Priority choice and research front specialties in physics

Vlachý, Jan

doi:10.1007/bf01590485

Cited by 19 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The indicators include the number of recent documents, average publication year, etc. (Small & Sweeney, 1985;Vlachy, 1984aVlachy, , 1984b. CiteSpace, which is based on the citation frequency of scientific papers and the citation analysis theory, has been designed to detect discipline research hotspots (Chen, 2005).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on identification of potential knowledge growth points in information science

2021

DSI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific system's complexity makes it impossible to solve social problems by a single discipline independently, and interdisciplinary knowledge cooperation and innovation become an indispensable research mode of modern science. Identifying the potential interdisciplinary knowledge association is the key to promoting interdisciplinary cooperation. In this paper, based on analyzing the growth points of science, "knowledge growth point" is defined as the growth point of science that produces new knowledge, and its fundamental attributes and evaluation indexes have been analyzed. In contrast, the "interdisciplinary knowledge growth point" is defined as the introduction of related interdisciplinary concepts, theories, techniques, and methods, to conduct integrated research of key knowledge points of active disciplines, to generate growth point of innovative knowledge, and analyze its related research status. The identification of "potential interdisciplinary knowledge growth points" is helpful to promote knowledge innovation. Therefore, it is intended to analyze the identification methods of the generation of key knowledge nodes of the element of disciplines and interdisciplinary related knowledge, and explore quantitative and qualitative consultation to identify potential interdisciplinary knowledge growth points.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on identification of potential knowledge growth points in information science

2021

DSI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since then, scholars have made efforts to identify research fronts from various points of view. Small and Griffith (1974) considered co-citation clusters as research fronts; Vlachý (1984) summarized prior research on scientometric studies on research fronts detection and pointed out that "science grows from a very thin skin of its research front" and "a core body of seminal literature" constitutes "a sort of epidermal layer, an active research front" (p. 95). Garfield (1994) pointed out that research fronts are co-citation clusters plus citing articles; Morris et al (2003) applied bibliographic coupling methods to identify the research fronts; Shibata et al (2008) proposed that research fronts are direct citation clusters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usage Count: A New Indicator to Detect Research Fronts

Qiu

Yuan

2017

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Research fronts build on recent work, but using times cited as a traditional indicator to detect research fronts will inevitably result in a certain time lag. This study attempts to explore the effects of usage count as a new indicator to detect research fronts in shortening the time lag of classic indicators in research fronts detection.Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory study was conducted where the new indicator "usage count" was compared to the traditional citation count, "times cited," in detecting research fronts of the regenerative medicine domain. An initial topic search of the term "regenerative medicine" returned 10,553 records published between 2000 and 2015 in the Web of Science (WoS). We first ranked these records with usage count and times cited, respectively, and selected the top 2,000 records for each. We then performed a co-citation analysis in order to obtain the citing papers of the co-citation clusters as the research fronts. Finally, we compared the average publication year of the citing papers as well as the mean cited year of the co-citation clusters. F indings:T he citing articles detected by usage count tend to be published more recently compared with times cited within the same research front. Moreover, research fronts detected by usage count tend to be within the last two years, which presents a higher immediacy and real-time feature compared to times cited. There is approximately a three-year time span among the mean cited years (known as "intellectual base") of all clusters generated by usage count and this figure is about four years in the network of times cited. In comparison to times cited, usage count is a dynamic and instant indicator. Research limitations:We are trying to find the cutting-edge research fronts, but those generated based on co-citations may refer to the hot research fronts. The usage count of older highly cited papers was not taken into consideration, because the usage count indicator released by WoS only reflects usage logs after February 2013. Practical implications:The article provides a new perspective on using usage count as a new indicator to detect research fronts.

show abstract

Citation classics in physics interviewed 1977-mid 1984

Vlachý¹

1984

Czech J Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Priority choice and research front specialties in physics

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Research on identification of potential knowledge growth points in information science

Research on identification of potential knowledge growth points in information science

Usage Count: A New Indicator to Detect Research Fronts

Citation classics in physics interviewed 1977-mid 1984

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About