Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 983–999 | Cite as

Mapping the research on aquaculture. A bibliometric analysis of aquaculture literature

  • Fabrizio Natale
  • Gianluca Fiore
  • Johann Hofherr
Article

Abstract

Research on aquaculture is expanding along with the exceptional growth of the sector and has an important role in supporting even further the future developments of this relatively young food production industry. In this paper we examined the aquaculture literature using bibliometrics and computational semantics methods (latent semantic analysis, topic model and co-citation analysis) to identify the main themes and trends in research. We analysed bibliographic information and abstracts of 14,308 scientific articles on aquaculture recorded in Scopus. Both the latent semantic analysis and the topic model indicate that the broad themes of research on aquaculture are related to genetics and reproduction, growth and physiology, farming systems and environment, nutrition, water quality, and health. The topic model gives an estimate of the relevance of these research themes by single articles, authors, research institutions, species and time. With the co-citation analysis it was possible to identify more specific research fronts, which are attracting high number of co-citations by the scientific community. The largest research fronts are related to probiotics, benthic sediments, genomics, integrated aquaculture and water treatment. In terms of temporal evolution, some research fronts such as probiotics, genomics, sea-lice, and environmental impacts from cage aquaculture, are still expanding while others, such as mangroves and shrimp farming, benthic sediments, are gradually losing weight. While bibliometric methods do not necessarily provide a measure of output or impact of research activities, they proved useful for mapping a research area, identifying the relevance of themes in the scientific literature and understanding how research fronts evolve and interact. By using different methodological approaches the study is taking advantage of the strengths of each method in mapping the research on aquaculture and showing in the meantime possible limitations and some directions for further improvements.

Keywords

Aquaculture Bibliometrics Computational semantic Topic model Latent semantic analysis Co-citation analysis 

References

  1. Asche, F. (2008). Farming the sea. Marine Resource Economics, 23(4), 527–547.Google Scholar
  2. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, J., Boyd-Graber, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., & Blei, D. (2009). Reading tea leaves: How Humans Interpret Topic Models. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS).Google Scholar
  4. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delanghe, H., Sloan, B., & Muldur, U. (2011). European research policy and bibliometric indicators, 1990–2005. Scientometrics, 87(2), 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EATIP European aquaculture technology and innovation platform. (2011). Retrieved 25 October 2011 from http://www.eatip.eu/.
  7. FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. (2010). Retrieved 25 October 2011 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e00.htm.
  8. FEUFAR The future of European fisheries and aquaculture research Final Report. (2008). Retrieved 25 October 2011 from http://www.feufar.eu.
  9. Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(1), 5228–5235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gruen, B., & Hornik, K. (2011). Topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(13), 1–30.Google Scholar
  11. Landauer, T., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent Semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, M., Wang, J., & Chen, J. (2008). A fast agglomerate algorithm for mining functional modules in protein interaction networks. BioMedical engineering and informatics: New development and the future. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on BioMedical Engineering and Informatics, BMEI 2008 (pp. 1–603) Hainan.Google Scholar
  13. Sci2 Team. (2009). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies, http://sci2.cns.iu.edu.
  14. Small, H. (2006). Tracking and predicting growth areas in science. Scientometrics, 68(3), 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Small, H., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4(1), 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Steyvers, M. (2007). Probabilistic topic models. In: T. Landauer, D McNamara, S. Dennis, and W. Kintsch (Eds.), Latent Semantic Analysis: A Road to Meaning. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Thomson. (2008). Research front methodology, Retrieved 25 October 2011, from http://esi-topics.com/RFmethodology.html.
  18. Wild, F. (2005). lsa: Latent Semantic Analysis. R package version 0.57.Google Scholar
  19. Wild, F., Stahl, C., Stermsek, G., & Neumann, G. 2005. Parameters driving effectiveness of automated essay scoring with LSA. In Proceedings of the 9th International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference (CAA), pp. 485–494.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Natale
    • 1
  • Gianluca Fiore
    • 1
  • Johann Hofherr
    • 1
  1. 1.European Commission. Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the CitizenIspra (VA)Italy

Personalised recommendations