Tracing the main path of interdisciplinary research considering citation preference: A case from blockchain domain

Abstract Main path analysis has been widely used in various fields to detect their development trajectories. However, the previous methods treat every citation equally. In fact, it leaves a question open to scholars considering that there are different citation preferences in different disciplines and at different publication times. There are different citation preferences in different disciplines and at different periods, which are ignored by scholars. In order to deal with the problem in identifying development paths in interdisciplinary research areas, this paper proposes a new main path analysis method. The improved main path analysis considers two factors involved in citation preference, including discipline bias and time bias. An evidence analysis from blockchain domain is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The research result shows that the proposed main path analysis method in this paper can resolve the problem of discipline bias and time bias in interdisciplinary research. Moreover, the improved method provides a more differentiated ranking for citation linkages in the network. Our research can enhance the objectivity of the resulting main paths and promote broader application of the main path analysis.

[1]  Fei Shu,et al.  Chinese-language articles are biased in citations , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[2]  Nagarajan Raghavan,et al.  Hierarchical main path analysis to identify decompositional multi-knowledge trajectories , 2020, J. Knowl. Manag..

[3]  C. Prem Sankar,et al.  From conventional governance to e-democracy: Tracing the evolution of e-governance research trends using network analysis tools , 2019, Gov. Inf. Q..

[4]  Ladislav Kristoufek,et al.  BitCoin meets Google Trends and Wikipedia: Quantifying the relationship between phenomena of the Internet era , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[5]  Shuo Xu,et al.  Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis , 2019, Scientometrics.

[6]  Yiwei Li,et al.  The citation trap: Papers published at year-end receive systematically fewer citations , 2019, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

[7]  Jun-You Lin,et al.  Heterogeneity in industry–university R&D collaboration and firm innovative performance , 2020, Scientometrics.

[8]  Kyle W. Higham,et al.  Unraveling the dynamics of growth, aging and inflation for citations to scientific articles from specific research fields , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[9]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Vincent D. Blondel,et al.  Career on the Move: Geography, Stratification, and Scientific Impact , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Jiann-Min Yang,et al.  Bibliometrics-based evaluation of the Blockchain research trend: 2008 – March 2017 , 2018, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[12]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.

[13]  Aviral Kumar Tiwari,et al.  Informational efficiency of Bitcoin—An extension , 2018 .

[14]  Hai Zhuge,et al.  Exploiting heterogeneous scientific literature networks to combat ranking bias: Evidence from the computational linguistics area , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  C. Sutcliffe,et al.  Optimal vs. Naïve Diversification in Cryptocurrencies , 2018, Economics Letters.

[16]  M. E. J. Newman,et al.  The first-mover advantage in scientific publication , 2008, 0809.0522.

[17]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior , 2008, J. Documentation.

[18]  Linyuan Lu,et al.  Unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data , 2020, J. Informetrics.

[19]  Yu Xiao,et al.  Knowledge diffusion path analysis of data quality literature: A main path analysis , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[20]  Ladislav Kristoufek,et al.  Information interdependence among energy, cryptocurrency and major commodity markets , 2019, Energy Economics.

[21]  Jingqiang Chen,et al.  Main path analysis on cyclic citation networks , 2020, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Eng-Tuck Cheah,et al.  Negative bubbles and shocks in cryptocurrency markets , 2016 .

[23]  Shih-Chang Hung,et al.  Technological change in lithium iron phosphate battery: the key-route main path analysis , 2014, Scientometrics.

[24]  Wenyu Zhang,et al.  A multiple-link, mutually reinforced journal-ranking model to measure the prestige of journals , 2017, Scientometrics.

[25]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Efficient Algorithms for Citation Network Analysis , 2003, ArXiv.

[26]  Bin Zhang,et al.  Tracing database usage: Detecting main paths in database link networks , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[27]  Min Song,et al.  Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews , 2019, PloS one.

[28]  Gordana Budimir,et al.  Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia , 2013, Scientometrics.

[29]  Elie Bouri,et al.  On the return-volatility relationship in the Bitcoin market around the price crash of 2013 , 2016 .

[30]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations , 2019, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Elie Bouri,et al.  Can Volume Predict Bitcoin Returns and Volatility? A Quantiles-Based Approach , 2017 .

[32]  Lewis Tseng,et al.  Blockchain for Managing Heterogeneous Internet of Things: A Perspective Architecture , 2020, IEEE Network.

[33]  Yi-Cheng Zhang,et al.  Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[34]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields , 2019, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  Rüdiger Mutz,et al.  How to consider fractional counting and field normalization in the statistical modeling of bibliometric data: A multilevel Poisson regression approach , 2019, J. Informetrics.

[36]  John S. Liu,et al.  Data envelopment analysis 1978-2010: A citation-based literature survey , 2013 .

[37]  Frank S. Skinner,et al.  Nonlinear Autoregressive Distributed Lag Approach: An Application on the Connectedness between Bitcoin Returns and the Other Ten Most Relevant Cryptocurrency Returns , 2020, Mathematics.

[38]  Pavlin Mavrodiev,et al.  The digital traces of bubbles: feedback cycles between socio-economic signals in the Bitcoin economy , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[39]  Sashikanta Khuntia,et al.  Adaptive market hypothesis and evolving predictability of bitcoin , 2018, Economics Letters.

[40]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[41]  John S. Liu,et al.  The main paths of eTourism: trends of managing tourism through Internet , 2017 .

[42]  Dejian Yu,et al.  Tracing knowledge diffusion of TOPSIS: A historical perspective from citation network , 2020, Expert Syst. Appl..

[43]  Dimitrios Koutmos,et al.  Liquidity uncertainty and Bitcoin’s market microstructure , 2018, Economics Letters.

[44]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching , 2020, J. Informetrics.

[45]  Jiang Li,et al.  Chinese-language articles are not biased in citations: Evidences from Chinese-English bilingual journals in Scopus and Web of Science , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[46]  Louis Y.Y. Lu,et al.  The main paths of medical tourism: From transplantation to beautification , 2014 .

[47]  John S. Liu,et al.  Exploring the research fronts and main paths of literature: a case study of shareholder activism research , 2016, Scientometrics.

[48]  Ming-Yueh Tsay,et al.  An analysis and comparison of scientometric data between journals of physics, chemistry and engineering , 2009, Scientometrics.

[49]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[50]  John S. Liu,et al.  Citations with different levels of relevancy: Tracing the main paths of legal opinions , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[51]  Dimitrios Koutmos.  Return and volatility spillovers among cryptocurrencies , 2018, Economics Letters.

[52]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Do journals flipping to gold open access show an OA citation or publication advantage? , 2020, Scientometrics.

[53]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[54]  Cryptocurrencies as a Financial Asset: A Systematic Analysis , 2019 .

[55]  S. Hyde,et al.  News sentiment in the cryptocurrency market: An empirical comparison with Forex , 2020 .

[56]  John S. Liu,et al.  A few notes on main path analysis , 2019, Scientometrics.

[57]  T. Moore,et al.  Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance , 2014 .

[58]  Christopher L. Magee,et al.  Tracing Technological Development Trajectories: A Genetic Knowledge Persistence-Based Main Path Approach , 2016, PloS one.

[59]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A review of the literature on citation impact indicators , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[60]  John S. Liu,et al.  An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[61]  Qiang Ji,et al.  Dynamic connectedness and integration in cryptocurrency markets , 2019, International Review of Financial Analysis.

[62]  David M. Walker,et al.  Citation pattern and lifespan: a comparison of discipline, institution, and individual , 2011, Scientometrics.

[63]  Gabriel Gasque,et al.  Small molecule drug screening in Drosophila identifies the 5HT2A receptor as a feeding modulation target , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[64]  Ramiro H. Gálvez,et al.  An empirical approach based on quantile regression for estimating citation ageing , 2019, J. Informetrics.

[65]  Cryptocurrency reaction to FOMC Announcements: Evidence of heterogeneity based on blockchain stack position , 2020 .

[66]  Norman P. Hummon,et al.  Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA theory☆ , 1989 .

[67]  Vinicius Amorim Sobreiro,et al.  What is going on with studies on banking efficiency? , 2019, Research in International Business and Finance.

[68]  John S. Liu,et al.  A new approach for main path analysis: Decay in knowledge diffusion , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[69]  Dejian Yu,et al.  Knowledge diffusion paths of blockchain domain: the main path analysis , 2020, Scientometrics.

[70]  A. H. Dyhrberg.  Bitcoin, gold and the dollar – A GARCH volatility analysis , 2016 .

[71]  Fang-Mei Tseng,et al.  Developmental trajectories of new energy vehicle research in economic management: Main path analysis , 2018, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[72]  A. F. Bariviera.  The Inefficiency of Bitcoin Revisited: A Dynamic Approach , 2017, 1709.08090.

[73]  Alberto H. F. Laender,et al.  On interdisciplinary collaborations in scientific coauthorship networks: the case of the Brazilian community , 2020, Scientometrics.

[74]  Juneseuk Shin,et al.  Extending technological trajectories to latest technological changes by overcoming time lags , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[75]  István Csabai,et al.  Do the Rich Get Richer? An Empirical Analysis of the Bitcoin Transaction Network , 2013, PloS one.

[76]  Paraskevi Katsiampa,et al.  High Frequency Volatility Co-Movements in Cryptocurrency Markets , 2019, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money.

[77]  Thomas Walther,et al.  Exogenous drivers of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency volatility – A mixed data sampling approach to forecasting , 2019, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money.