Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 115–131 | Cite as

Intellectual structure of stem cell research: a comprehensive author co-citation analysis of a highly collaborative and multidisciplinary field

  • Dangzhi ZhaoEmail author
  • Andreas Strotmann
Article

Abstract

This study is an attempt to approach the intellectual structure of the stem cell research field 2004–2009 through a comprehensive author co-citation analysis (ACA), and to contribute to a better understanding of a field that has been brought to the forefront of research, therapy and political and public debates, which, hopefully, will in turn better inform research and policy. Based on a nearly complete and clean dataset of stem cell literature compiled from PubMed and Scopus, and using automatic author disambiguation to further improve results, we perform an exclusive all-author ACA of the 200 top-ranked researchers of the field by fractional citation count. We find that, despite the theoretically highly interdisciplinary nature of the field, stem cell research has been dominated by a few central medical research areas—cancer and regenerative medicine of the brain, the blood, the skin, and the heart—and a core of cell biologists trying to understand the nature and the molecular biology of stem cells along with biotechnology researchers investigating the practical identification, isolation, creation, and culturing of stem cells. It is also remarkably self-contained, drawing only on a few related areas of cell biology. This study also serves as a baseline against which the effectiveness of a range of author-based bibliometric methods and indicators can be tested, especially when based on less comprehensive datasets using less optimal analysis methods.

Keywords

Citation analysis Author co-citation analysis Scholarly communication Intellectual structure Research policy Stem cell research Biomedical research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada and by Genome Canada. The authors would like to thank Gencheng Guo for his assistance in the data collection process.

Supplementary material

11192_2010_317_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.3 mb)
Top 200 authors by fractional citation counts and their loadings on factors (pattern matrix) (PDF 3368 kb)

References

  1. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 54, 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandes, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Mendez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3–72.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, C. (2010). Communication in the sciences. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 287–316.Google Scholar
  5. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Stem cells: Scientific progress and future research directions. Retrieved May 21, 2010 from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/2001report/2001report/.
  7. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Regenerative medicine. Retrieved May 21, 2010 from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/2006report/.
  8. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Lindsey, D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, 10, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morris, S. A., & Van der Veer Martens, B. (2009). Mapping research specialties. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42, 213–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 98(2), 404–409.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2008). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Strotmann, A., Zhao, D., & Bubela, T. (2009). Author name disambiguation for collaboration network analysis and visualization. Proceedings of The American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009 Annual Meeting, November 6–11, 2009, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  14. Strotmann, A., Zhao, D., & Bubela, T. (2010). Combining commercial and open access citation databases to delimit highly interdisciplinary research fields for citation analysis studies. Journal of Informetrics, 4(2), 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Hooydonk, G. (1997). Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 944–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. White, H. D. (2003). Author cocitation analysis and Pearson’s r. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 1250–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1989). Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24, 119–186.Google Scholar
  18. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 32, 99–168.Google Scholar
  19. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 327–355.Google Scholar
  20. Zhao, D. (2005). Challenges of scholarly publications on the web to the evaluation of science—A comparison of author visibility on the web and in print journals. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1403–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhao, D. (2006a). Dispelling the myths behind straight citation counts. Information realities: Shaping the digital future for all—Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2006 Annual Meeting, November 3–8, 2006, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Zhao, D. (2006b). Towards all-author co-citation analysis. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1578–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008a). Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008b). Information science during the first decade of the web: An enriched author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008c). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in Information Science 1996–2005: Introducing author bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070–2086.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Library and Information StudiesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations