1,248 research outputs found
The Extraction of Community Structures from Publication Networks to Support Ethnographic Observations of Field Differences in Scientific Communication
The scientific community of researchers in a research specialty is an
important unit of analysis for understanding the field specific shaping of
scientific communication practices. These scientific communities are, however,
a challenging unit of analysis to capture and compare because they overlap,
have fuzzy boundaries, and evolve over time. We describe a network analytic
approach that reveals the complexities of these communities through examination
of their publication networks in combination with insights from ethnographic
field studies. We suggest that the structures revealed indicate overlapping
sub- communities within a research specialty and we provide evidence that they
differ in disciplinary orientation and research practices. By mapping the
community structures of scientific fields we aim to increase confidence about
the domain of validity of ethnographic observations as well as of collaborative
patterns extracted from publication networks thereby enabling the systematic
study of field differences. The network analytic methods presented include
methods to optimize the delineation of a bibliographic data set in order to
adequately represent a research specialty, and methods to extract community
structures from this data. We demonstrate the application of these methods in a
case study of two research specialties in the physical and chemical sciences.Comment: Accepted for publication in JASIS
The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual's research output
Among the most recent bibliometric indicators for normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of citation behaviour, Kosmulski (J Informetr 5(3):481-485, 2011) proposed the NSP (number of successful paper) index. According to the authors, NSP deserves much attention for its great simplicity and immediate meaning— equivalent to those of the h-index—while it has the disadvantage of being prone to manipulation and not very efficient in terms of statistical significance. In the first part of the paper, we introduce the success-index, aimed at reducing the NSP-index's limitations, although requiring more computing effort. Next, we present a detailed analysis of the success-index from the point of view of its operational properties and a comparison with the h-index's ones. Particularly interesting is the examination of the success-index scale of measurement, which is much richer than the h-index's. This makes success-index much more versatile for different types of analysis—e.g., (cross-field) comparisons of the scientific output of (1) individual researchers, (2) researchers with different seniority, (3) research institutions of different size, (4) scientific journals, etc
A New Approach to Analyzing Patterns of Collaboration in Co-authorship Networks - Mesoscopic Analysis and Interpretation
This paper focuses on methods to study patterns of collaboration in
co-authorship networks at the mesoscopic level. We combine qualitative methods
(participant interviews) with quantitative methods (network analysis) and
demonstrate the application and value of our approach in a case study comparing
three research fields in chemistry. A mesoscopic level of analysis means that
in addition to the basic analytic unit of the individual researcher as node in
a co-author network, we base our analysis on the observed modular structure of
co-author networks. We interpret the clustering of authors into groups as
bibliometric footprints of the basic collective units of knowledge production
in a research specialty. We find two types of coauthor-linking patterns between
author clusters that we interpret as representing two different forms of
cooperative behavior, transfer-type connections due to career migrations or
one-off services rendered, and stronger, dedicated inter-group collaboration.
Hence the generic coauthor network of a research specialty can be understood as
the overlay of two distinct types of cooperative networks between groups of
authors publishing in a research specialty. We show how our analytic approach
exposes field specific differences in the social organization of research.Comment: An earlier version of the paper was presented at ISSI 2009, 14-17
July, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revised version accepted on 2 April 2010 for
publication in Scientometrics. Removed part on node-role connectivity profile
analysis after finding error in calculation and deciding to postpone
analysis
Identifying Overlapping and Hierarchical Thematic Structures in Networks of Scholarly Papers: A Comparison of Three Approaches
We implemented three recently proposed approaches to the identification of
overlapping and hierarchical substructures in graphs and applied the
corresponding algorithms to a network of 492 information-science papers coupled
via their cited sources. The thematic substructures obtained and overlaps
produced by the three hierarchical cluster algorithms were compared to a
content-based categorisation, which we based on the interpretation of titles
and keywords. We defined sets of papers dealing with three topics located on
different levels of aggregation: h-index, webometrics, and bibliometrics. We
identified these topics with branches in the dendrograms produced by the three
cluster algorithms and compared the overlapping topics they detected with one
another and with the three pre-defined paper sets. We discuss the advantages
and drawbacks of applying the three approaches to paper networks in research
fields.Comment: 18 pages, 9 figure
Does “Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars Journal Basket…” Support the Basket with Bibliometric Measures?
We re-examine “Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars Journal Basket…” by Lowry et al. (2013). They sought to use bibliometric methods to validate the Basket as the eight top quality journals that are “strictly speaking, IS journals” (Lowry et al., 2013, pp. 995, 997). They examined 21 journals out of 140 journals considered as possible IS journals. We also expand the sample to 73 of the 140 journals. Our sample includes a wider range of approaches to IS, although all were suggested by IS scholars in a survey by Lowry and colleagues. We also use the same sample of 21 journals in Lowry et al. with the same methods of analysis so far as possible. With the narrow sample, we replicate Lowry et al. as closely as we can, whereas with the broader sample we employ a conceptual replication. This latter replication also employs alternative methods. For example, we consider citations (a quality measure) and centrality (a relevance measure in this context) as distinct, rather than merging them as in Lowry et al. High centrality scores from the sample of 73 journals do not necessarily indicate close connections with IS. Therefore, we determine which journals are of high quality and closely connected with the Basket and with their sample. These results support the broad purpose of Lowry et al., finding a wider set of high quality and relevant journals than just MISQ and ISR, and find a wider set of relevant, top quality journals
Nanotechnology research in Turkey: A university-driven achievement
We deal with nanotechnology research activities in Turkey. Based on publication data retrieved from ISI Web of SSCI database, the main actors and the main characteristics of nanotechnology research in Turkey are identified. Following a brief introduction to nanoscience and nanotechnology research, it goes on with a discussion on nanotechnology related science and technology policy efforts in developing countries and particularly in Turkey. Then using bibliometric methods and social network analysis techniques, this paper aims to understand the main actors of the nanoscale research in Turkey and how they collaborate across institutes and disciplines. The research indicates that there has been an exponential growth in the number of research articles published by Turkish nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) scholars for the last ten years. However, the analysis of the main characteristics of nanotechnology research carried out at Turkish universities indicates some drawbacks and barriers to the future development of nanotechnology research in Turkey. These barriers are (i) a high concentration of nanoscale research at certain universities; (ii) low level of interdisciplinarity; (iii) a large number of universities which are not well connected to other universities in the field, and finally (iv) low level of international collaborations. Finally, science and technology policy implications of this research are discussed in the conclusion.Emerging technologies nanotechnology, nanoscience, scientific publications, SSCI, bibliometric data, social network analysis, collaborations, interdisciplinarity, science and technology policies, emerging economies, Turkey.
- …