Analyzing cross-reference transactions between authors by use of an asymmetric proximity measure and multidimensional unfolding

The present paper explores simultaneous modelling of cross-reference activity between authors by use of asymmetric proximities and multidimensional unfolding. We thereby model and map both citing and cited relations between authors in a common space. This enables a more comprehensive comparison of the author's dual roles of citing and being cited in a reference network. We model a set of 31 authors and compare the results to a recent author co-citation study of Information Science. We find that multidimensional unfolding is a reliable and insightful technique for modelling authors' citing and cited dimensions simultaneously. The common space of citing and cited positions exemplify that some authors have substantial discrepancies between their citing behaviour and the way their works are used by peers in the set. Further, modelling mutual relationships as asymmetric brings more accuracy and nuances into the maps as relationships become overt. Finally, the study discusses how high publication activity influences mapping results considerably. To counter this effect, we demonstrate the appropriateness of correcting data for main effects by use of an asymmetric proximity measure of odds ratios.

[1]  Willem J. Heiser,et al.  Order Invariant Unfolding Analysis Under Smoothness Restrictions , 1989 .

[2]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Toward a consensus map of science , 2009 .

[3]  Fredrik Åström Changes in the LIS research front: Time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990–2004 , 2007 .

[4]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Quasi-correspondence analysis on scientometric transaction matrices , 2005, Scientometrics.

[5]  Elliot Noma,et al.  An improved method for analyzing square scientometric transaction matrices , 1982, Scientometrics.

[6]  P. Groenen,et al.  Avoiding degeneracy in multidimensional unfolding by penalizing on the coefficient of variation , 2005 .

[7]  ÅströmFredrik Changes in the LIS research front: Time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 19902004 , 2007 .

[8]  Kathleen Marchal,et al.  Joint mapping of genes and conditions via multidimensional unfolding analysis , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[9]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  A comparative study of first and all-author co-citation counting, and two different matrix generation approaches applied for author co-citation analyses , 2009, Scientometrics.

[10]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Clusters and Maps of Science Journals Based on Bi-connected Graphs in the Journal Citation Reports , 2009, ArXiv.

[12]  Derek J. de Solla Price,et al.  The analysis of square matrices of scientometric transactions , 2005, Scientometrics.

[13]  Jesper W. Schneider,et al.  Matrix comparison, Part 2: Measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the mantel and procrustes statistics , 2007 .

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

[15]  Loet Leydesdorff Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals: An online mapping exercise , 2007 .

[16]  Loet Leydesdorff Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? , 2006 .

[17]  Olle Persson All author citations versus first author citations , 2004, Scientometrics.

[18]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Betweenness Centrality" as an Indicator of the , 2006 .

[19]  Willem J. Heiser,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling and Unfolding of Symmetric and Asymmetric Proximity Relations , 2004 .

[20]  C H COOMBS,et al.  Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. , 1950, Psychological review.

[21]  Jesper W. Schneider,et al.  Matrix comparison, Part 1: Motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results , 2007 .

[22]  Kevin W Boyack,et al.  Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.