35 research outputs found
The geography of references in elite articles: What countries contribute to the archives of knowledge
This study is intended to find an answer for the question on which national
"shoulders" the worldwide top-level research stands. Traditionally, national
scientific standings are evaluated in terms of the number of citations to their
papers. We raise a different question: instead of analyzing the citations to
the countries' articles (the forward view), we examine referenced publications
from specific countries cited in the most elite publications (the
backward-citing-view). "Elite publications" are operationalized as the top-1%
most-highly cited articles. Using the articles published during the years 2004
to 2013, we examine the research referenced in these works. Our results confirm
the well-known fact that China has emerged to become a major player in science.
However, China still belongs to the low contributors when countries are ranked
as contributors to the cited references in top-1% articles. Using this
perspective, the results do not point to a decreasing trend for the USA; in
fact, the USA exceeds expectations (compared to its publication share) in terms
of contributions to cited references in the top-1% articles. Switzerland,
Sweden, and the Netherlands also are shown at the top of the list. However, the
results for Germany are lower than statistically expected
Betweenness and Diversity in Journal Citation Networks as Measures of Interdisciplinarity -- A Tribute to Eugene Garfield --
Journals were central to Eugene Garfield's research interests. Among other
things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic
databases such as the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. In addition to
disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span
networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality
(BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank
journals in terms of interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is
difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of
disciplines, the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be
considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a
citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration,
but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary--that is,
non-disciplined--variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity
in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be
considered as diffusion of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation
networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity
in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of interdisciplinarity
at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can
therefore be decomposed, differences among (sub)sets can be tested for
statistical significance. In an appendix, a general-purpose routine for
measuring diversity in networks is provided
Recent Developments in China-U.S. Cooperation in Science
China's remarkable gains in science over the past 25 years have been well
documented (e.g., Jin and Rousseau, 2005a; Zhou and Leydesdorff, 2006; Shelton
& Foland, 2009) but it is less well known that China and the United States have
become each other's top collaborating country. Science and technology has been
a primary vehicle for growing the bilateral relationship between China and the
United States since the opening of relations between the two countries in the
late 1970s. During the 2000s, the scientific relationship between China and the
United States--as measured in coauthored papers--showed significant growth.
Chinese scientists claim first authorship much more frequently than U.S.
counterparts by the end of the decade. The sustained rate of increase of
collaboration with one other country is unprecedented on the U.S. side. Even
growth in relations with eastern European nations does not match the growth in
the relationship between China and the United States. Both countries can
benefit from the relationship, but for the U.S., greater benefit would come
from a more targeted strategy.Comment: Conference on China's Science and Technology International Relations,
April, 2014, Arizona State University; accepted for publication in Minerva,
April 201
Generating clustered journal maps: an automated system for hierarchical classification
Journal maps and classifications for 11,359 journals listed in the combined
Journal Citation Reports 2015 of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes are
provided at https://leydesdorff.github.io/journals/ and http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr15. A
routine using VOSviewer for integrating the journal mapping and their hierarchical clusterings
is also made available. In this short communication, we provide background on the
journal mapping/clustering and an explanation about and instructions for the routine. We
compare journal maps for 2015 with those for 2014 and show the delineations among fields
and subfields to be sensitive to fluctuations. Labels for fields and sub-fields are not provided
by the routine, but an analyst can add them for pragmatic or intellectual reasons. The
routine provides a means of testing one’s assumptions against a baseline without claiming
authority; clusters of related journals can be visualized to understand communities. The
routine is generic and can be used for any 1-mode network