IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i1d10.1007_s11192-015-1774-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Central journals and authors in communication using a publication network

Author

Listed:
  • Darrin J. Griffin

    (University of Alabama)

  • San Bolkan

    (California State University)

  • Jennifer L. Holmgren

    (Long Beach City College)

  • Frank Tutzauer

    (University at Buffalo, SUNY)

Abstract

The current study used citation data and relied on network analysis to determine centrality scores for 24 communication journals and the authors of their publications during the years 2007–2011. Scores were used to rank journals and authors across the discipline. The results of centrality rankings reveal that Journal of Communication, Communication Research, Communication Research Reports, Human Communication Research, and Communication Studies are the central most journals in the citation network. Across these 24 journals, the top 1 % of central most scholars are presented in rank based on the placement of their publications. An additional list ranks the 14 central most (1 %) of scholars who published in the five central most journals. These centrality rankings for the journals and authors are discussed in comparison to previous ranking methods. The results for the central most journals mirror the findings of other network analysis research relying on various citation data. However, the findings for author centrality rankings revealed that traditional methods (e.g., summing total publications) for ranking communication scholars yield drastically different results when compared to centrality rankings (incorporating breadth of publications across journals). Future attempts to situate prolific authors should consider the conceptual utility of relying on network analysis methods to analyze citation data. The limitations of this study are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Darrin J. Griffin & San Bolkan & Jennifer L. Holmgren & Frank Tutzauer, 2016. "Central journals and authors in communication using a publication network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 91-104, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1774-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1774-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1774-4
    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/s11192-015-1774-4?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. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 257-271, February.
    2. Abbasi, Alireza & Altmann, Jörn & Hossain, Liaquat, 2011. "Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 594-607.
    3. Fuyuki Yoshikane & Takayuki Nozawa & Keita Tsuji, 2006. "Comparative analysis of co-authorship networks considering authors' roles in collaboration: Differences between the theoretical and application areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 643-655, September.
    4. Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez & Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2010. "Detecting, identifying and visualizing research groups in co-authorship networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 307-319, February.
    5. Thomas Hugh Feeley & Katherine Hart LaVail & George A. Barnett, 2011. "Predicting faculty job centrality in communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 303-314, May.
    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. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    2. Manuel Goyanes & Márton Demeter & Aurea Grané & Irene Albarrán-Lozano & Homero Gil de Zúñiga, 2020. "A mathematical approach to assess research diversity: operationalization and applicability in communication sciences, political science, and beyond," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2299-2322, December.
    3. Darrin J. Griffin & Zachary W. Arth & Samuel D. Hakim & Brian C. Britt & James N. Gilbreath & Mackenzie P. Pike & Andrew J. Laningham & Fareed Bordbar & Sage Hart & San Bolkan, 2021. "Collaborations in communication: Authorship credit allocation via a weighted fractional count procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4355-4372, May.
    4. Keeheon Lee & Hyojung Jung & Min Song, 2016. "Subject–method topic network analysis in communication studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1761-1787, December.
    5. Massimiliano Ferrara & Roberto Mavilia & Bruno Antonio Pansera, 2017. "Extracting knowledge patterns with a social network analysis approach: an alternative methodology for assessing the impact of power inventors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1593-1625, December.

    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. Liliana Arroyo Moliner & Eva Gallardo-Gallardo & Pedro Gallo de Puelles, 2017. "Understanding scientific communities: a social network approach to collaborations in Talent Management research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1439-1462, December.
    2. Fernando Martín-Alcázar & Marta Ruiz-Martínez & Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey, 2019. "Assessing social capital in academic research teams: a measurement instrument proposal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 917-935, November.
    3. Marjan Cugmas & Anuška Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger, 2016. "The stability of co-authorship structures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 163-186, January.
    4. Zewen Hu & Angela Lin & Peter Willett, 2019. "Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    6. Lu, Wei & Ren, Yan & Huang, Yong & Bu, Yi & Zhang, Yuehan, 2021. "Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    7. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    8. Vinayak, & Raghuvanshi, Adarsh & kshitij, Avinash, 2023. "Signatures of capacity development through research collaborations in artificial intelligence and machine learning," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    9. Gao, Qiang & Liang, Zhentao & Wang, Ping & Hou, Jingrui & Chen, Xiuxiu & Liu, Manman, 2021. "Potential index: Revealing the future impact of research topics based on current knowledge networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    10. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    11. Michael Zhang, 2021. "Announcement of Retraction," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Ryan M. Hynes & Bernardo S. Buarque & Ronald B. Davies & Dieter F. Kogler, 2020. "Hops, Skip & a Jump - The Regional Uniqueness of Beer Styles," Working Papers 202013, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    13. Esther Hormiga & Petra Saá-Pérez & Nieves L. Díaz-Díaz & José Luis Ballesteros-Rodríguez & Inmaculada Aguiar-Diaz, 2017. "The influence of entrepreneurial orientation on the performance of academic research groups: the mediating role of knowledge sharing," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 10-32, February.
    14. Teja Koler-Povh & Primož Južnič & Goran Turk, 2014. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1033-1045, February.
    15. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    16. Jianhua Hou, 2017. "Exploration into the evolution and historical roots of citation analysis by referenced publication year spectroscopy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1437-1452, March.
    17. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Judit Bar-Ilan: information scientist, computer scientist, scientometrician," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1235-1244, December.
    18. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    19. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    20. J.R. Clark & Joshua C. Hall & Ashley S. Harrison, 2017. "The Relative Value of AER P&P Economic Education Papers," Working Papers 17-23, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.

    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:106:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1774-4. 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.