Bibliometric analysis of two subdomains in philosophy: free will and sorites

Abstract

In this study we tested the fruitfulness of advanced bibliometric methods for mapping subdomains in philosophy. The development of the number of publications on free will and sorites, the two subdomains treated in the study, over time was studied. We applied the cocitation approach to map the most cited publications, authors and journals, and we mapped frequently occurring terms, using a term co-occurrence approach. Both subdomains show a strong increase of publications in Web of Science. When we decomposed the publications by faculty, we could see an increase of free will publications also in social sciences, medicine and natural sciences. The multidisciplinary character of free will research was reflected in the cocitation analysis and in the term co-occurrence analysis: we found clusters/groups of cocited publications, authors and journals, and of co-occurring terms, representing philosophy as well as non-philosophical fields, such as neuroscience and physics. The corresponding analyses of sorites publications displayed a structure consisting of research themes rather than fields. All in all, both philosophers involved in this study acknowledge the validity of the various networks presented. Bibliometric mapping appears to provide an interesting tool for describing the cognitive orientation of a research field, not only in the natural and life sciences but also in philosophy, which this study shows.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Notes

  1. 1.

    The two bibliometricians of the study did some preliminary analyses of FW publications, and they decided to ask a philosopher with expertise in FW to participate in the study as a domain expert. For SOR, one of the bibliometricians informed a university colleague and philosopher about the study, and this philosopher was asked to select a theme within the philosophy of language, the main interest of the philosopher, and to participate in the study as a domain expert.

  2. 2.

    See, for instance, Hoefer (2010, Section 4.4).

  3. 3.

    SOR is basically discussed within one faculty, namely Humanities.

  4. 4.

    We underline that the citing publications in this study (the publications in PFW and PSOR) exclusively are publications that occur as source items in Web of Science.

  5. 5.

    For author names and journal names, we intended to select the 50 most cited names. Due to ties, however, the number of selected author names is greater than 50.

  6. 6.

    To our knowledge, PPC was first applied, with respect to research publications, by Persson (1994).

  7. 7.

    For both PFW and PSOR, all records of the publications have a title. However, there are records that lack either an abstract or author keywords, or both.

  8. 8.

    Svedberg, however, requested information on which publications the small clusters of Fig. 3 contain. This information was given to her.

References

  1. Baneyx, A. (2008). “Publish or Perish” as citation metrics used to analyze scientific output in the humanities: International case studies in economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56(6), 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cullars, J. M. (1998). Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy. Library & Information Science Research, 20(1), 41–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (Rev. and expanded 2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dowell, E. (1999). Interdisciplinarity and new methodologies in art history: A citation analysis. Art Documentation, 18(1), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Everitt, B., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (2001). Cluster Analysis (4th ed.). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hammarfelt, B. (2011a). citation analysis on the micro level: The example of Walter Benjamin’s Illuminations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 819–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hammarfelt, B. (2011b). Interdisciplinarity and the intellectual base of literature studies: Citation analysis of highly cited monographs. Scientometrics, 86(3), 705–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hammarfelt, B. (2012). Harvesting footnotes in a rural field: Citation patterns in Swedish literary studies. Journal of Documentation, 68(4), 536–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hellqvist, B. (2010). Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 310–318.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Herubel, J. (1991). Philosophy dissertation bibliographies and citations in serials evaluation. Serials Librarian, 20(2–3), 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoefer, C. (2010). Causal determinism. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

  12. Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Kabelka, G. (2012). The development of Lithuanian philosophy during 1960–2010: Volume, institutions, publications. Problemos, 81, 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Knievel, J. E., & Kellsey, C. (2005). Citation analysis for collection development: A comparative study of eight humanities fields. Library Quarterly, 75(2), 142–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kreuzman, H. (2001). A co-citation analysis of representative authors in philosophy: Examining the relationship between epistemologists and philosophers of science. Scientometrics, 51(3), 525–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Larivière, V., Archambault, E., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagne, E. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 997–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leydesdorff, L., Hammarfelt, B., & Salah, A. (2011). The structure of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: A mapping on the basis of aggregated citations among 1,157 journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2414–2426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leydesdorff, L., & Persson, O. (2010). Mapping the geography of science: Distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1622–1634.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies: An exploration of patterns of network formation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 846–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leydesdorff, L., & Salah, A. A. A. (2010). Maps on the Basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: The journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus “digital humanities” as a topic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 787–801.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y., & Warner, J. (1996). The role of monographs in scholarly communication: An empirical study of philosophy, sociology and economics. Journal of Documentation, 52(4), 389–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Manana-Rodriguez, J., & Gimenez-Toledo, E. (2013). Scholarly publishing in social sciences and humanities, associated probabilities of belonging and its spectrum: a quantitative approach for the Spanish case. Scientometrics, 94(3), 893–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Meyer, M., Grant, K., Morlacchi, P., & Weckowska, D. (2014). Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: A bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 99(1), 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rubenstein, H., & Goodenough, J. (1965). Contextual correlates of synonymy. Communications of the ACM, 8(10), 627–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schütze, H., & Pederson, J. O. (1995). Information retrieval based on word senses. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th annual symposium on document analysis and information retrieval.

  29. Shen, J. T., Yao, L. Y., Li, Y. P., Clarke, M., Wang, L., & Li, D. (2013). Visualizing the history of evidence-based medicine: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2157–2172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tatry, M. V., Fournier, D., Jeannequin, B., & Dosba, F. (2014). EU27 and USA leadership in fruit and vegetable research: A bibliometric study from 2000 to 2009. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2207–2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsletter, 7(3), 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank an anonymous referee for various useful comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Ahlgren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahlgren, P., Pagin, P., Persson, O. et al. Bibliometric analysis of two subdomains in philosophy: free will and sorites. Scientometrics 103, 47–73 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1535-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bibliometrics
  • Cocitation analysis
  • Free will
  • Mapping
  • Philosophy
  • Sorites