, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 91–102 | Cite as

Evaluating reliability of co-citation clustering analysis in representing the research history of subject

  • Yueyang Zhao
  • Lei Cui
  • Hua Yang



This paper aimed to examine the reliability of co-citation clustering analysis in representing the research history of subject by comparing the results from co-citation clustering analysis with a review written by authorities.


Firstly, the treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury was chosen as an investigated subject to be retrieved the resource articles and their references were downloaded from Science Citation Index CD-ROM between 1992 and 2002. Then, the highly cited papers were arranged chronologically and clustered with the method of co-citation clustering. After mapping the time line visualization, the history and structure of treatment of spinal cord injury were presented clearly. At last, the results and the review were compared according the time period, and then the recall and the precision were calculated.


The recall was 37.5%, and the precision was 54.5%. The research history of traumatic spinal cord injury treatment analyzed by co-citation clustering was nearly consistent with authoritative review, although some clusters had shorter period than which was summarized by professionals.


This paper concluded that co-citation clustering analysis was a useful method in representing the research history of subject, especially for the information researchers, who do not have enough professional knowledge. Its demerit of low recall could be offset by combination this method with other analytic techniques.


Spinal Cord Injury Expert Review American Spinal Injury Association Acute Spinal Cord Injury Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Small, H., Griffith B. C., The structure of scientific literature: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cui, L., A co citation cluster analysis to highly cited in special documentation. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 1 (1996) 46–48.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morris, S. A., Yen, G., Wu, Z., Asnake, B., Time line visualization of research fronts. Journal of American Society for Information Sciences, 54 (2003) 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ochiai, A., Zoogeographic studies on the soleoid fishes found in Japan and its neighbouring regions. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish, 22 (1957) 526–530.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang, W. T., SPSS Statistical Analysis Senior Textbook. Higher Education Press, 2004, p. 242.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bracken, M. B., Shepard, M. J., Collins, W. F., Holford, T. R., Young, W., Baskin, D. S., Eisenberg, H. M., Flamm, E., Leo-Summers, L., Maroon, J. &al., A randomized, controlled trial of methylprednisolone or naloxone in the treatment of acute spinal-cord injury. Results of the second national acute spinal cord injury study. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(20) (1990) 1405–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, H. X., Yu G., Rong, Y. H., Mathematic recognition model of aging process for scientific and technological literature. Journal of Library Science in China, 26(127) (2000) 81–84.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Library of Shengjing Hospital of China Medical UniversityShenyangP.R. China
  2. 2.Department of Information Management and Information System (Medicine)China Medical UniversityShenyangP.R. China

Personalised recommendations