Dynamics of senses of new physics discourse: co-keywords analysis

The paper presents a longitudinal analysis of the evolution of new physics keywords co-occurrence patterns. For that, we explore the documents indexed in the INSPIRE database from 1989 to 2018. Our purpose is to quantify the knowledge structure of the fast-growing subfield of new physics. The development of a novel approach to keywords co-occurrence analysis is the main point of the paper. In contrast to traditional co-keyword network analysis, we investigate structures that unite physics concepts in different documents and bind different documents with the same physics concepts. We consider the structures that reveal relationships among concepts as topological and call them “physics senses”. Based on the notion of trajectory mutual information, the paper offers clustering of physics senses, determines their period of life, and constructs a classification of senses’ “authority”.

[1]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Co‐word maps and topic modeling: A comparison using small and medium‐sized corpora (N < 1,000) , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  O A Rosso,et al.  Distinguishing noise from chaos. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[3]  Riccardo Torre,et al.  Biblioranking fundamental physics , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[4]  David C. Roberts,et al.  Mapping the Evolution of Scientific Fields , 2009, PloS one.

[5]  Ricardo López-Ruiz,et al.  A Statistical Measure of Complexity , 1995, ArXiv.

[6]  Benjamin Renoust,et al.  Flows of Knowledge in Citation Networks , 2016, COMPLEX NETWORKS.

[7]  Gilles Deleuze,et al.  The Logic of Sense , 1969 .

[8]  Osvaldo A. Rosso,et al.  Generalized statistical complexity measures: Geometrical and analytical properties , 2006 .

[9]  Nick S. Jones,et al.  Co-occurrence simplicial complexes in mathematics: identifying the holes of knowledge , 2018, Appl. Netw. Sci..

[10]  Saranya Ghosh,et al.  General Model Independent Searches for Physics Beyond the Standard Model , 2020 .

[11]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis , 2017, Scientometrics.

[12]  Jean-Gabriel Young,et al.  Networks beyond pairwise interactions: structure and dynamics , 2020, ArXiv.

[13]  Boleslaw K. Szymanski,et al.  Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[14]  P. Langacker.  The standard model and beyond , 2009 .

[15]  M. Callon,et al.  From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis , 1983 .

[16]  Brenda Praggastis,et al.  Hypernetwork Science: From Multidimensional Networks to Computational Topology , 2020, Unifying Themes in Complex Systems X.

[17]  Maxima of Independent Sums in the Presence of Heavy Tails , 2005 .

[18]  Kaveh Kavousi,et al.  Predicting scientific research trends based on link prediction in keyword networks , 2020, J. Informetrics.

[19]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A review of theory and practice in scientometrics , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  S. Foss,et al.  An Introduction to Heavy-Tailed and Subexponential Distributions , 2011 .

[21]  Sebastián Lozano,et al.  Complex network analysis of keywords co-occurrence in the recent efficiency analysis literature , 2019, Scientometrics.

[22]  Abbas Alimohammadi,et al.  Mapping the intellectual structure of GIS-T field (2008–2019): a dynamic co-word analysis , 2021, Scientometrics.

[23]  An Zeng,et al.  Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics , 2018, Nature Communications.

[24]  Jean Pierre Courtial,et al.  Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry , 1991, Scientometrics.

[25]  E. Todeva.  Networks , 2007 .

[26]  Michael Szell,et al.  Taking census of physics , 2019, Nature Reviews Physics.

[27]  Toni Giorgino,et al.  Exploring the role of interdisciplinarity in physics: Success, talent and luck , 2019, PloS one.

[28]  Luis Gravano,et al.  Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full‐text features , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  Randall R. Holmes,et al.  Introduction to Topology , 2008 .

[30]  Olesya Mryglod,et al.  Network of scientific concepts: empirical analysis and modeling , 2021, Adv. Complex Syst..

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

[32]  Wei Lu,et al.  Keyword-citation-keyword network: a new perspective of discipline knowledge structure analysis , 2020, Scientometrics.

[33]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Mapping the physics research space: a machine learning approach , 2019, EPJ Data Science.

[34]  Siew Ann Cheong,et al.  Predicting the Evolution of Physics Research from a Complex Network Perspective , 2018, Entropy.

[35]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Self-organization of progress across the century of physics , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[36]  Mario Coccia,et al.  The evolution of scientific disciplines in applied sciences: dynamics and empirical properties of experimental physics , 2020, Scientometrics.

[37]  Sagar Kamarthi,et al.  Correction: Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature , 2017, PloS one.

[38]  Mario Krenn,et al.  Predicting research trends with semantic and neural networks with an application in quantum physics , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Measuring Science: Basic Principles and Application of Advanced Bibliometrics , 2019, Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators.

[40]  Alice Patania,et al.  The shape of collaborations , 2017, EPJ Data Science.

[41]  D. Bennett,et al.  Visualizing context , 2008 .

[42]  An Zeng,et al.  The strong nonlinear effect in academic dropout , 2019, Scientometrics.

[43]  Alexander M. Petersen,et al.  Multiscale impact of researcher mobility , 2018, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[44]  Jinho Choi,et al.  The organization of scientific knowledge: the structural characteristics of keyword networks , 2011, Scientometrics.

[45]  Vito Latora,et al.  The evolution of knowledge within and across fields in modern physics , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[46]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Random walks and diffusion on networks , 2016, ArXiv.

[47]  Yurij L. Katchanov,et al.  How physics works: scientific capital in the space of physics institutions , 2016, Scientometrics.

[48]  Kevin C. Klement.  Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference , 2001 .

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

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

[51]  Diego Garlaschelli,et al.  Ground truth? Concept-based communities versus the external classification of physics manuscripts , 2016, EPJ Data Science.

[52]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Science of Science , 2018, Science.

[53]  Michael Szell,et al.  A century of physics , 2015, Nature Physics.

[54]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  The evolution of interdisciplinarity in physics research , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[55]  Dietmar Wolfram,et al.  Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice , 2014 .

[56]  Han Huang,et al.  Evolutionary exploration and comparative analysis of the research topic networks in information disciplines , 2021, Scientometrics.

[57]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  Clustering citation histories in the Physical Review , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[58]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Journal of Informetrics , 2022 .

[59]  Fabrizio Lillo,et al.  Knowledge and social relatedness shape research portfolio diversification , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[60]  Peter van den Besselaar,et al.  Mapping science through bibliometric triangulation: An experimental approach applied to water research , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[61]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  Explore with caution: mapping the evolution of scientific interest in physics , 2019, EPJ Data Science.

[62]  Petr Matous,et al.  Network of networks: A bibliometric analysis , 2021, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena.

[63]  Danielle S. Bassett,et al.  Architecture and evolution of semantic networks in mathematics texts , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

[64]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators , 2019, Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators.

[65]  Cesar H. Comin,et al.  How integrated are theoretical and applied physics? , 2017, Scientometrics.

[66]  Yue Wang,et al.  Evolutionary features of academic articles co-keyword network and keywords co-occurrence network: Based on two-mode affiliation network , 2016 .

[67]  Qian Zhang,et al.  Characterizing scientific production and consumption in Physics , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[68]  Peter A. Schulz,et al.  Co-authorship networks and research impact in large research facilities: benchmarking internal reports and bibliometric databases , 2018, Scientometrics.

[69]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Citations driven by social connections? A multi-layer representation of coauthorship networks , 2019, Quantitative Science Studies.

[71]  Young-Sun Jang,et al.  How latecomers catch up to leaders in high-energy physics as Big Science: transition from national system to international collaboration , 2019, Scientometrics.

[72]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Quantifying the cognitive extent of science , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[73]  Martina Iori,et al.  New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity , 2020 .

[74]  H. Stanley,et al.  The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems , 2017 .