IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v82y2010i3d10.1007_s11192-010-0177-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delineation of the genomics field by hybrid citation-lexical methods: interaction with experts and validation process

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Laurens

    (Observatoire des sciences et des techniques (OST))

  • Michel Zitt

    (Observatoire des sciences et des techniques (OST)
    INRA SAE2 LERECO—Unit 1134)

  • Elise Bassecoulard

    (INRA SAE2 LERECO—Unit 1134)

Abstract

In advanced methods of delineation and mapping of scientific fields, hybrid methods open a promising path to the capitalisation of advantages of approaches based on words and citations. One way to validate the hybrid approaches is to work in cooperation with experts of the fields under scrutiny. We report here an experiment in the field of genomics, where a corpus of documents has been built by a hybrid citation-lexical method, and then clustered into research themes. Experts of the field were associated in the various stages of the process: lexical queries for building the initial set of documents, the seed; citation-based extension aiming at reducing silence; final clustering to identify noise and allow discussion on border areas. The analysis of experts’ advices show a high level of validation of the process, which combines a high-precision and low-recall seed, obtained by journal and lexical queries, and a citation-based extension enhancing the recall. This findings on the genomics field suggest that hybrid methods can efficiently retrieve a corpus of relevant literature, even in complex and emerging fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Laurens & Michel Zitt & Elise Bassecoulard, 2010. "Delineation of the genomics field by hybrid citation-lexical methods: interaction with experts and validation process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 647-662, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:82:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0177-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0177-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0177-9
    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/s11192-010-0177-9?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. Dag W. Aksnes & Terje Bruen Olsen & Per O. Seglen, 2000. "Validation of Bibliometric Indicators in the Field of Microbiology: A Norwegian Case Study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 7-22, August.
    2. 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.
    3. T N van Leeuwen & L J van der Wurff & A F J van Raan, 2001. "The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 195-201, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2014. "Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 395-422, September.
    2. Gallo, Julie Le & Plunket, Anne, 2020. "Regional gatekeepers, inventor networks and inventive performance: Spatial and organizational channels," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    3. Cassi, Lorenzo & Plunket, Anne, 2010. "The determinants of co-inventor tie formation: proximity and network dynamics," MPRA Paper 27303, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2015. "Research Collaboration in Co-inventor Networks: Combining Closure, Bridging and Proximities," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(6), pages 936-954, June.
    5. Wolfgang Glänzel, 2015. "Bibliometrics-aided retrieval: where information retrieval meets scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2215-2222, March.
    6. Luiz Gustavo Antonio Souza & Márcia Azanha Ferraz Dias Moraes & Maria Ester Soares Dal Poz & José Maria Ferreira Jardim Silveira, 2015. "Collaborative Networks as a measure of the Innovation Systems in second-generation ethanol," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 355-372, May.
    7. Julie Le Gallo & Anne Plunket, 2016. "Technological gatekeepers, regional inventor networks and inventive performance," Working Papers hal-01422916, HAL.
    8. Santiago Ruiz-Navas & Kumiko Miyazaki, 2018. "A complement to lexical query’s search-term selection for emerging technologies: the case of “big data”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 141-162, October.
    9. Michel Zitt, 2015. "Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2223-2245, March.

    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. Carmen López-Illescas & Ed C.M. Noyons & Martijn S. Visser & Félix De Moya-Anegón & Henk F. Moed, 2009. "Expansion of scientific journal categories using reference analysis: How can it be done and does it make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 473-490, June.
    2. Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.
    3. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    4. Grit Laudel, 2003. "Studying the brain drain: Can bibliometric methods help?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 215-237, June.
    5. Huang, Can & Notten, Ad & Rasters, Nico, 2008. "Nanotechnology Publications and Patents: A Review of Social Science Studies and Search Strategies," MERIT Working Papers 2008-058, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Cozzarin, Brian P., 2008. "Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 284-298, August.
    7. Lili Wang & Ad Notten & Alexandru Surpatean, 2013. "Interdisciplinarity of nano research fields: a keyword mining approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 877-892, March.
    8. Hamid R. Jamali & Ghasem Azadi-Ahmadabadi & Saeid Asadi, 2018. "Interdisciplinary relations of converging technologies: Nano–Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1055-1073, August.
    9. Wang, Lili & Notten, Ad, 2011. "Mapping the interdisciplinary nature and co-evolutionary patterns in five nano-industrial sectors," MERIT Working Papers 2011-029, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Philippe Jeannin & Joëlle Devillard, 2005. "Implementing relevant disciplinary evaluations in the social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(1), pages 121-144, March.
    11. Tomaz Bartol & Gordana Budimir & Primoz Juznic & Karmen Stopar, 2016. "Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 979-996, November.
    12. Laura I. Schultz & Frederick L. Joutz, 2010. "Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 155-170, October.
    13. Ronald N. Kostoff & Ryan B. Barth & Clifford G. Y. Lau, 2008. "Relation of seminal nanotechnology document production to total nanotechnology document production — South Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 43-67, July.
    14. Kreuchauff, Florian & Korzinov, Vladimir, 2015. "A patent search strategy based on machine learning for the emerging field of service robotics," Working Paper Series in Economics 71, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    15. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    16. Aksnes, Dag W. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Gunnarsson, Magnus, 2012. "Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 36-43.
    17. Muñoz-Écija, Teresa & Vargas-Quesada, Benjamín & Chinchilla Rodríguez, Zaida, 2019. "Coping with methods for delineating emerging fields: Nanoscience and nanotechnology as a case study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    18. 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.
    19. Julia Melkers & Fang Xiao, 2012. "Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 251-270, June.
    20. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.

    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:82:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0177-9. 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.