Mapping of science by combined co‐citation and word analysis. I. Structural aspects

The claim that co‐citation analysis is a useful tool to map subject‐matter specialties of scientific research in a given period, is examined. A method has been developed using quantitative analysis of content‐words related to publications in order to: (1) study coherence of research topics within sets of publications citing clusters, i.e., (part of) the “current work” of a specialty; (2) to study differences in research topics between sets of publications citing different clusters; and (3) to evaluate recall of “current work” publications concerning the specialties identified by co‐citation analysis. Empirical support is found for the claim that co‐citation analysis identifies indeed subject‐matter specialties. However, different clusters may identify the same specialty, and results are far from complete concerning the identified “current work.” These results are in accordance with the opinion of some experts in the fields. Low recall of co‐citation analysis concerning the “current work” of specialties is shown to be related to the way in which researchers build their work on earlier publications: the “missed” publications equally build on very recent earlier work, but are less “consensual” and/or less “attentive” in their referencing practice. Evaluation of national research performance using co‐citation analysis appears to be biased by this “incompleteness.” © 1991 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.