Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other

This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the simi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012-07, Vol.63 (7), p.1313-1326
Main Authors: Yan, Erjia, Ding, Ying
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analogies
Bibliographic coupling
Bibliographies
Bibliometrics
Bibliometrics. Scientometrics
Bibliometrics. Scientometrics. Evaluation
citation networks
Citations
Co authorship
co-citation analysis
Cocitation
Comparative analysis
Comparisons
Coupling
Exact sciences and technology
Information and communication sciences
Information science
Information science. Documentation
Interpersonal communication
joint authorship
Library and information science. General aspects
network analysis
Networks
Researchers
Scholarly communication
Scholarly publishing
Scholars
Sciences and techniques of general use
Similarity
Social networks
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation‐based versus noncitation‐based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.
ISSN:1532-2882
2330-1635
1532-2890
2330-1643
DOI:10.1002/asi.22680