Journal of the American Society for Information Science
Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995
Journal of the American Society for Information Science
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Author cocitation analysis and Pearson's r
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology - Special issue: Part II: Information seeking research
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology - Special issue: Part II: Information seeking research
Letter to the editor: Pearson's r and author cocitation analysis: a commentary on the controversy
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Similarity measures, author cocitation analysis, and information theory: Brief Communication
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Clustering methodologies for identifying country core competencies
Journal of Information Science
Can citation analysis of web publications better detect research fronts?
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Using field cocitation analysis to assess reciprocal and shared impact of LIS-MIS fields
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Appropriate similarity measures for author co-citation analysis
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Visualizing trends in knowledge management
KSEM'07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge science, engineering and management
Journal clustering through interlocking editorship information
Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem - Volume 47
Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem - Volume 47
Multi-modal social networks for modeling scientific fields
Scientometrics
Revealing themes and trends in the knowledge domain's intellectual structure
PKAW'06 Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition international conference on Advances in Knowledge Acquisition and Management
The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis
International Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In their article "Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient," Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau fault traditional author cocitation analysis (ACA) for using Pearson's r as a measure of similarity between authors because it fails two tests of stability of measurement. The instabilities arise when rs are recalculated after a first coherent group of authors has been augmented by a second coherent group with whom the first has little or no cocitation. However, AJ&R neither cluster nor map, their data to demonstrate how fluctuations in rs will mislead the analyst, and the problem they pose is remote from both theory and practice in traditional ACA. By entering their own rs into multidimensional scaling and clustering routines, I show that, despite r's fluctuations, clusters based on it are much the same for the combined groups as for the separate groups. The combined groups when mapped appear as polarized clumps of points in two-dimensional space, confirming that differences between the groups have become much more important than differences within the groups--an accurate portrayal of what has happened to the data. Moreover, r produces clusters and maps very like those based on other coefficients that AJ&R mention as possible replacements, such as a cosine similarity measure or a chi square dissimilarity measure. Thus, r performs well enough for the purposes of ACA. Accordingly, I argue that qualitative information revealing why authors are cocited is more important than the cautions proposed in the AJ&R critique. I include notes on topics such as handling the diagonal in author cocitation matrices, lognormalizing data, and testing r for significance.