, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 449–469 | Cite as

Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis

  • George A. Barnett
  • Catherine Huh
  • Youngju Kim
  • Han Woo Park


This article describes the results of a network analysis based on the citation among Communication journals and those academic disciplines that are cited by those journals labeled as “Communication” by the Web of Science. The results indicate that the journals indexed solely as Communication rather than those also tagged as another social science are more central in the citation network. Further, a cluster analysis of the cited disciplines revealed three groupings, a micro psychological cluster, a macro socio-political group and a woman’s studies clique. A two-mode network analysis found that the most central Communication journals cited multiple clusters, while the peripheral journals cited only one, suggesting that the structure of influence on the field of Communication is more complex than suggested by Park and Leydesdorff (Scientometrics 81(1):157–175, 2009). Also, the results indicate that the macro cluster is about twice as influential as the micro cluster, rather than as Park and Leydesdorff suggest that Psychology is the discipline’s primary influence.


Citation analysis Network analysis Communication 


  1. Barnett, G. A., & Danowski, J. A. (1992). The structure of communication: A network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 19, 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, G. A., Danowski, J. A., Feeley, T. H., & Stalker, J. (2010). Measuring quality in communication doctoral education using network analysis of faculty-hiring patterns. Journal of Communication, 60, 388–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. (1988). Bridging the communication gap. Human Communication Research, 15(2), 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, C. R., Roloff, M. E., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2009). What is communication science. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113–120.Google Scholar
  6. Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Netdraw network visualization. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  7. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  8. Chung, C. J., Lee, S., Barnett, G. A., & Kim, J. H. (2009). A comparative network analysis of the Korean Society of Journalism and Communication Studies (KSJCS) and the International Communication Association (ICA) in the era of hybridization. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(2), 170–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craig, R. T. (1993). Why are there so many communication theories? Journal of Communication, 43(3), 26–33.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161.Google Scholar
  11. Delia, J. G. (1987). Communication research: A history. In S. H. Chaffee & C. R. Berger (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 20–98). Bevery Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, I. (2004). The developmental of social network analysis: A study of the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
  14. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 1123–1127.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32, 241–254.Google Scholar
  17. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation. Scientometrics, 43, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). “Betweenness centrality” as an indicator of the “interdisciplinarity” of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1309.Google Scholar
  19. Lievrouw, L. A., Rogers, E. M., Lowe, C. U., & Nadel, E. (1987). Triangulation as a research strategy for identifying invisible colleges among biomedical scientists. Social Networks, 9, 217–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81(1), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parker, E. B., Paisley, W., & Garrett, R. (1967). Bibliographic citations as unobtrusive measures of scientific communication. Stanford, CA: Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  23. Reeves, B., & Borgman, C. L. (1983). A bibliometric evaluation of core journals in communication research. Human Communication Research, 10, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, R. (1988). Citation networks of communication journals, 1977–1985: Cliques and positions, citations made and citations received. Human Communication Research, 15(2), 256–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogers, E. M. (1994). A history of communication study: A biographical approach. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, E. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1983). Communication as an academic discipline: Dialogue. Journal of Communication, 33, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. So, C. Y. K. (1988). Citation patterns of core communication journals: An assessment of the developmental status of communication. Human Communication Research, 15(2), 236–255.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Stephen, T., & Geel, R. (2007). Normative publication productivity of communication scholars at selected career milestones. Human Communication Research, 33, 103–118.Google Scholar
  30. Wiemann, J. M., Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1988). Fragmentation in the field—and the movement toward integration in communication science. Human Communication Research, 15, 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Woelfel, J. & Fink, E. L. (1980). The measurement of communication process: Galileo theory and methods. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • George A. Barnett
    • 1
  • Catherine Huh
    • 1
  • Youngju Kim
    • 1
  • Han Woo Park
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of California – DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Media & CommunicationYeungNam UniversityGyeongsangbuk-doSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations