Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Various methods for the mapping of science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The dynamic mapping of science using the data in theScience Citation Index was put on the research agenda of science studies byDe Solla Price in the mid 1960s. Recently, proponents of ‘co-citation cluster analysis’ have claimed that in principle their methodology makes such mapping possible. The study examines this claim, both methodologically and theoretically, in relation to other means of mapping science. A detailed study of a co-citation map, its core documents' citation patterns and the related journal structures, is presented. At these three levels of possible study of aggregates of citations, an analysis is pursued for the years 1978 to 1984. The many different statistical methods which are in use for the analysis of the respective datamatrices—such as cluster analysis, factor analysis and multidimensional scalling—are assessed with a view to their potential to contribute to a better undérstanding of the dynamics at the different levels in relation to each other. This will lead to some recommendations about methods to use and to avoid when we aim at a comprehensive mapping of science. Although the study is pursued at a formal and analytical level, in the conclusions an attempt is made to reflect on the results in terms of further substantial questions for the study of the dynamics of science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H. SMALL, E. SWEENEY, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations I. A. comparison of Methods,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 391; H. SMALL, E. SWEENEY, E. GREENLEE, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations II. Mapping science,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 321.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Op. cit., note 1 p. 339.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See for example: C. MOMBERS, A. VAN HEERINGEN, R. VAN VENETIË, C. LE PAIR, Displaying strengths and weaknesses in national R&D performance through document cocitation,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 341.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Op. cit., note 1 p. 322. See for an elaboration of the argument about the ‘mapping’ of development over time: H. SMALL, E. GREENLEE, Collagen research in the 1970s,Scientometrics, 10 (1986) 95.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. HEALEY, H. ROTHMAN,ABRC Science Policy Study 1983/4. Evaluative summary report, London, 1984.

  6. Ibid., P. HEALEY, H. ROTHMAN,ABRC Science Policy Study 1983/4. Evaluative summary report, London, 1984 p. 22.

  7. As the ABRC-report states “the approach to validation was unashamedly pragmatic: looking to see how well the models/maps worked as ‘reasonable representations’ of the cognitive and social relationships of the fields being studied to the the experts who knew them.” (Ibid., P. HEALEY, H. ROTHMAN,ABRC Science Policy Study 1983/4. Evaluative summary report, London, 1984 p. 3.)

  8. Cf. L. LEYDESDORFF, The Development of frames of references,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 103.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See: K. E. STUDER, D. E. CHUBIN,The Cancer Mission Social Contexts of Biomedical Research, Sage, Beverly Hills/London, 1980, 269f.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Op. cit., note 1 p. 324.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Op. cit., note 8 p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See also:Op. cit., note 3..

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. DE SOLLA PRICE, The science of scientists,Medical Opinion and Review, 1 No. 10 (1966) 95. See also: Y. ELKANA, J. LEDERBERG, R. K. MERTON, A. THACKRAY, H. ZUCKERMAN (Eds),Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators, John Wiley, New York, 1978;op. cit., note 1, H. SMALL, E. SWEENEY, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations I. A. comparison of Methods,Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 391.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. DE SOLLA PRICE, Networks of scientific papers,Science, 149 (1965) 510.

    Google Scholar 

  15. F. NARIN, M. CARPENTER, N. C. BERLT, Interrelationships of scientific journals,Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 23 (1972) 323.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. P. CARPENTER, F. NARIN. Clustering of Scientific Journals,Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 24 (1973) 425.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid. 429.

    Google Scholar 

  18. More recently, other researchers clustering journal-journal citations have frankly admitted finding their way in choosing clustering criteria through a ‘trial and error’ method. Cf.: A. J. ASHTON,The use of Cluster Analysis Techniques on Biotechnology Journal Citation Data, MSc Thesis, Technology Policy Unit, University of Aston, Birmingham, 1980; H. ROTHMAN, Science mapping for strategic planning, in: M. GIBBONS, Ph. GUMMETT, B. M. UDGAONKAR,Science and Technology Policies in the 1980s and Beyond, Longman, London-New York, 1984, pp. 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See also: F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics, Computer Horizons, Inc., Cherry Hill, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  20. “There is little similarity however between the journal influence maps and co-citation maps because the former are intended primarily to show hierarchies of journal quality, and only secondarily of subject similarity.” (Op. cit., note 1 p. 324.)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Op. cit., note 19. pp. 190 ff. See for a more complex approach: S. MIYAMOTO K. NAKAYAMA, A technique of two-stage clustering applied to environmental and civil engerneering and related methods of citation analysis,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34 (1983) 192.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Op. cit., note 1 p. 324.

    Google Scholar 

  23. D. DE SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1965, pp. 63–91.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Op. cit., note 1, p. 395 f.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. G. SMALL, B. C. GRIFFITH, The structure of scientific literature I: Identifying and Graphing specialties,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17. See also: H. G. SMALL, Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents,Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 24 (1973) 265.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Op. cit., note 25, p. 22: “Of the 1,677,196 pairs that might have been created from 1832 items (the number of possble pairs is 1/2n(n−1), wheren is the number of documents), only 20 414 appear, i.e. co-citation shows only 1.2% ‘connectedness’ for this set of documents. This is evidence of the looseness of the overall structure.”

    Google Scholar 

  27. B. C. GRIFFITH, N. C. MULLINS, Coherent social groups in scientific change,Scince, 177 (1972) 959; D. CRANE,Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Op. cit., note 25, p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  29. ‘Chaining’ describes the phenomenon where areas of high density are linked together to one supercluster by accidental in-between points. This is a problem specific to single linkage clustering. Cf. B. EVERITT,Cluster Analysis, Social Science Research Council, Heinemann Educational Books, London etc., 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Op. cit., note 25 p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid. p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Op. cit., note 1 p. 395; see also: J. A. HARTIGAN,Clustering Algorithms, John Wiley, New York, 1975, pp. 191–215.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid. note 1 p. 393 f.; see also: D. DE SOLLA PRICE, D. BEAVER, Collaboration in an invisible college,American Psychologist, 21 (1966) 1011.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cf.Op. cit., note 30, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Op. cit., note 1, p. 333 f.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., note 1 p. 337.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid., note 1, p. 333.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid., note 1, p. 338.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Op. cit., note 9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid. note 9, 204 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Op. cit., note 28..

    Google Scholar 

  42. Op. cit., note 9., p. 223.

    Google Scholar 

  43. B. C. GRIFFITH, H. D. WHITE. Authors as markers of intellectual space: Co-citation in studies of science, technology and society,Journal of Documentation, 38, No. 4 (1983) 255.

    Google Scholar 

  44. H. RIGTER,De prestaties van het Nederlandse gezondheidsonderzoek, RAWB, 's-Gravenhage, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  45. A. VAN HEERINGEN, C. MOMBERS, R. VAN VENETIË,Wetenschaps- en Technologie Indicatoren 1983. Een vergelijking van Nederland met het buitenland op basis van kwantitatieve gegevens, RAWB, 's-Gravenhage, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See also:Op. cit., note 3..

    Google Scholar 

  47. Op. cit., note 3..

    Google Scholar 

  48. Accent, KNAW, Amsterdam, 1986; J. OBERSKI,Cocitaties Clusteranalyse en Natuurkunde, NIKHEF/FOM, Amsterdam, 1986.

  49. A ‘supercluster’ is defined as the set of all clusters having ‘co-citation links’ with at least one document in the core cluster.

  50. Op. cit., note 3, p. 350–352.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Two core documents were published inPhysical Reviews before its split into various sections in 1970. The analysis here has been restricted toPhysical Review A, in which nine other core documents have been published. One core document was published in theProceedings of the Physical Society London. A, which split in 1968 into the various sections of theJournal of Physics. For substantive reasons, we limit the present analysis to theJournal of Physics, B. In the case of theZeitschrift für Physik and its sectionsA andB, we took the aggregate of the three citation scores, because here it is more difficult to argue for a further restriction of the analysis.

  52. Op. cit., note 8..

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid. note 8., p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Both here and in the factor analysis theJournal of Molecular Spectroscopy shows up as a core ‘chemical physics’ journal. In the qualitative analysis it had mistakenly been included under the category of ‘various physics’.

  55. Op. cit., note 1, p. 339.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Op. cit., note 9..

    Google Scholar 

  57. “But can one be used as a baseline to calibrate our understanding of another?”Ibid., p. 269.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid., 270.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See also:op. cit., note 8, p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 1985 is only included to week 50. (The DIALOG searches were done on January 30, 1986).

  61. H. SMALL, E. GREENLEE,op. cit., note 4..

    Google Scholar 

  62. Op. cit., note 9,, p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See a.o.: S. E. COZZENS (Ed.), Funding and knowledge Growth, Theme SectionSocial Studies of Science, 16 No. 1, (1986) 9–150.

  64. L. LEYDESFORFF, On Measuring the Effectiveness of National Science Policies in Changing International Environments, Paper presented at the XIth Annual Meeting of 4S, Pittsburgh, October 1986.

  65. K. G. JÖRESKOG, D. SÖRBOM,Advances in Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Models, Abt Books, Cambridge Mass., 1979; W. SARIS, H. STRONKHORST,Causal Modeling in Non-experimental Research, Sociometric Research Foundation, Amsterdam, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Dynamics, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV, Amsterdam, (The Netherlands)

    L. Leydesdorff

Authors
  1. L. Leydesdorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leydesdorff, L. Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics 11, 295–324 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02279351

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02279351

Keywords

Search

Navigation