-77.
15. Spence DP, Owens KC. Lexical co-occurrence and association strength. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1990 Sep 1; 19(5):317-30.
16. Xie CX, Lang LM, Wang WH. Investigation of China's nanotechnology study on co-word analysis of keywords. Journal of Information. 2005; 24:69-73.
17. Erbis S, Ok Z, Isaacs JA, Benneyan JC, Kamarthi S. Review of Research Trends and Methods in Nano Environmental, Health, and Safety Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis. 2016 Feb 1.
18. Jacob EK. Classification and categorization: a difference that makes a difference. Library trends. 2004 Jan 1; 52(3):515.
19. Halpin H, Robu V, Shepard H. The dynamics and semantics of collaborative tagging. InProceedings of the 1st semantic authoring and annotation workshop (SAAW'06) 2006 Nov (Vol. 209).
20. Clay Shirky. Ontology is over-rated, 2005. http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology-overrated.html Last Accessed, December 15, 2016.
21. Steels L, Kaplan F. Collective learning and semiotic dynamics. In Advances in artificial life 1999 Sep 13 (pp. 679-688). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
22. Ke J, Minett JW, Au CP, Wang WS. Self-organization and selection in the emergence of vocabulary. Complexity. 2002 Jan 1; 7(3):41-54.
23. Cattuto C. Semiotic dynamics in online social communities. The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields. 2006 Aug 1; 46(2):33-7.
24. Nowak MA, Komarova NL, Niyogi P. Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature. 2002 Jun 6; 417(6889):611-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00771 PMID: 12050656
25. Duvvuru A, Radhakrishnan S, More D, Kamarthi S, Sultornsanee S. Analyzing Structural & Temporal Characteristics of Keyword System in Academic Research Articles. Procedia Computer Science. 2013 Dec 31; 20:439-45.
26. Zhang ZK, Lü L, Liu JG, Zhou T. Empirical analysis on a keyword-based semantic system. The European Physical Journal B. 2008 Dec 1; 66(4):557-61.
27. NWB Team (2006). "Network Bench Tool." Indiana University, Northeastern University, University of Michigan.
28. Barrat A, Barthelemy M, Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A. The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004 Mar 16; 101(11):3747-52. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400087101 PMID: 15007165
29. Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman ME. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM review. 2009 Nov 6; 51(4):661-703.