A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks

Abstract

We use a technique recently developed by Blondel et al. (2008) in order to detect scientific specialties from author cocitation networks. This algorithm has distinct advantages over most of the previous methods used to obtain cocitation "clusters", since it avoids the use of similarity measures, relies entirely on the topology of the weighted network and can be applied to relatively large networks. Most importantly, it requires no subjective interpretation of the cocitation data or of the communities found. Using two examples, we show that the resulting specialties are the smallest coherent "group" of researchers (within a hierarchy of cluster sizes) and can thus be identified unambiguously. Furthermore, we confirm that these communities are indeed representative of what we know about the structure of a given scientific discipline and that, as specialties, they can be accurately characterized by a few keywords (from the publication titles). We argue that this robust and efficient algorithm is particularly well-suited to cocitation networks, and that the results generated can be of great use to researchers studying various facets of the structure and evolution of science.

The past is prologue: Moving on from Culture’s Consequences

“…Classical analysis and visualization techniques (e.g., exploratory factor analysis and multi-dimensional scaling) often benefit from a normalization of the proximity scores (Zupic & Čater, 2015). While the normalization is not always necessary for network analysis (Wallace, Gingras & Duhon, 2009) and j (Salton & McGill, 1986). …”

Macrodynamics of Economics: A Bibliometric History

“…Multidimensional scaling (MDS) in association with hierarchical clustering is often used (e.g., Kreuzman 2001), but it is much less effective when the corpus includes thousands of documents. Network analysis is a much more powerful method when used in conjunction with community detection techniques (Wallace, Gingras, and Duhon 2009). The nodes of the networks are documents and the intensity of the connections (the edges) between them is given by the bibliographic coupling of each pair of documents.…”

What a Decade (2006–15) Of Journal Abstracts Can Tell Us about Trends in Ocean and Coastal Sustainability Challenges and Solutions

“…While this exploratory research did not examine the composition of author citation networks (e.g., Wallace et al, 2009;Bruggeman et al, 2012), with ongoing technical advances in software for text citation analysis it may be possible in the not-too-distant future to more seamlessly integrate text mining and bibliometric approaches so as to facilitate co-authorship or bibliometric coupling information in more fine-scale analyses of the academic literature. Empirical research on the formation and composition of epistemic communities is relatively sparse in the environmental science (but see (Sandbrook et al, 2011;Reiners et al, 2015;Rudd, 2015b;Spruijt et al, 2016) as examples of empirical research on epistemic communities or in closely related fields).…”