Nees Jan van Eck

Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping

We present VOSviewer, a freely available computer program that we have developed for constructing and viewing bibliometric maps. Unlike most computer programs that are used for bibliometric mapping, VOSviewer pays special attention to the graphical representation of bibliometric maps. The functionality of VOSviewer is especially useful for displaying large bibliometric maps in an easy-to-interpret way. The paper consists of three parts. In the first part, an overview of VOSviewer’s functionality for displaying bibliometric maps is provided. In the second part, the technical implementation of specific parts of the program is discussed. Finally, in the third part, VOSviewer’s ability to handle large maps is demonstrated by using the program to construct and display a co-citation map of 5,000 major scientific journals.

A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks

In the analysis of bibliometric networks, researchers often use mapping and clustering techniques in a combined fashion. Typically, however, mapping and clustering techniques that are used together rely on very different ideas and assumptions. We propose a unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. We show that the VOS mapping technique and a weighted and parameterized variant of modularity-based clustering can both be derived from the same underlying principle. We illustrate our proposed approach by producing a combined mapping and clustering of the most frequently cited publications that appeared in the field of information science in the period 1999-2008.

The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a universitys highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science

Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the Web of Science subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal-level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost 10 million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations–for instance, based on bibliographic coupling.

How to normalize cooccurrence dataq An analysis of some well-known similarity measures

It cannot be overemphasized that changes in concepts have far more impact than new discoveries

The inconsistency of the h-index

The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientists overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.

Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis

We present an empirical comparison between two normalization mechanisms for citation-based indicators of research performance. These mechanisms aim to normalize citation counts for the field and the year in which a publication was published. One mechanism is applied in the current so-called crown indicator of our institute. The other mechanism is applied in the new crown indicator that our institute is currently exploring. We find that at high aggregation levels, such as at the level of large research institutions or at the level of countries, the differences between the two mechanisms are very small. At lower aggregation levels, such as at the level of research groups or at the level of journals, the differences between the two mechanisms are somewhat larger. We pay special attention to the way in which recent publications are handled. These publications typically have very low citation counts and should therefore be handled with special care.

A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS

A huge number of informal messages are posted every day in social network sites, blogs, and discussion forums. Emotions seem to be frequently important in these texts for expressing friendship, showing social support or as part of online arguments. Algorithms to identify sentiment and sentiment strength are needed to help understand the role of emotion in this informal communication and also to identify inappropriate or anomalous affective utterances, potentially associated with threatening behavior to the self or others. Nevertheless, existing sentiment detection algorithms tend to be commercially oriented, designed to identify opinions about products rather than user behaviors. This article partly fills this gap with a new algorithm, SentiStrength, to extract sentiment strength from informal English text, using new methods to exploit the de facto grammars and spelling styles of cyberspace. Applied to MySpace comments and with a lookup table of term sentiment strengths optimized by machine learning, SentiStrength is able to predict positive emotion with 60.6p accuracy and negative emotion with 72.8p accuracy, both based upon strength scales of 1–5. The former, but not the latter, is better than baseline and a wide range of general machine learning approaches.

Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Research as Compared to Basic Research

Background Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. Methodology A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Results Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields: Cardiac & cardiovascular systems, Clinical neurology, and Surgery. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Conclusions Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.

Visualizing Bibliometric Networks

This chapter provides an introduction to the topic of visualizing bibliometric networks. First, the most commonly studied types of bibliometric networks (i.e., citation, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, keyword co-occurrence, and coauthorship networks) are discussed, and three popular visualization approaches (i.e., distance-based, graph-based, and timeline-based approaches) are distinguished. Next, an overview is given of a number of software tools that can be used for visualizing bibliometric networks. In the second part of the chapter, the focus is specifically on two software tools: VOSviewer and CitNetExplorer. The techniques used by these tools to construct, analyze, and visualize bibliometric networks are discussed. In addition, tutorials are offered that demonstrate in a step-by-step manner how both tools can be used. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations and the proper use of bibliometric network visualizations and with a summary of some ongoing and future developments.