Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Telescopic and panoramic views of library and information science research 2011–2018: a comparison of four weighting schemes for author co-citation analysis

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores weighted author co-citation analysis (ACA) through a comparison of results from four weighted citation counting methods. The data set used comprises full-text research articles published in four top-tier library and information science (LIS) journals from 2011 to 2018. It finds that in-text frequency-weighted counting performs as well as traditional counting in identifying major dimensions of the LIS field but also shows more detail. Re-citation-based counting appears to highlight well-integrated specialties and weaken the presence of more fragmented ones compared to traditional counting. In-text frequency weighted re-citation counting, expected to highlight “deep” impact, appears to effectively zoom into the field to show intense streams of research within it, but fail to identify major dimensions of the field, essentially providing a telescopic view of the LIS field instead of the panoramic one that the other three methods provide. Measuring deep impact may be interesting and important for research evaluation but fails to retain the broader context that makes the visualizations of research fields so informative. It appears that what may be “noise” when considering impact of individuals can provide the context that allows us to see the forest for the trees when examining intellectual structures of research fields as in the case of traditional ACA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bertin, M., & Atanassova, I. (2018). InTeReC: In-text reference corpus for applying natural language processing to bibliometrics. Retrieved April 18, 2019 from https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2080/paper6.pdf.

  • Bertin, M., Atanassova, I., Gingras, Y., & Lariviere, V. (2016). The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67(1), 164–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertram, S. (1972). Citations counts. In A. Pitemick (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the american society for information science, Western Canada Chapter (pp. 61–67). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonzi, S. (1982). Characteristics of a literature as predictors of relatedness between cited and citing works. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,33, 208–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,36, 3–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What co-citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation,64, 45–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., Small, H., & Klavans, R. (2013). Improving the accuracy of co-citation clustering using full text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(9), 1759–1767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., Van Eck, N. J., Colavizzac, G., & Waltman, L. (2018). Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics.,12(1), 59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, T. A. (1985). Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,36(4), 223–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,37(1), 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bu, Y., Wang, B. L., Huang, W. B., Che, S. K., & Huang, Y. (2018). Using the appearance of citations in full text on author co-citation analysis. Scientometrics,116, 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, A., Hockema, S., & Eysenbach, G. (2010). Contextual cocitation: Augmenting cocitation analysis and its applications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(6), 1130–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cano, V. (1989). Citation behavior—Classification, utility, and location. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,40, 284–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, D. O., & Higgins, G. M. (2000). How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,51(7), 635–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D. E., & Moitra, S. D. (1975). Content analysis of references: Adjunct or alternative to citation counting? Social Studies of Science,5(4), 423–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Y., Liu, X., Guo, C., & Cronin, B. (2013). The distribution of references across texts: Some implications for citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics,7(3), 583–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkiss, A., Shen, S., Fader, A., Erkan, G., States, D., & Radev, D. (2008). Blind men and elephants: What do citation summaries tell us about a research article? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fegley, B. D., & Torvik, V. I. (2013). Has large-scale named-entity network analysis been resting on a flawed assumption? PloS Once,8(7), e70299. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing—Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gipp, B., & Beel, J. (2009). Citation Proximity Analysis (CPA)—A new approach for identifying related work based on co-citation analysis. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI’09) (pp. 571–575).

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanney, S., Frame, I., Grant, J., Buxton, M., Young, T., & Lewison, G. (2005). Using categorizations of citations when assessing the outcomes of health research. Scientometrics,65, 357–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2015). Health warning: might contain multiple personalities—the problem of homonyms in Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators. Scientometrics,105(3), 2259–2270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlach, G. (1978). Can retrieval of information from citation indexes be simplified? Multiple mention of a reference as a characteristic of the link between cited and citing article. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,29(6), 308–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, W., Li, M., & Niu, D. (2011). Counting citations in texts rather than reference lists to improve the accuracy of assessing scientific contribution. BioEssays,33, 724–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, T.M., & Chen, K.H. (2018). How authors cite references? A study of characteristics of in-text citations. ASIST Proceedings,55(1), 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Z., Lin, G., Sun, T., & Hou, H. (2017). Understanding multiply mentioned references. Journal of Informetrics,11(4), 948–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, Y. K., Song, M., & Ding, Y. (2014). Content-based author co-citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics,8(1), 197–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Diesner, J. (2016). Distortive effects of initial-based name disambiguation on measurements of large-scale coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67, 1446–1461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M. (1993). The complexities of citation practice: A review of citation studies. Journal of Documentation,49, 370–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2012). The proximity of co-citation. Scientometrics,91(2), 495–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W., & Turner, K. (1989). Citation context analysis and aging patterns of journal articles in Molecular-Genetics. Scientometrics,17, 127–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, M. J., & Murugesan, P. (1975). Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science,5(1), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Washington, DC: Computer Horizons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, W., Ghavimi, B., Mayr, P., Piryani, R., Singh, V.K. (2019). Highly cited references in PLOS ONE and their in-text usage over time. Retrieved April 18, 2019 from ArXiv.org.

  • Pak, C., Yu, G., & Wang, W. (2018). A study on the citation situation within the citing paper: citation distribution of references according to mention frequency. Scientometrics,114(3), 905–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2627-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, J. (2008). Scientific publishing: Identity crisis. Nature News,451(7180), 766–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Tolliver, D., Gray, M., & Gupta, S. K. S. (1995). Author judgements about works they cite: Three studies from psychology journals. Social Studies of Science,25(3), 477–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1982). Citation context analysis. In B. J. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 287–310). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strotmann, A., & Zhao, D. (2012). Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(9), 1820–1833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strotmann, A., & Zhao, D. (2015). An 80/20 data quality law for professional scientometrics? Proceedings of the 15th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, June 30–July 3, 2015, Istanbul, Turkey.

  • Tang, R., & Safer, M. A. (2008). Author-rated importance of cited references in biology and psychology publications. Journal of Documentation,64, 246–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2019a). Should citations be counted separately from each originating section? Journal of Informetrics. Retrieved June 2019, from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.07547.pdf.

  • Thelwall, M. (2019). The rhetorical structure of science? A multidisciplinary analysis of article headings. Journal of Informetrics.,13(2), 555–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1987). A quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics,12(1), 47–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voos, H., & Dagaev, K. S. (1976). Are all citations equal? Or Did we op. cit. your idem? Journal of Academic Librarianship,1, 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D. (1990). Author co-citation analysis: Overview and defense. In C. L. Borgman (Ed.), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (pp. 84–106). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., & Wang, P. L. (1997). A qualitative study of citing behavior: contributions, criteria, and meta-level documentation concerns. Library Quarterly,67, 122–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., Cappello, A., & Johnston, L. (2017). Functions of uni-and multi-citations: Implications for weighted citation analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science,2(1), 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008a). Information Science during the first decade of the Web: An enriched author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(6), 916–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008c). Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of Information Science. Journal of Informetrics,2(3), 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2011). Intellectual structure of Stem Cell research: A comprehensive author co-citation analysis of a highly collaborative and multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics,87(1), 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2014). In-text author citation analysis: Feasibility, benefits and limitations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,65(11), 2348–2358. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2014). The knowledge base and research front of Information science 2006–2010: An author co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,65(5), 996–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2015). Analysis and visualization of citation networks. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00624ED1V01Y201501ICR039.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2015b). Re-citation analysis: Promising for research evaluation, knowledge network analysis, knowledge representation and information retrieval? Proceedings of the 15th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, June 30–July 3, 2015, Istanbul, Turkey.

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2016). Dimensions and uncertainties of author citation rankings: Lessons learned from frequency-weighted in-text citation counting. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67(3), 671–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., Turney, P., Lemire, D., & Vellino, A. (2015). Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(2), 408–427.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2J4, Canada

    Dangzhi Zhao

  2. ScienceXplore, F.-G.-Keller-Str. 10, 01814, Bad Schandau, Germany

    Andreas Strotmann

Authors
  1. Dangzhi Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Strotmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dangzhi Zhao.

Appendix

Appendix

Python regular expressions for identifying in-text citations and their components.

# In-text reference publication year, possibly plus disambiguating lower case letter:

pubyearRE = r'(?:[12][0189]\d\d[a-z]?)'

# Multiple publication years (for the same authors):

pubyearsRE = r'(?:(?:' + pubyearRE + ',\s +)*' + pubyearRE + r')'

# Page numbers within an intext reference (to be recognized but ignored):

pageRE = r'(?:\bpp?\.\s + (\d +|[iIvVxXlLdDmM] +)(?:[-](\d +|[iIvVxXlLdDmM] +))?)'

# Possible introductory phrase within reference block parentheses (to be recognized but ignored):

egRE = r'(?:e[.]g[.],?\s +)?'

# Frequent name prefixes that may appear in lower-case in an author name:

namePrefixRE = r"(?:al|da|dal|dalle|de|del|della|den|der|des|det|el|van|von|y|zu|zum|zur)"

# A name component is a series of capitalized words possibly prefixed by a lower-case prefix:

nameComponentRE = r'(?:' + namePrefixRE + r"\s +)*(?:(?:[dtlO]')?[A-Z]\w*)"

# A full last name is composed of name components separated by hyphens:

nameRE = r'(?:' + nameComponentRE + r'(?:(\s +|-)' + nameComponentRE + r')*)'

# Author names (one or more) flowing with the text:

namesREintext = r'((((((' + nameRE + r'\s +)|((?:' + nameRE + r',\s +) +))and\s +)?)' + nameRE + r')|(' + nameRE + r',?\s + et\s + al\.))'

# Full reference flowing in the text – authors, years, pages:

refREintext = r'(\s + ' + namesREintext + r"([']s)?" + r'\s + \(' + pubyearsRE + r'(?:,\s + ' + pageRE + r')?\))'

# Author names in a parenthetic citation block:

namesREinpar = r'(((?:(?:' + nameRE + r'|(?:' + nameRE + r',\s +)*)\s*(\&|and)\s +)*' + nameRE + r')|(' + nameRE + r',?\s + et\s + al\.))'

# individual reference formats for first and for subsequent reference within a citation block:

refREinpar = r'(' + namesREinpar + r',\s + ' + pubyearsRE + r'(?:,\s + ' + pageRE + r')?)'

refREinpar2 = r'((?:' + namesREinpar + r',\s +)?' + pubyearsRE + r'(?:,\s + ' + pageRE + r')?)'

# Complete reference block enclosed in parentheses:

refsREwithpar = r'(\(' + egRE + refREinpar + r'(?:;\s + ' + refREinpar2 + r')*\))'.

# The full regular expression for the two types of in-text references – separated by parentheses or flowing with the text:

refsRE = r'(' + refREintext + r'|' + refsREwithpar + r')'

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, D., Strotmann, A. Telescopic and panoramic views of library and information science research 2011–2018: a comparison of four weighting schemes for author co-citation analysis. Scientometrics 124, 255–270 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03462-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03462-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation