arXiv subjects

Nees Jan van Eck

Publications and source records attributed to Nees Jan van Eck.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2017

Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer

Clustering scientific publications in an important problem in bibliometric research. We demonstrate how two software tools, CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer, can be used to cluster publications and to analyze the resulting clustering solutions. CitNetExplorer is used to cluster a large set of publications in the field of astronomy and astrophysics. The publications are clustered based on direct citation relations. CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer are used together to analyze the resulting clustering solutions. Both tools use visualizations to support the analysis of the clustering solutions, with CitNetExplorer focusing on the analysis at the level of individual publications and VOSviewer focusing on the analysis at an aggregate level. The demonstration provided in this paper shows how a clustering of publications can be created and analyzed using freely available software tools. Using the approach presented in this paper, bibliometricians are able to carry out sophisticated cluster analyses without the need to have a deep knowledge of clustering techniques and without requiring advanced computer skills.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting

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.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

The elephant in the room: The problem of quantifying productivity in evaluative scientometrics

In a critical and provocative paper, Abramo and D'Angelo claim that commonly used scientometric indicators such as the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) are completely inappropriate as indicators of scientific performance. Abramo and D'Angelo argue that scientific performance should be quantified using indicators that take into account the productivity of a research unit. We provide a response to Abramo and D'Angelo, indicating where we believe they raise important issues, but also pointing out where we believe their claims to be too extreme.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Clustering scientific publications based on citation relations: A systematic comparison of different methods

Clustering methods are applied regularly in the bibliometric literature to identify research areas or scientific fields. These methods are for instance used to group publications into clusters based on their relations in a citation network. In the network science literature, many clustering methods, often referred to as graph partitioning or community detection techniques, have been developed. Focusing on the problem of clustering the publications in a citation network, we present a systematic comparison of the performance of a large number of these clustering methods. Using a number of different citation networks, some of them relatively small and others very large, we extensively study the statistical properties of the results provided by different methods. In addition, we also carry out an expert-based assessment of the results produced by different methods. The expert-based assessment focuses on publications in the field of scientometrics. Our findings seem to indicate that there is a trade-off between different properties that may be considered desirable for a good clustering of publications. Overall, map equation methods appear to perform best in our analysis, suggesting that these methods deserve more attention from the bibliometric community.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to Web of Science

The results of bibliometric studies provided by bibliometric research groups, e.g. the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ), are often used in the process of research assessment. Their databases use Web of Science (WoS) citation data, which they match according to their own matching algorithms - in the case of CWTS for standard usage in their studies and in the case of iFQ on an experimental basis. Since the problem of non-matched citations in WoS persists because of inaccuracies in the references or inaccuracies introduced in the data extraction process, it is important to ascertain how well these inaccuracies are rectified in these citation matching algorithms. This paper evaluates the algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to WoS in a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. The analysis builds upon the methodology and the manually verified corpus of a previous study. The algorithm of CWTS performs best, closely followed by that of iFQ. The WoS algorithm still performs quite well (F1 score: 96.41 percent), but shows deficits in matching references containing inaccuracies. An additional problem is posed by incorrectly provided cited reference information in source articles by WoS.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method

Bibliometric studies often rely on field-normalized citation impact indicators in order to make comparisons between scientific fields. We discuss the connection between field normalization and the choice of a counting method for handling publications with multiple co-authors. Our focus is on the choice between full counting and fractional counting. Based on an extensive theoretical and empirical analysis, we argue that properly field-normalized results cannot be obtained when full counting is used. Fractional counting does provide results that are properly field normalized. We therefore recommend the use of fractional counting in bibliometric studies that require field normalization, especially in studies at the level of countries and research organizations. We also compare different variants of fractional counting. In general, it seems best to use either the author-level or the address-level variant of fractional counting.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2014

CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks

We present CitNetExplorer, a new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks of scientific publications. CitNetExplorer can for instance be used to study the development of a research field, to delineate the literature on a research topic, and to support literature reviewing. We first introduce the main concepts that need to be understood when working with CitNetExplorer. We then demonstrate CitNetExplorer by using the tool to analyze the scientometric literature and the literature on community detection in networks. Finally, we discuss some technical details on the construction, visualization, and analysis of citation networks in CitNetExplorer.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection

We introduce a new algorithm for modularity-based community detection in large networks. The algorithm, which we refer to as a smart local moving algorithm, takes advantage of a well-known local moving heuristic that is also used by other algorithms. Compared with these other algorithms, our proposed algorithm uses the local moving heuristic in a more sophisticated way. Based on an analysis of a diverse set of networks, we show that our smart local moving algorithm identifies community structures with higher modularity values than other algorithms for large-scale modularity optimization, among which the popular 'Louvain algorithm' introduced by Blondel et al. (2008). The computational efficiency of our algorithm makes it possible to perform community detection in networks with tens of millions of nodes and hundreds of millions of edges. Our smart local moving algorithm also performs well in small and medium-sized networks. In short computing times, it identifies community structures with modularity values equally high as, or almost as high as, the highest values reported in the literature, and sometimes even higher than the highest values found in the literature.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2013

Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research

Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. Methodology: A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Results: Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Conclusions: Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Counting publications and citations: Is more always better?

Is more always better? We address this question in the context of bibliometric indices that aim to assess the scientific impact of individual researchers by counting their number of highly cited publications. We propose a simple model in which the number of citations of a publication depends not only on the scientific impact of the publication but also on other 'random' factors. Our model indicates that more need not always be better. It turns out that the most influential researchers may have a systematically lower performance, in terms of highly cited publications, than some of their less influential colleagues. The model also suggests an improved way of counting highly cited publications.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators

We address the question how citation-based bibliometric indicators can best be normalized to ensure fair comparisons between publications from different scientific fields and different years. In a systematic large-scale empirical analysis, we compare a traditional normalization approach based on a field classification system with three source normalization approaches. We pay special attention to the selection of the publications included in the analysis. Publications in national scientific journals, popular scientific magazines, and trade magazines are not included. Unlike earlier studies, we use algorithmically constructed classification systems to evaluate the different normalization approaches. Our analysis shows that a source normalization approach based on the recently introduced idea of fractional citation counting does not perform well. Two other source normalization approaches generally outperform the classification-system-based normalization approach that we study. Our analysis therefore offers considerable support for the use of source-normalized bibliometric indicators.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2012

Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison

Different scientific fields have different citation practices. Citation-based bibliometric indicators need to normalize for such differences between fields in order to allow for meaningful between-field comparisons of citation impact. Traditionally, normalization for field differences has usually been done based on a field classification system. In this approach, each publication belongs to one or more fields and the citation impact of a publication is calculated relative to the other publications in the same field. Recently, the idea of source normalization was introduced, which offers an alternative approach to normalize for field differences. In this approach, normalization is done by looking at the referencing behavior of citing publications or citing journals. In this paper, we provide an overview of a number of source normalization approaches and we empirically compare these approaches with a traditional normalization approach based on a field classification system. We also pay attention to the issue of the selection of the journals to be included in a normalization for field differences. Our analysis indicates a number of problems of the traditional classification-system-based normalization approach, suggesting that source normalization approaches may yield more accurate results.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2012

Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator

The SNIP (source normalized impact per paper) indicator is an indicator of the citation impact of scientific journals. The indicator, introduced by Henk Moed in 2010, is included in Elsevier's Scopus database. The SNIP indicator uses a source normalized approach to correct for differences in citation practices between scientific fields. The strength of this approach is that it does not require a field classification system in which the boundaries of fields are explicitly defined. In this paper, a number of modifications that will be made to the SNIP indicator are explained, and the advantages of the resulting revised SNIP indicator are pointed out. It is argued that the original SNIP indicator has some counterintuitive properties, and it is shown mathematically that the revised SNIP indicator does not have these properties. Empirically, the differences between the original SNIP indicator and the revised one turn out to be relatively small, although some systematic differences can be observed. Relations with other source normalized indicators proposed in the literature are discussed as well.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2012

Research collaboration and the expanding science grid: Measuring globalization processes worldwide

This paper applies a new model and analytical tool to measure and study contemporary globalization processes in collaborative science - a world in which scientists, scholars, technicians and engineers interact within a 'grid' of interconnected research sites and collaboration networks. The building blocks of our metrics are the cities where scientific research is conducted, as mentioned in author addresses on research publications. The unit of analysis is the geographical distance between those cities. In our macro-level trend analysis, covering the years 2000-2010, we observe that research collaboration distances have been increasing, while the share of collaborative contacts with foreign cities has leveled off. Collaboration distances and growth rates differ significantly between countries and between fields of science. The application of a distance metrics to compare and track these processes opens avenues for further studies, both at the meso-level and at the micro-level, into how research collaboration patterns and trends are driving and shaping the connectivity fabric of world science.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2012

A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science

Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the Web of Science subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal-level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost ten million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations, for instance based on bibliographic coupling.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2012

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking, and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2011

Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer

VOSviewer is a computer program for creating, visualizing, and exploring bibliometric maps of science. In this report, the new text mining functionality of VOSviewer is presented. A number of examples are given of applications in which VOSviewer is used for analyzing large amounts of text data.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2011

Universality of citation distributions revisited

Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano [arXiv:0806.0974, PNAS 105(45), 17268] claim that, apart from a scaling factor, all fields of science are characterized by the same citation distribution. We present a large-scale validation study of this universality-of-citation-distributions claim. Our analysis shows that claiming citation distributions to be universal for all fields of science is not warranted. Although many fields indeed seem to have fairly similar citation distributions, there are quite some exceptions as well. We also briefly discuss the consequences of our findings for the measurement of scientific impact using citation-based bibliometric indicators.

cs.DL↗