Limitations and More Limitations of Co-Citation Analysis/Bibliometric Modelling: A Reply to Franklin
暂无分享,去创建一个
technique as it is applied to policy-oriented studies. At that time the results of previous policy studies indicated that substantial development of the technique and research into its validity would be necessary before cocitation analysis could become a routine policy analysis tool. Despite these indications the discussion in the literature seemed unbalanced. Because of the extensive resources necessary to produce a study, work relating to policy uses of co-citation analysis had been written by the cognoscenti. They, having invested time and effort understanding the technique and producing maps, tended to be quite enthusiastic. It seemed only fair to potential users to attempt to provide them with a little information about problems which might be encountered in a study, and to attempt to broaden the discussion of the technique in the literature. I hope that my effort has been useful to those new to the technique. Franklin's Response2 is evidence that it has stimulated a broader discussion. Franklin's Response is a welcome and refreshing addition to the literature on co-citation modelling. Unfortunately, the criticisms of the
[1] D. Hicks. Limitations of Co-Citation Analysis as a Tool for Science Policy , 1987 .
[2] G. Tyson. Why people perceive horoscopes as being true: A review. , 1982 .
[3] Harry Rothman,et al. An experiment in science mapping for research planning , 1986 .
[4] E. J. Barboni,et al. Co-Citation Analyses of Science: An Evaluation , 1977 .