Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation

In this article, we performed a comparative study to investigate the performance of methods for detecting emerging research fronts. Three types of citation network, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation, were tested in three research domains, gallium nitride (GaN), complex network (CNW), and carbon nanotube (CNT). Three types of citation network were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. We evaluated the performance of each type of citation network in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, measured by average publication year, and topological relevance, measured by density. Direct citation, which could detect large and young emerging clusters earlier, shows the best performance in detecting a research front, and co-citation shows the worst. Additionally, in direct citation networks, the clustering coefficient was the largest, which suggests that the content similarity of papers connected by direct citations is the greatest and that direct citation networks have the least risk of missing emerging research domains because core papers are included in the largest component. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

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

[3]  Tibor Braun,et al.  No-bells for ambiguous lists of ranked Nobelists as science indicators of national merit in physics, chemistry and medicine, 1901-2001 , 2004, Scientometrics.

[4]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[5]  Samuel Schiminovich.  Automatic classification and retrieval of documents by means of a bibliographic pattern discovery algorithm , 1971, Inf. Storage Retr..

[6]  E. Garfield.  Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[7]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Database tomography for information retrieval , 1997, J. Inf. Sci..

[8]  Martin Suter,et al.  Small World , 2002 .

[9]  Jonathan Adams,et al.  Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact , 2005, Scientometrics.

[10]  Bart Selman,et al.  Tracking evolving communities in large linked networks , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Measuring the movement of a research paradigm , 2005, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

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

[13]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Mapping interdisciplinarity at the interfaces between the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index , 2007, Scientometrics.

[14]  E. Karlsson.  The Nobel Prize in Physics , 2001 .

[15]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Mapping of Science by Combined Co-Citation and Word Analysis. I. Structural Aspects , 1991 .

[17]  M E J Newman,et al.  Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[18]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[19]  Yoshiyuki Takeda,et al.  Detecting emerging research fronts based on topological measures in citation networks of scientific publications , 2008 .

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

[21]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Update on science mapping: Creating large document spaces , 1997, Scientometrics.

[22]  Henry G. Small,et al.  Tracking and predicting growth areas in science , 2006, Scientometrics.

[23]  Yong Fang,et al.  Lattices in citation networks: An investigation into the structure of citation graphs , 2001, Scientometrics.

[24]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science , 2006 .

[25]  Naoki Shibata,et al.  Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Mapping Change in Scientific Specialties: A Scientometric Reconstruction of the Development of Artificial Intelligence , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[27]  Yuya Kajikawa,et al.  Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles: Research Articles , 2007 .

[28]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks , 2002, Scientometrics.

[29]  B. C. Griffith,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Literatures I: Identifying and Graphing Specialties , 1974 .

[30]  Romualdas Karazija,et al.  The Nobel prize in physics - regularities and tendencies , 2004, Scientometrics.