A Visualization Model Used for Determining the Effectiveness of Information Retrieval in a Scientific Database

In this study, we demonstrate that a visualization model can determine the effectiveness of searching a bibliographic database, when three descriptive metadata fields are compared. The Inspec database was searched to create a bibliography of articles about a broad scientific topic, interplanetary travel. We collected metadata from 823 Inspec articles and used the Sci2 Tool to create co-occurrence networks based on subject terms, title keywords, and classification codes from each of the articles. The Watts-Strogatz clustering coefficient model was used to create molecular organization of the networks. This method identified subject domain clusters for each of the three selected metadata elements and subject classification codes were extracted from all the clusters obtained. All data obtained was converted into a common metadata element (classification codes), allowing for the comparison of data from the initial search and from all the subject clusters identified in the visualization process. A set of eight subject codes were found to describe the Main Subject Domain of interplanetary travel. The results also show that searching with classification codes produced the best outcome, the second best option is using subject terms, and the least effective search technique is using title keywords. These results, using visualization, corroborate previous studies.

[1]  Michael J. Panik.  Statistical Inference: A Short Course , 2012 .

[2]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The Turn - Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context , 2005, The Kluwer International Series on Information Retrieval.

[3]  Sevim Mccutcheon,et al.  Keyword vs controlled vocabulary searching: the one with the most tools wins , 2009 .

[4]  E. Davis.  An Assessment of Faster-Than-Light Spacetimes: Make or Break Issues , 2006 .

[5]  Carol Tenopir.  Searching by controlled vocabulary of free text , 1987 .

[6]  Allen Foster,et al.  Beyond relevance and recall: testing new user-centred measures of database performance. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[7]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Domain visualization using VxInsight® for science and technology management , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  P Flor,et al.  A controlled vocabulary for nursing and allied health in Norway. , 2001, Health information and libraries journal.

[9]  Christopher W. Belter.  Visualizing Networks of Scientific Research , 2012 .

[10]  Yoshiko Okubo,et al.  Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems , 1997 .

[11]  Dudley Shapere,et al.  Scientific Theories and Their Domains , 1984 .

[12]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Historiographic Mapping of Knowledge Domains Literature , 2004, J. Inf. Sci..

[13]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Domain Analysis in Information Science , 2010 .

[14]  Raya Fidel,et al.  Searchers' selection of search keys: II. Controlled vocabulary or free‐text searching , 1991 .

[15]  Yoshiko Okubo,et al.  Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems : methods and examples , 1997 .

[16]  Charlotte Kirk Baer,et al.  Scope, characteristics, and use of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s intramural research , 2011, Scientometrics.

[17]  Jimi Adams,et al.  Mapping Interdisciplinary Fields: Efficiencies, Gaps and Redundancies in HIV/AIDS Research , 2014, PloS one.

[18]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Arlene G. Taylor,et al.  Still a Lot to Lose: The Role of Controlled Vocabulary in Keyword Searching , 2015 .

[20]  John T. Bruer,et al.  Can we talk? How the cognitive neuroscience of attention emerged from neurobiology and psychology, 1980–2005 , 2010, Scientometrics.

[21]  A. Booth,et al.  Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[22]  Gobinda G. Chowdhury,et al.  Applied Informetrics for Information Retrieval Research , 2004, Program.

[23]  Monica Cahill McJunkin.  Precision and recall in title keyword searches , 1995 .

[24]  André Skupin,et al.  Making a Mark: a computational and visual analysis of one researcher’s intellectual domain , 2014, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[25]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Readings in information visualization - using vision to think , 1999 .

[26]  N. D. Bellis.  Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics , 2009 .

[27]  Tomaz Bartol,et al.  Citation analysis and mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology: identifying the scope and interdisciplinarity of research , 2016, Scientometrics.

[28]  Alan G. Gross,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Titles , 2009 .

[29]  Eric W. Davis,et al.  Faster-Than-Light Space Warps, Status and Next Steps , 2012 .

[30]  Henk J. Voorbij.  Title keywords and subject descriptors: a comparison of subject search entries of books in the humanities and social sciences , 1998, J. Documentation.

[31]  Louis M. Gomez,et al.  All the Right Words: Finding What You Want as a Function of Richness of Indexing Vocabulary. , 1990 .

[32]  F. Suppe.  The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism , 1989 .

[33]  Ray J. Paul,et al.  Fitting the jigsaw of citation: information visualization in domain analysis , 2001 .

[34]  Isabel Meirelles,et al.  Design for Information: An Introduction to the Histories, Theories, and Best Practices Behind Effective Information Visualizations , 2013 .

[35]  Linda G. Ackerson.  Visualizing the Configuration of Scientific Literature A Study of Disciplinary Relationships , 1999 .