Discovering interdisciplinary interactions between two research fields using citation networks

This bibliometric analysis focuses on the general history of climate change research and, more specifically, on the discovery of the greenhouse effect. First, the Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) is applied to a large publication set on climate change of 222,060 papers published between 1980 and 2014. The references cited therein were extracted and analyzed with regard to publications, which are cited most frequently. Second, a new method for establishing a more subject-specific publication set for applying RPYS (based on the co-citations of a marker reference) is proposed (RPYS-CO). The RPYS of the climate change literature focuses on the history of climate change research in total. We identified 35 highly-cited publications across all disciplines, which include fundamental early scientific works of the nineteenth century (with a weak connection to climate change) and some cornerstones of science with a stronger connection to climate change. By using the Arrhenius (Philos Mag J Sci Ser 5(41):237–276, 1896) paper as a RPYS-CO marker paper, we selected only publications specifically discussing the discovery of the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide. Using different RPYS approaches in this study, we were able to identify the complete range of works of the celebrated icons as well as many less known works relevant for the history of climate change research. The analyses confirmed the potential of the RPYS method for historical studies: Seminal papers are detected on the basis of the references cited by the overall community without any further assumptions.     

Exploration into the evolution and historical roots of citation analysis by referenced publication year spectroscopy

In this study, we investigated the evolution process and historical roots of citation analysis study by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS), which is an advanced research method recently introduced in the field of Scientometrics. Through analyzing the publication year and citation frequency of cited references in a knowledge domain, RPYS can identify the citation peak of such cited references. We collected 2543 articles including 56,392 references regarding citation analysis in SCI-E and SSCI databases between 1970 and July 2016 as our data source. Based on the RPYS method by the CRExplorer program, the results showed that the peak citation publication years by chronological order occurred in 1955, 1963, 1973, 1979, 1981, 1990, 2005 and 2008 in the field of citation analysis study. According to the overall distribution of peak citation publication years, the RPYS for citation analysis was divided into five time periods for the convenience of comparison in this paper: that is, before 1900, 1901–1950, 1951–1970, 1971–2000, and 2001–2016. Pre 1950, especially during the 1900s–1950s, before the citation analysis method was introduced, there were three rather high peak citation publication years, Lotka’s law and Bradford’s law laid the knowledge foundation for citation analysis. 1950s–1970s was the forming period of citation analysis, among the three citation peaks in this period, Garfield (Science 122(3159):1127–1128, 1955), Price (Von Der Studierstube Zur 7(3–6):443–458, 1963, Science 149:510–515, 1965), and Kessler (1963) established an important knowledge base for the formation of citation analysis study. 1971–2000 was a developing period of citation analysis. Document Co-citation Analysis and Author Co-citation Analysis methods laid the foundation of the development of citation analysis study. Since 2000, citation analysis study has been expanding rapidly. By the number of published papers and number of cited references with highly cited frequency, Garfield E., White H.D., Small H., MacRoberts M.H., Price D.D. have played an important role in promoting the evolution of citation analysis study.     

Reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) of Eugene Garfield’s publications

Which studies, theories, and ideas have influenced Eugene Garfield’s scientific work? Recently, the method reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) has been introduced, which can be used to answer this and related questions. Since then, several studies have been published dealing with the historical roots of research fields and scientists. The program CRExplorer (http://www.crexplorer.net) was specifically developed for RPYS. In this study, we use this program to investigate the historical roots of Eugene Garfield’s oeuvre.     

A study on the citation situation within the citing paper: citation distribution of references according to mention frequency

Citation impact indicators play a significant role in evaluating the scientific research activity. Most of citation impact indicators are based on the citation count that the publication is cited as a reference in the other publications, but the difference between each citation situation was not considered. Normally, the number of citations that a publication is cited in the other publications may represent the formal quality of the publication. Similarly, the number of times that a publication is really mentioned within the citing publication, it may also represent the formal quality of the citation. We have examined about how many times each reference was really mentioned within the citing publications and studied about the citation situation within the citing publications. We verified that the citation distribution of references according to the mention frequency follows the Generalized Pareto distribution. The results showed that about 20% of total references were mentioned three and more times, and the number of citation mentions for the about 50% of total references were from about 20% of the total references in the citing publications.     

Telling the story of solar energy meteorology into the satellite era by applying (co-citation) reference publication year spectroscopy

Scientometrics - Studying the history of research fields by analyzing publication records and topical and/or keyword searches with reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) has been introduced...     

Influence of researchers’ international mobilities on publication: a comparison of highly cited and uncited papers

Using curriculum vitae (CVs) or Short Bios in published resources such as the Internet enables us to analyze many issues concerning researchers’ careers. However, analysis of CVs or Short Bios concerning researchers’ life history, such as movement between countries, has rarely been conducted. In this paper, we pursue two purposes: to demonstrate which conditions (citation impact, countries or sectors) are favorable for the analysis, and to show structures of production of highly cited papers. To grasp more obvious tendencies, we compare two “extreme” samples: highly cited and uncited papers. First, we assess the identification rates of researchers’ origin broken down by researchers’ affiliation (countries and sectors). Then, we analyze the influence of these researchers’ international movement based on their origin. The results show the full landscape of the movement’s influence on national publication, the characteristics of each country in terms of researchers’ countries of origin and the research experience of both internationally moved and domestic researchers. Moreover, we analyze the contributions of researchers who returned from abroad to their home countries. Finally, we assess the limitations of our research method and the topic to be addressed concerning this method.     

A quantitative analysis of determinants of non-citation using a panel data model

The term “non-citation factor” refers to the percentage of never-cited papers in a citation time window, a common phenomenon in the science world. Some scholars have qualitatively explored the reasons for not citing a publication, and quantitatively analyzed the mathematical functional relations between the “non-citation factor” and “impact factor of a journal.” This study simultaneously considers the mutual relations and closeness degree between the “non-citation factor” and different influencing factors from a novel perspective—that of using a more structuralized panel data model. The analysis revealed that the determinants, including “impact factor of journal,” “age of journal,” “average number of references per paper in journal,” and “issues of journal,” exerted an extremely small but positive influence (<?0.025) on the decline of “percentage of never-cited papers in the citation time window of publication year or 3 years.” That means the improvement of these determinants can decrease the percentage of never-cited papers. The “impact factor of the journal” always had the biggest positive influence, while the “average number of references per paper in journal” always had the smallest positive influence. In wider citation time windows of 3 or 6 years, two determinants—“number of publications in journal” and “amount of interdisciplinarity in journal”—began to exert a negative effect with a positive correlation coefficient on the decline of the “non-citation factor.” That means the improvement of these two determinants cannot decrease the value of the “non-citation factor,” even though they can increase its value. It is worth noting that the “impact factor of the journal” had a positive influence on the decline of the percentages of never-cited papers in the citation time window of publication year or 3 years, and began to play a negative role in the decline of percentage of never-cited papers in the citation time window of 6 years. Finally, three variables—“average number of authors per paper in journal,” “average number of references per paper in journal,” and “issues of journal”—no longer exerted an influence on the decline of percentages of never-cited papers in the citation time window of 6 years, while “age of journal” and “average number of pages per paper in journal” still made a positive contribution. Our findings could help research institutions, researchers, editors, and publishers understand the positively or negatively influential factors that lead to non-citation, thus improving the chance of papers being cited and having some academic influence.     

Joint modeling of the association between NIH funding and its three primary outcomes: patents,publications, and citation impact

Scientometrics - Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) has been developed for identifying the cited references (CRs) with the greatest influence in a given paper set (mostly sets of papers...     

Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science?

The present paper takes its place in the stream of studies that analyze the effect of interdisciplinarity on the impact of research output. Unlike previous studies, in this study the interdisciplinarity of the publications is not inferred through their citing or cited references, but rather by identifying the authors’ designated fields of research. For this we draw on the scientific classification of Italian academics, and their publications as indexed in the WoS over a 5-year period (2004–2008). We divide the publications in three subsets on the basis the nature of co-authorship: those papers coauthored with academics from different fields, which show high intensity of inter-field collaboration (“specific” collaboration, occurring in 110 pairings of fields); those papers coauthored with academics who are simply from different “non-specific” fields; and finally co-authorships within a single field. We then compare the citations of the papers and the impact factor of the publishing journals between the three subsets. The results show significant differences, generally in favor of the interdisciplinary authorships, in only one third (or slightly more) of the cases. The analysis provides the value of the median differences for each pair of publication subsets.     

Publication delays in the science field and their relationship to the ageing of scientific literature

This article presents an exploratory analysis of publication delays in the science field. Publication delay is defined as the time period between submission and publication of an article for a scientific journal. We obtained a first indication that these delays are longer with regard to journals in the fields of mathematics and technical sciences than they are in other fields of science. We suggest the use of data on publication delays in the analysis of the effects of electronic publishing on reference/citation patterns. A preliminary analysis on a small sample suggests that—under rather strict assumptions—the cited half-life of references may be reduced with a factor of about 2 if publication delays decrease radically.     

Distance and velocity measures: using citations to determine breadth and speed of research impact

Research that integrates the social and natural sciences is vital to address many societal challenges, yet is difficult to arrange, conduct, and disseminate. This paper compares diffusion of the research supported by a unique U.S. National Science Foundation program on Human and Social Dynamics (“HSD”) with a matched group of heavily cited papers. We offer a measure of the distance of cites between the Web of Science Category (“WoSC”) in which a publication appears and the WoSC of the journal citing it, and find that HSD publications are cited more distantly than are comparison publications. We provide another measure—citation velocity—finding that HSD publications are cited with similar lag times as are the comparison papers. These basic citation distance and velocity measures enrich analyses of research knowledge diffusion patterns.     

On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications

In reference to the increasing significance of citation counting in evaluations of scientists and science institutes as well as in science historiography, it is analyzed empirically what is cited in which frequency and what types of citations in scientific texts are used. Content analyses refer to numbers of references, self-references, publication language of references cited, publication types of references cited, and type of citation within the texts. Validity of citation counting is empirically analyzed with reference to random samples of English and German journal articles as well as German textbooks, encyclopedias, and test-manuals from psychology. Results show that 25% of all citations are perfunctory, more than 50% of references are journal articles and up to 40% are books and book-chapters, 10% are self-references. Differences between publications from various psychological sub-disciplines, publication languages, and types of publication are weak. Thus, validity of evaluative citation counting is limited because at least one quarter refers to perfunctory citations exhibiting a very low information utility level and by the fact that existing citation-databases refer to journal articles only.     

Citations: Indicators of significance?

What makes a scientific article significant? This paper-part of a larger study which will examine how various kinds of significance can be related to one another in a coherent theoretical framework-focusses on the processes by which new knowledge claims are being integrated into the cognitive structure when they are cited in other papers. Citations appear both as “threads” linking the citing papers to the existing literature in the field, and as elements fulfilling specific functions within the arguments made in these papers. We have found that (1) it is misleading to equate every article with a single knowledge claim, let alone with an attempt to construct “a fact”; (2) even when the same “sentence” is cited repeatedly, it can be put to quite different uses in the citing papers; and (3) the process of codification of scientific knowledge through the use of references appears to be far more complex and multi-dimensional than citation context analyses focussing on the use and the gradual disappearance of modalities would lead us to believe. Some consequences for the use use of citation analysis to reconstruct cognitive structures will be discussed.     

Modeling the obsolescence of research literature in disciplinary journals through the age of their cited references

There are different citation habits in the research fields that influence the obsolescence of the research literature. We analyze the distinctive obsolescence of research literature in disciplinary journals in eight scientific subfields based on cited references distribution, as a synchronous approach. We use both negative binomial (NB) and Poisson distributions to capture this obsolescence. The corpus being examined is published in 2019 and covers 22,559 papers citing 872,442 references. Moreover, three measures to analyze the tail of the distribution are proposed: (i) cited reference survival rate, (ii) cited reference mortality rate, and (iii) cited reference percentile. These measures are interesting because the tail of the distribution collects the behavior of the citations at the time when the document starts to get obsolete in the sense that it is little cited (used). As main conclusion, the differences observed in obsolescence are so important even between disciplinary journals in the same subfield, that it would be necessary to use some measure for the tail of the citation distribution, such as those proposed in this paper, when analyzing in an appropriate way the long time impact of a journal.

     

Citation behavior in popular scientific papers: what is behind obscure citations? The case of ethnobotany

Citation studies have become an important tool for understanding scientific communication processes, as they enable the identification of several characteristics of information-retrieval behavior. This study seeks to analyze citation behavior using two popular ethnobotany articles, and our analysis is guided by the following question: when an author references a work, is he pointing out the work??s theoretical contribution, or is bias a factor in citing this reference? Citation analysis reveals an interesting phenomenon, as the majority of citing texts do not consider the theoretical contributions made by the articles cited. Two possible conclusions can be drawn from this scenario: (1) citing authors read the original texts that they cite only superficially, and (2) the works cited are not read by the vast majority of people who reference them. Thus, it is clear that even with sufficient access to reference texts; ethnobotanical studies highlight elements less relevant to the research and reproduce discussions in a non-reflective manner.     

A quantitative exploration on reasons for citing articles from the perspective of cited authors

Citation is regarded as one of the “norms of science” (Merton in Am Sociol Rev 22(6):635–659, 1957) and is deeply researched by the field of scientometrics. The motivations authors have for citing one another are considered significant and have been the subject of extensive qualitative research such as content analysis, questionnaires, and interviews of citing authors. However, the existing qualitative studies have covered a limited number of samples. To expand the dataset, this paper proposes a quantitative method applied to detecting citation reasons from the angle of citation networks and the attributes of cited authors, including their publication count (the number of single-authored publications, collaborative and first-authored publications as well as collaborative but non-first-authored publications, and number of whole publications), citation count, research topic interests, and gender. By applying the Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs), the current study revealed that authors in the field of information retrieval tend to cite those with more single-authored, collaborative and first-authored, and collaborative but not first-authored publications. Besides, in this field, the number of publications, similar topical domains, and same gender are proven to be significantly favorable in selecting references in our experiment.     

Using neural-network based paragraph embeddings for the calculation of within and between document similarities

Science mapping using document networks comes often with the implicit assumption that scientific papers are indivisible units with unique links to neighbour documents. Research on proximity in co-citation analysis and the study of lexical properties of sections and citation contexts indicate that this assumption doesn’t always hold. Moreover, the meaning of words and co-words depends on the context in which they appear. This study proposes the use of a neural network architecture for word and paragraph embeddings (Doc2Vec) for the measurement of similarity among those smaller units of analysis. It is shown that paragraphs in the “Introduction” and the “Discussion” Section are more similar to the abstract, that the similarity among paragraphs is related to -but not linearly- the distance between the paragraphs. The “Methodology” Section is least similar to the other sections. Abstracts of citing-cited documents are more similar than random pairs and the context in which a reference appears is most similar to the abstract of the cited document. This novel approach with higher granularity can be used for bibliometric aided retrieval and to assist in measuring interdisciplinarity through the application of network-based centrality measures.

     

Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science,mathematics and dentistry fields

This study attempts to describe, in a comparative way, scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities and understanding of Brazilian researchers of productivity level 1 at the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). In order to do so, a questionnaire was sent to the researchers of productivity level 1 at CNPq in the Mathematics, Dentistry and Information Science fields, with questions about scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities. We analyzed the scientific production of the researchers who answered the questionnaire and we have identified that 78% of the participants consider that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are different activities, and the potential and usual number of research collaborators is between 2 and 3 in Mathematics and Information Science, and between 5 and 6 collaborators in Dentistry. Differences among fields were pointed out by identifying main collaborators and co-authors. The reasons for collaborating vary according to the nature of the research, however, the percentages are high in these three areas: “training of researchers and students”, “desire to increase their own experience through the experience of others” and “increased productivity.” From the analysis of the scientific production declared in their Lattes Curriculum, we have found that the average number of authors per publication in the field of Information Science is 2.2 authors, in Mathematics is 2.8 authors per publication, and in Dentistry the average is 5.3 authors per publication. We have concluded that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are terms assigned to different activities for the analyzed fields.     

The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor

An empirical distribution function of citations to journal articles (EDF for short) can become fundamental tool for analyzing the scientific journals. Endeavors at making bibliometric analysis independent of the intuition conveyed by average citation levels have led us to the study of qualitative properties of physics journals in the functional space of EDFs. We show that the structure of this space establishes the connections and relationships that determine the essential features of physics journals. The research provides an analysis of 240 physics journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports 2015. The relevance of EDFs clustering is discussed. Our findings reveal four-cluster space of physics journals. The space brings to light the essential distinctions between physics journals and shows different level of influence of scientific publishers belonging to different types (professional physics societies, transnational and local publishers). The study of EDFs grouped by publishers reveals two binary oppositions that structure relations between them: “global–local” publishers and “high cited–low cited” publishers.