Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006-2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis

We introduce the author keyword coupling analysis (AKCA) method to visualize the field of information science (2006–2015). We then compare the AKCA method with the author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA) method in terms of first- and all-author citation counts. We obtain the following findings: (1) The AKCA method is a new and feasible method for visualizing a discipline's structure, and the ABCA and AKCA methods have their respective strengths and emphases. The relation within the ABCA method is based on the same references (knowledge base), whereas that within the AKCA method is based on the same keywords (lexical linguistic). The AKCA method appears to provide a less detailed picture, and more uneven sub-areas of a discipline structure. The relationships between authors are narrow and direct and feature multiple levels in AKCA. (2) All-author coupling provides a comprehensive picture; thus, a complete view of a discipline structure may require both first- and all-author coupling analyses. (3) Information science evolved continuously during the second decade of the World Wide Web. The KDA (knowledge domain analysis) camp became remarkably prominent, while the IR camp (information retrieval) experienced a further decline in hard IR research, and became significantly smaller; Patent analysis and Open Access emerged during this period. Mapping of Science and Bibliometric evaluation also experienced substantial growth.

[1]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science: Analysis of article title words , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  S. N. Singh,et al.  Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: a co-word analysis of the journal Scientometrics (2005–2010) , 2014, Scientometrics.

[3]  Tahereh Dehdarirad,et al.  Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis , 2014, Scientometrics.

[4]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[5]  Ying Ding,et al.  Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  M. H. MacRoberts,et al.  Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences , 2010 .

[7]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Salton's Cosine versus the Jaccard index , 2008 .

[8]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Yoshiyuki Takeda,et al.  Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation , 2009 .

[10]  Junping Qiu,et al.  Research on the cross-citation relationship of core authors in scientometrics , 2012, Scientometrics.

[11]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Howard D. White,et al.  Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure , 1981, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[13]  Gaston Heimeriks,et al.  Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: A method and an exploratory case study , 2006, Scientometrics.

[14]  Katy Börner,et al.  Mapping knowledge domains , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Michel Zitt.  Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation , 2014, Scientometrics.

[16]  Feifei Wang,et al.  Visualizing information science: Author direct citation analysis in China and around the world , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[17]  Junping Qiu,et al.  An empirical study on the utilization of web academic resources in humanities and social sciences based on web citations , 2010, Scientometrics.

[18]  Kun Lu,et al.  Measuring author research relatedness: A comparison of word-based, topic-based, and author cocitation approaches , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995 , 1998 .

[20]  Gary G Yen,et al.  Crossmaps: Visualization of overlapping relationships in collections of journal papers , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Ang Li,et al.  Research on the semantic-based co-word analysis , 2011, Scientometrics.

[22]  Jianhua Hou,et al.  The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  Min Song,et al.  Content-based author co-citation analysis , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  Information science during the first decade of the web: An enriched author cocitation analysis , 2008 .

[25]  Qin He,et al.  Knowledge Discovery Through Co-Word Analysis , 1999, Libr. Trends.

[26]  Jianhua Hou,et al.  The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis , 2010 .

[27]  M. M. Kessler.  Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[28]  O. Persson.  The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990 , 1994 .

[29]  Lei Cui,et al.  Integration of three visualization methods based on co-word analysis , 2011, Scientometrics.

[30]  Bo Jarneving,et al.  Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[31]  Junping Qiu,et al.  Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics , 2014, Scientometrics.

[32]  Howard D. White,et al.  Author cocitation analysis and Pearson's r , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  A comparative study on detecting research fronts in the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) field using bibliographic coupling and co-citation , 2014, Scientometrics.

[34]  John Scott,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis , 2011 .

[35]  Ruimin Ma,et al.  Author bibliographic coupling analysis: A test based on a Chinese academic database , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[36]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  Counting first, last, or all authors in citation analysis: A comprehensive comparison in the highly collaborative stem cell research field , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  Bo Jarneving,et al.  A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front , 2005, Scientometrics.

[38]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Journal cross-citation analysis for validation and improvement of journal-based subject classification in bibliometric research , 2010, Scientometrics.

[39]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? , 2010 .

[40]  Nees Jan van Eck,et al.  How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[41]  Dangzhi Zhao,et al.  Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis , 2008 .

[42]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Using global mapping to create more accurate document-level maps of research fields , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[43]  Christina Courtright,et al.  Context in information behavior research , 2007 .