Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science |
| |
| Authors: | Dangzhi Zhao Andreas Strotmann |
| |
| Institution: | aSchool of Library and Information Studies, University of Alberta, 3-20 Rutherford South, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2J4;bSchool of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2R6 |
| |
| Abstract: | Although it is generally understood that different citation counting methods can produce quite different author rankings, and although “optimal” author co-citation counting methods have been identified theoretically, studies that compare author co-citation counting methods in author co-citation analysis (ACA) studies are still rare. The present study applies strict all-author-based ACA to the Information Science (IS) field, in that all authors of all cited references in a classic IS dataset are counted, and in that even the diagonal values of the co-citation matrix are computed in their theoretically optimal form. Using Scopus instead of SSCI as the data source, we find that results from a theoretically optimal all-author ACA appear to be excellent in practice, too, although in a field like IS where co-authorship levels are relatively low, its advantages over classic first-author ACA appear considerably smaller than in the more highly collaborative ones targeted before. Nevertheless, we do find some differences between the two approaches, in that first-author ACA appears to favor theorists who presumably tend to work alone, while all-author ACA appears to paint a somewhat more recent picture of the field, and to pick out some collaborative author clusters. |
| |
| Keywords: | Author co-citation analysis Bibliometrics Information science Scopus Citation analysis |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
