Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.): with readings
Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.): with readings
Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995
Journal of the American Society for Information Science
Visualizing science by citation mapping
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
Information Processing and Management: an International Journal - Special issue: Infometrics
Can citation analysis of web publications better detect research fronts?
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
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Co-citations as citation endorsements and co-links as link endorsements
Journal of Information Science
Information Processing and Management: an International Journal
Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem - Volume 47
Hi-index | 0.00 |
The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA): the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting: on the one hand, the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors, and on the other hand, a simplified approach to all-author co-citation counting that takes into account the first five authors of a cited work. Results indicate that the picture produced through this simplified all-author co-citation counting contains author groups that are more coherent, and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed. Variations of counting more than first authors are compared.