Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting

Abstract

The analysis of bibliometric networks, such as co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks, has received a considerable amount of attention. Much less attention has been paid to the construction of these networks. We point out that different approaches can be taken to construct a bibliometric network. Normally the full counting approach is used, but we propose an alternative fractional counting approach. The basic idea of the fractional counting approach is that each action, such as co-authoring or citing a publication, should have equal weight, regardless of for instance the number of authors, citations, or references of a publication. We present two empirical analyses in which the full and fractional counting approaches yield very different results. These analyses deal with co-authorship networks of universities and bibliographic coupling networks of journals. Based on theoretical considerations and on the empirical analyses, we conclude that for many purposes the fractional counting approach is preferable over the full counting one.

Identification and Visualization of the Intellectual Structure in Graphene Research

“…That is, it better reflected what is actually the subject of study, not just the field covered by the Journal at hand, as would be the case with full counting. A similar conclusion was drawn by Perianes-Rodriguez et al (2016) regarding other units of analysis.…”

Bibliometric Analysis of Global Remote Sensing Research during 2010–2015

“…The data collection was conducted on 8 September 2016. The analysis tools adopted in this study include the Thomson Data Analyzer (TDA) [24], Excel, and VOSViewer [19]. In order to reflect the citation times of the publications, the data sources used in our study were separated into two parts: WP and HCP.…”

Travel bans and scientific mobility: utility of asymmetry and affinity indexes to inform science policy

“…We also plan to analyze positions occupied in the bylines of co-authorship, the impact of publications as a result of these relationships, the institutional reputation of destinations, and the degree to which topic changes occur as a result of these interactions. At the methodological level, approaches with different counting methods (Perianes-Rodriguez et al 2016) and scale-adjusted metrics will be explored in order to assure an accurate comparison of relational capacities of countries with different sizes and capacities (Katz 2000;Archambault et al 2011;Finardi and Buratti 2016). There are also several other elements, such as the thematic specialization of science, which should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative preferences between countries (Glänzel 2000;Radosevic and Yoruk 2014).…”