IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03798-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of first and all-author bibliographic coupling analysis based on Scientometrics

Author

Listed:
  • Song Yanhui

    (Hangzhou Dianzi University)

  • Wu Lijuan

    (Hangzhou Dianzi University)

  • Qiu Junping

    (Hangzhou Dianzi University)

Abstract

This paper takes 2,876 papers published in Scientometrics as the sample, and the time span of these papers is nearly ten years. We have studied the intellectual structure and development trend of Scientometrics in two periods within five years, and made an empirical exploration and comparison of two methods of author bibliographic coupling methods—first author bibliographic coupling (FABCA) and all authors bibliographic coupling (AABCA). The results show that the intellectual structure of Scientometrics in the two periods are relatively stable, but the intellectual structure of the latter period is clearer, and the correlation and integration of the research topics is stronger than that of the previous period. There is a strong correlation between AABCA and FABCA, but each has its own characteristics, and there are subtle differences between them. The similarity between them can be found by authors rank correlation analysis, the cosine similarity analysis, and discipline research topic detection. However, the factor models fitting analysis, research topics detection and evolution show that there are differences between them. AABCA is sensitive to the discovery of research hotspots, and can detect more research topics than FABCA. While FABCA has advantages over AABCA in reflecting the frontier and innovation of the discipline. It can provide more information. Therefore, FABCA and AABCA have their own characteristics and cannot be replaced. The combination of the two methods is a powerful and effective research method to explore the intellectual structure and evolution trend of the discipline.

Suggested Citation

  • Song Yanhui & Wu Lijuan & Qiu Junping, 2021. "A comparative study of first and all-author bibliographic coupling analysis based on Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1125-1147, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03798-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03798-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03798-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03798-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bo Jarneving, 2005. "A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(2), pages 245-263, November.
    2. Sridhar P. Nerur & Abdul A. Rasheed & Vivek Natarajan, 2008. "The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: an author co‐citation analysis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 319-336, March.
    3. Ma, Ruimin, 2012. "Author bibliographic coupling analysis: A test based on a Chinese academic database," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 532-542.
    4. Mu-hsuan Huang & Chia-Pin Chang, 2015. "A comparative study on detecting research fronts in the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) field using bibliographic coupling and co-citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2041-2057, March.
    5. Acedo, Francisco José & Casillas, José Carlos, 2005. "Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 619-639, October.
    6. M. M. Kessler, 1963. "Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 10-25, January.
    7. Howard D. White, 2003. "Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(5), pages 423-434, March.
    8. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    9. Zhao, Dangzhi & Strotmann, Andreas, 2008. "Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 229-239.
    10. Elise Bassecoulard & Alain Lelu & Michel Zitt, 2007. "Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 859-880, March.
    11. Yu-Wei Chang & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chiao-Wen Lin, 2015. "Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2071-2087, December.
    12. Katherine W. McCain, 1990. "Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 433-443, September.
    13. Ali Gazni & Fereshteh Didegah, 2016. "The relationship between authors’ bibliographic coupling and citation exchange: analyzing disciplinary differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 609-626, May.
    14. Howard D. White, 2001. "Authors as citers over time," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(2), pages 87-108.
    15. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2008. "Information science during the first decade of the web: An enriched author cocitation analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(6), pages 916-937, April.
    16. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2014. "The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 995-1006, May.
    17. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2012. "Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1313-1326, July.
    18. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2012. "Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1313-1326, July.
    19. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    20. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2008. "Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: Introducing author bibliographic‐coupling analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(13), pages 2070-2086, November.
    21. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    22. Jeong, Yoo Kyung & Song, Min & Ding, Ying, 2014. "Content-based author co-citation analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 197-211.
    23. Osmo Kuusi & Martin Meyer, 2007. "Anticipating technological breakthroughs: Using bibliographic coupling to explore the nanotubes paradigm," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 759-777, March.
    24. Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen & Peter Ingwersen, 2009. "A comparative study of first and all-author co-citation counting, and two different matrix generation approaches applied for author co-citation analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(1), pages 103-130, July.
    25. Howard D. White & Belver C. Griffith, 1981. "Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 32(3), pages 163-171, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    2. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    3. Wang, Feifei & Jia, Chenran & Wang, Xiaohan & Liu, Junwan & Xu, Shuo & Liu, Yang & Yang, Chenyuyan, 2019. "Exploring all-author tripartite citation networks: A case study of gene editing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 856-873.
    4. Pin Li & Guoli Yang & Chuanqi Wang, 2019. "Visual topical analysis of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1753-1791, December.
    5. Bu, Yi & Ni, Shaokang & Huang, Win-bin, 2017. "Combining multiple scholarly relationships with author cocitation analysis: A preliminary exploration on improving knowledge domain mappings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 810-822.
    6. Yu-Wei Chang & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chiao-Wen Lin, 2015. "Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2071-2087, December.
    7. Yang, Siluo & Wang, Feifei, 2015. "Visualizing information science: Author direct citation analysis in China and around the world," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 208-225.
    8. Prathap, Gangan & Ujum, Ephrance Abu & Kumar, Sameer & Ratnavelu, Kuru, 2021. "Scoring the resourcefulness of researchers using bibliographic coupling patterns," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    9. Yun, Jinhyuk & Ahn, Sejung & Lee, June Young, 2020. "Return to basics: Clustering of scientific literature using structural information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    10. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    11. Ali Gazni & Fereshteh Didegah, 2016. "The relationship between authors’ bibliographic coupling and citation exchange: analyzing disciplinary differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 609-626, May.
    12. Tsung-Ming Hsiao & Kuang-hua Chen, 2020. "The dynamics of research subfields for library and information science: an investigation based on word bibliographic coupling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 717-737, October.
    13. Bo Liu & Wei Song & Qian Sun, 2022. "Status, Trend, and Prospect of Global Farmland Abandonment Research: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-30, November.
    14. Hervas Oliver,Jose Luis & Gonzalez,Gregorio & Caja,Pedro, 2014. "Clusters and industrial districts: where is the literature going? Identifying emerging sub-fields of research," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201409, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    15. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    16. Yi Bu & Binglu Wang & Win-bin Huang & Shangkun Che & Yong Huang, 2018. "Using the appearance of citations in full text on author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 275-289, July.
    17. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    18. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    19. Liu, Yunmei & Yang, Liu & Chen, Min, 2021. "A new citation concept: Triangular citation in the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    20. Kim, Ha Jin & Jeong, Yoo Kyung & Song, Min, 2016. "Content- and proximity-based author co-citation analysis using citation sentences," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 954-966.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03798-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.