Science Maps Within a Science Policy Context

Improving the Utility of Science and Domain Maps Within a Science Policy and Research Management Context
  • C. M. Noyons


Science mapping within the science policy and research management context has had a promising start during the seventies, but it lasted until the early nineties before useful technology was developed to make it really work. Recently domain visualization seems to have become a mature research area. Therefore, the actual potential of visualization for this particular purpose can be explored in more detail. In this chapter a short history is outlined and the current possibilities and requirements of contributing to a sound evaluation tool in the near future are listed. By using a case study the potential of bibliometric maps is illustrated within a policy context. It shows how these maps may be used to visualize the research focus of actors within one field and to compare them. The main issue raised in this chapter is the requirement of reference points in order to make useful comparisons.


Research Management Science Policy Research Front Intellectual Structure Individual Publication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a co-citation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhattacharya, S., Basu, P.K. (1998). Mapping a research area at the micro level using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 43, 359–372.Google Scholar
  3. Börner, K., Chen, C., Boyack, K.W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. In: Blaise Cronin (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 37, 179–255.Google Scholar
  4. Boyack, K.W., Borner, K. (2003). Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyack, K.W., Wylie, B.N., Davidson, G.S. (2003). Domain visualization using VxInsight for Science and Technology Management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 764–774.Google Scholar
  6. Cahlik, T. (2000). Comparison of the maps of science. Scientometrics, 49, 373–387.Google Scholar
  7. Callon, M., Courtial, J.P., Turner, W.A., Bauin S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22, 191–235.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, M., Law, J., Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd. ISBN: 0 333 37223 9.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, C. (2003). Mapping scientific frontiers: the quest for knowledge visualization. London: Springer Verlag. ISBN 1-85233-494-0.Google Scholar
  10. De Looze, M.A., Lemarie, J. (1997). Corpus relevance through co-word analysis: An application to plant proteins. Scientometrics, 39, 267–280.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield, E., Pudovkin, A.I., Istomin, V.S. (2003). Why do we need algorithmic historiography? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kohonen, T. (1990). The Self-Organizing Map. In Proceedings of the IEEE, 78 (9), 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kostoff, R.N., Eberhart, H.J., Toothman, D.R. (1998). Database tomography for technical intelligence: a roadmap of the near-earth space science and technology literature. Information Processing and Management, 34, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin, X., White, H.D., Buzydlowski, J. (2003). Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching. Information Processing and Management, 39, 689–706.Google Scholar
  15. Merton, R.K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.Google Scholar
  16. Moed, H.F., de Bruin, R.E., van Leeuwen, Th.N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33, 381–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Noyons, E.C.M. (1999). Bibliometric Mapping as a Science Policy and Research Management Tool. Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar
  18. Noyons, E. (2001). Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context. Scientometrics, 50, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noyons, E.C.M., van Raan, A.F.J. (1998). Monitoring scientific developments from a dynamic perspective: self-organized structuring to map neural network research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 68–81.Google Scholar
  20. Noyons, E.C.M., Moed, H.F., van Raan, A.F.J. (1999). Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics, 46, 591–604.Google Scholar
  21. Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Persson, O. (2001). All author citations versus first author citation. Scientometrics, 50, 339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters, H.P.F., van Raan, A.F.J. (1991). Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis: an exercise on a university faculty level. Scientometrics, 20, 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polanco, X., Francois, C., Lamirel, J.C. (2001). Using artificial neural networks for mapping of science and technology: A multi-self-organizing-maps approach. Scientometrics, 51, 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salvador, M.R., Lopez-Martinez, R.E. (2000). Cognitive structure of research: scientometric mapping in sintered materials. Research Evaluation, 9, 189–200.Google Scholar
  26. Schwechheimer, H., Winterhager M. (2001). Mapping interdisciplinary research fronts in neuroscience: A bibliometric view to retrograde amnesia. Scientometrics, 51, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Small, H. (2003). Paradigms, Citations, and Maps of Science: A personal history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. White, H.D. (2003). Author co-citation analysis and Pearson’s r. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 1250–1259.Google Scholar
  29. White, H.D., Griffith, B.C. (1981). Author co-citation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32, 163–171.Google Scholar
  30. White, H.D., McCain, K.W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 32, 99–168.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Widhalm, C., Topolnik, M., Kopcsa, A., Schiebel, E., Weber, M. (2001). Evaluating patterns of co-operation: application of a bibliometric visualisation tool to the Fourth Framework Programme and the Transport Research Programme. Research Evaluation, 10, 129–140.Google Scholar
  33. Wouters, P. (1998). The Signs of Science. Scientometrics 41, 225–241.Google Scholar
  34. Ziman, J.M. (1984). An introduction to science studies: the philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-34680-0.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. Noyons
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden Universitythe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations