, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 657–682 | Cite as

35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology

  • Mark William NeffEmail author
  • Elizabeth A. Corley


We utilize the bibliometric tool of co-word analysis to identify trends in the methods and subjects of ecology during the period 1970–2005. Few previous co-word analyses have attempted to analyze fields as large as ecology. We utilize a method of isolating concepts and methods in large datasets that undergo the most significant upward and downward trends. Our analysis identifies policy-relevant trends in the field of ecology, a discipline that helps to identify and frame many contemporary policy problems. The results provide a new foundation for exploring the relations among public policies, technological change, and the evolution of science priorities.


Bibliometric Analysis Equivalence Index Word Cluster Title Word Inclusion Index 
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. Bacher, J., Cluster Analysis. Nuremberg: University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. Bauin, S., B. Michelet, M. G. Schweighoffer, P. Vermeulin (1991), Using bibliometrics in strategic analysis: “understanding chemical reactions” at the CNRS. Scientometrics 22(1): 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, S., P. K. Basu (1998), Mapping a research area at the micro level using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 43(3): 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borner, K, Chaomei Chen, K. W. Boyack (2003), Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, (ARIST), 37: 179–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cahlik, T. (2000), Comparison of the Maps of Science. Scientometrics, 49(3): 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M. (1986), The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle. In: Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, edited by M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip. London: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  7. Callon, M., J. Law, A. Rip, How to Study the Force of Science. In: Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds), London: Macmillan, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, M., J. Law, A. Rip, Qualitative Scientometrics. In: Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of Science in the Real World, M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds), London: Macmillian, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, M., J. Law, A. Rip, (Eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. Callon, M. N., J. P. N. Courtial, F. N. Laville (1991), Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics 22(1): 155–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carvalho, Priscilla, J. Diniz-Filho, F. Alexandre, L. M. Bini (2005), The impact of Felsenstein’s “Phylogenies and the comparative method” on evolutionary biology. Scientometrics 62(1): 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, G. J., The Science of the Struggle for Existence: On the Foundations of Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Coulter, N., I. Monarch, S. Konda (1998), Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13): 1206–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ding, Y., G. G. Chowdhury, S. Foo. (2001), Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management, 37(6): 817–842.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duarte, C. M. (1999), Seagrass ecology at the turn of the millennium: challenges for the new century. Aquatic Botany, 65(1): 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garfield, E. (1994), Scientography: Mapping the Tracks of Science. Current Contents, (November).Google Scholar
  17. Gieryn, T. F. (1978), Problem Retention and Problem Change in Science. Sociological Inquiry, 48(3/4): 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, A. D., Hierarchical classification. In: Clustering and Classification, edited by P. Arabie, L. J. Hubert, G. D. Soete. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Hacking, I., Weapons Research. In: The Social Construction of What?: Harvard, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. He, Q. (1999), Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48: 133–159.Google Scholar
  21. Healey, P., H. Rothman, P. K. Hoch (1986), An experiment in science mapping for research planning. Research Policy, 15(5): 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S., Wynne, B. (1997), Science and decision making, In: S. Rayner, E. L. Malone (Eds), Human Choice and Climate Change, Volume 1: The Societal Framework, Colombus, OH: Battelle, pp. 1–87.Google Scholar
  23. Kingsland, S. E., Modeling Nature: Episodes in the History of Population Ecology: University of Chicago Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. Kingsland, S. E, The Evolution of American Ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  25. Kleinman, D. L. (1991), Conceptualizing the politics of science: A response to cambrosio, limoges and pronovost, Social Studies of Science, 21(4): 769–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kohler, R. E., Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. Kwa, C. (1987), Representations of nature mediating between ecology and science policy: The case of the international biological programme. Social Studies of Science, 17(3): 413–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kwa, C. (2005), Local ecologies and global science: discourses and strategies of the international geospherebiosphere programme. Social Studies of Science, 35(6): 923–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Latour, B., S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts: Princeton University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  30. Law, J., S. Bauin, J. P. Courtial, J. Whittaker (1988), Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A coword analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics, 14(3): 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L. (1997), Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(5): 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peters, H. P. F., A. F. J. van Raan (1993a), Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling. Research Policy, 22(1): 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peters, H. P. F., A. F. J. van Raan (1993b). Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part II: Representations by combined clustering and multidimensional scaling. Research Policy, 22(1): 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rip, A. (1988), Mapping of science: possibilities and limitations. In: Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Rivera, A. C. (2003), Trends in the evolution of ecology: “Spain is different”. Web Ecology, 4: 14–21.Google Scholar
  36. Rodriguez, K., J.A. Moreiro. (1996), The growth and development of research in the field of ecology. Scientometrics, 35(1): 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salvador, M. R., R. E. Lopez-Martinez. (2000), Cognitive structure of research: scientometric mapping in sintered materials. Research Evaluation, 9(3): 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoepflin, U., W. Glanzel. (2001), Two decades of “Scientometrics”. An interdisciplinary field represented by its leading journal. Scientometrics, 50(2): 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Takacs, D., The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  40. White, H. D., K. W. McCain. (1998), Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4):327–355.Google Scholar
  41. Whittaker, J. (1989), Creativity and Conformity in Science: Titles, Keywords and Co-Word Analysis. Social Studies of Science, 19(3): 473–496.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Whittaker, J., J. P. COURTIAL, J. LAW. (1989), Creativity and Conformity in Science: Titles, Keywords and Co-Word Analysis. Social Studies of Science, 19(3): 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Worster, D., Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Second edition ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  44. Young, R. F., S. A. Wolf (2006), Goal attainment in urban ecology research: A bibliometric review 1975–2004. Urban Ecosystems, 9(3): 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ziman, J. M. (1987), The problem of “problem choice”. Minerva, 25(1): 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zuckerman, H. (1978), Theory choice and problem choice in science. Sociological Inquiry, 48(3/4): 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes, School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School of Public AffairsArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations