Library and Information Service >
The Difference Between Research Front and Research Frontier Based on the Reference Structure Difference Between Highly Cited Papers and Un-cited Papers
Received date: 2015-02-05
Revised date: 2015-04-08
Online published: 2015-04-20
[Purpose/significance]The Research Front(s) studies based on citation analysis and visualization methods were one of most important topics in informetrics.However, Research Front and Research Frontier are different terms, which translated into same Chinese Word. It is valuable to modify or apply these methods, that make distinction between the two concepts.[Method/process]Starting from the intersection relationship between Research Front and Research Frontier, the paper tested the reliability of citation analysis methods in Research Front, based on the comparison of reference structure difference between highly cited papers and un-cited papers which were from Scientometrics and JASIST.[Result/conclusion]The results showed that, though there were newer, hotter and closer relationship references in highly cited papers, nearly all general reference indicators could not efficiently identify the highly cited paper in future. Based on the results, this paper emphasized the reliability of testing and adaptive boundary condition of Research Front methods, and discussed the effect of the citation window selection in citation analysis.
Zhong Zhen . The Difference Between Research Front and Research Frontier Based on the Reference Structure Difference Between Highly Cited Papers and Un-cited Papers[J]. Library and Information Service, 2015 , 59(8) : 87 -96 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.08.013
[1] 张丽华, 张志强. 科学前沿迁移的研究进展 [J]. 图书情报工作, 2014,58(3): 5-12.
[2] Garfield E. Research front[J]. Current Contents, 1994,2015(41): 3-7.
[3] Morris S A, Yen G, Wu Z, et al. Time line visualization of research fronts [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003,54(5): 413-422.
[4] Jarneving B. Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents [J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2007,1(4): 287-307.
[5] Chen Chaomei. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006,57(3): 359-377.
[6] Price D. Networks of scientific papers [J]. Science, 1965,149(3683): 510-515.
[7] Lucio-Arias D, Leydesdorff L. Main‐path analysis and path-dependent transitions in HistCiteTM-Based historiograms [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008,59(12): 1948-1962.
[8] Leydesdorff L. Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1997,48(5): 418-427.
[9] Swanson D R. Fish oil, raynauds syndrome, and undiscovered public knowledge[J]. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1986,30(1): 7-18.
[10] 陈立新, 刘则渊. 引文半衰期与普赖斯指数之间的数量关系研究 [J]. 图书情报知识, 2007(1): 25-28.
[11] 庞杰, 刘则渊, 姜春林. 基于学科主题共现的国际能源期刊分类与知识结构研究 [J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2010(9): 15-20.
[12] 张立伟, 姜春林, 刘学,等. 图书情报学高被引论文引用现象的实证研究 [J]. 图书情报工作, 2014,58(16): 116-121.
[13] 姜春林, 张立伟, 刘学. 牛顿抑或奥尔特加?——一项来自高被引文献和获奖者视角的实证研究 [J]. 自然辩证法研究, 2014,30(11): 79-85.
[14] 钟镇. 学术论文合著规模与引文影响力的相关性分析——以图书情报学为例 [J]. 情报杂志, 2013,32(12): 127-131,164.
[15] Van Raan A. Sleeping beauties in science [J]. Scientometrics, 2004,59(3): 467-472.
[16] Glanzel W. Seven myths in bibliometrics:About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies [J]. ISSI Newsletter, 2008,4(2): 24-32.
[17] Leydesdorff L. Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007,58(9): 1303-1319.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
