Ranking themes on co-word networks: Exploring the relationships among different metrics

Abstract As network analysis methods prevail, more metrics are applied to co-word networks to reveal hot topics in a field. However, few studies have examined the relationships among these metrics. To bridge this gap, this study explores the relationships among different ranking metrics, including one frequency-based and six network-based metrics, in order to understand the impact of network structural features on ranking themes on co-word networks. We collected bibliographic data from three disciplines from Web of Science (WoS), and generated 40 simulation networks following the preferential attachment assumption. Correlation analysis on the empirical and simulated networks shows strong relationships among the metrics. Their relationships are consistent across disciplines. The metrics can be categorized into three groups according to the strength of their correlations, where Degree Centrality, H-index, and Coreness are in one group, Betweenness Centrality, Clustering Coefficient, and frequency in another, and Weighted PageRank by itself. Regression analysis on the simulation networks reveals that network topology properties, such as connectivity, sparsity, and aggregation, influence the relationships among selected metrics. In addition, when comparing the top keywords ranked by the metrics in the three disciplines, we found the metrics exhibit different discriminative capacity. Coreness and H-index may be better suited for categorizing keywords rather than ranking keywords. Findings from this study contribute to a better understanding of the relationships among different metrics and provide guidance for using them effectively in different contexts.

[1]  Daniel Teodorescu,et al.  Beyond the Impact Factor: measuring the international visibility of Romanian social sciences journals , 2016, Scientometrics.

[2]  Bart De Moor,et al.  Towards mapping library and information science , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[3]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance , 2005, Science.

[4]  E. Garfield.  Citation Indexing for Studying Science , 1970, Nature.

[5]  Jane Cho,et al.  Intellectual structure of the institutional repository field: A co-word analysis , 2014, J. Inf. Sci..

[6]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[7]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  K-core Decomposition: a Tool for the Visualization of Large Scale Networks , 2005, ArXiv.

[8]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[9]  Wei Cai,et al.  Analyzing the structure of earthquake network by k-core decomposition , 2015 .

[10]  Antonio Gabriel López-Herrera,et al.  Sketching the first 45 years of the journal Psychophysiology (1964-2008): a co-word-based analysis. , 2011, Psychophysiology.

[11]  Andrew Lim,et al.  A multidimensional approach to evaluating management journals: Refining pagerank via the differentiation of citation types and identifying the roles that management journals play , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Pajek - Program for Large Network Analysis , 1999 .

[13]  Bin Liang,et al.  Searching for people to follow in social networks , 2014, Expert Syst. Appl..

[14]  A. Telcs,et al.  Lobby index in networks , 2008, 0809.0514.

[15]  Patrik Midlöv,et al.  Safer drug use in primary care - a pilot intervention study to identify improvement needs and make agreements for change in five Swedish primary care units , 2016, BMC Family Practice.

[16]  Donghai Guan,et al.  Global Rating Prediction Mechanism for Trust-Aware Recommender System using K-Shell Decomposition , 2013 .

[17]  Kun Lu,et al.  Random walk on co‐word network: Ranking terms using structural features , 2015, ASIST.

[18]  Jilong Xue,et al.  A Topology Construct and Control Model with Small-World and Scale-Free Concepts for Heterogeneous Sensor Networks , 2014, Int. J. Distributed Sens. Networks.

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

[20]  Dennis N. Ocholla,et al.  Article in Press G Model Journal of Informetrics Can Information Ethics Be Conceptualized by Using the Core/periphery Model? , 2022 .

[21]  Linyuan Lü,et al.  Empirical analysis on a keyword-based semantic system , 2008, 0801.4163.

[22]  Weijun Wang,et al.  Research characteristics and status on social media in China: A bibliometric and co-word analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

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

[24]  Qian-Jin Zong,et al.  Doctoral dissertations of Library and Information Science in China: A co-word analysis , 2012, Scientometrics.

[25]  Qiang Yao,et al.  Knowledge structure and theme trends analysis on general practitioner research: A Co-word perspective , 2016, BMC Family Practice.

[26]  Hui-Ling Wang,et al.  A co-word analysis of digital library field in China , 2012, Scientometrics.

[27]  Ying Ding,et al.  Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis , 2009 .

[28]  Jiancheng Guan,et al.  A bibliometric study of service innovation research: based on complex network analysis , 2012, Scientometrics.

[29]  Luciano A. Digiampietri,et al.  “Brazilian style science”—an analysis of the difference between Brazilian and international Computer Science departments and graduate programs using social networks analysis and bibliometrics , 2017, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[30]  Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo,et al.  Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962–2008: a co-word analysis , 2012 .

[31]  Marie-Angèle De Looze,et al.  Corpus relevance through co-word analysis: An application to plant proteints , 1997, Scientometrics.

[32]  Chen Cai,et al.  A Social Network Approach to Software Development Risk Correlation Analysis , 2012, 2012 Fifth International Conference on Business Intelligence and Financial Engineering.

[33]  Steven A. Morris,et al.  Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: A growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka's law , 2007 .

[34]  Jian Qin.  Semantic similarities between a keyword database and a controlled vocabulary database: an investigation in the antibiotic resistance literature , 2000 .

[35]  Michael Mitzenmacher,et al.  A Brief History of Generative Models for Power Law and Lognormal Distributions , 2004, Internet Math..

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

[37]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts: A case study on the limitations of the Journal Impact Factor , 2009 .

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

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

[40]  Hadi Sharif Moghaddam,et al.  Intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrics: A co-word analysis , 2017, Inf. Process. Manag..

[41]  Jinho Choi,et al.  Analysis of keyword networks in MIS research and implications for predicting knowledge evolution , 2011, Inf. Manag..

[42]  Tim S. Evans,et al.  Modelling citation networks , 2014, Scientometrics.

[43]  Min Song,et al.  Detecting the knowledge structure of bioinformatics by mining full-text collections , 2012, Scientometrics.

[44]  Chao Long,et al.  Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[45]  Antonio Gabriel López-Herrera,et al.  Applying an automatic approach for showing up the hidden themes in financial marketing research (1961-2010) , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[46]  Tao Zhou,et al.  The H-index of a network node and its relation to degree and coreness , 2016, Nature Communications.

[47]  Stefano Nasini,et al.  Research impact in co-authorship networks: a two-mode analysis , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[48]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[49]  Guangyuan Fu,et al.  A new method to construct co-author networks , 2015 .

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

[51]  Kan Liu,et al.  Magnetic nanoparticles research: a scientometric analysis of development trends and research fronts , 2016, Scientometrics.

[52]  H. Simon,et al.  ON A CLASS OF SKEW DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS , 1955 .

[53]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[54]  Ying Ding,et al.  Scholarly Networks Analysis , 2014, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.