IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring researchers’ potential scholarly impact with structural variations: Four types of researchers in information science (1979–2018)

Author

Listed:
  • Jianhua Hou
  • Xiucai Yang
  • Chaomei Chen

Abstract

We propose a method to measure the potential scholarly impact of researchers based on network structural variations they introduced to the underlying author co-citation network of their field. We applied the method to the information science field based on 91,978 papers published between 1979 and 2018 from the Web of Science. We divided the entire period into eight consecutive intervals and measured structural variation change rates (ΔM) of individual authors in corresponding author co-citation networks. Four types of researchers are identified in terms of temporal dynamics of their potential scholarly impact—1) Increasing, 2) Decreasing, 3) Sustained, and 4) Transient. The study contributes to the understanding of how researchers’ scholarly impact might evolve in a broad context of the corresponding research community. Specifically, this study illustrated a crucial role played by structural variation metrics in measuring and explaining the potential scholarly impact of a researcher. This method based on the structural variation analysis offers a theoretical framework and a practical platform to analyze the potential scholarly impact of researchers and their specific contributions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2020. "Measuring researchers’ potential scholarly impact with structural variations: Four types of researchers in information science (1979–2018)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-26, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234347
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234347
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234347&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234347?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weimao Ke, 2013. "A fitness model for scholarly impact analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 981-998, March.
    2. Naoki Shibata & Yuya Kajikawa & Katsumori Matsushima, 2007. "Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(6), pages 872-882, April.
    3. E. Garfield & I. H. Sher, 1963. "New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 195-201, July.
    4. Henk F. Moed & Gali Halevi, 2015. "Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 1988-2002, October.
    5. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    6. Michael H. MacRoberts & Barbara R. MacRoberts, 1989. "Problems of citation analysis: A critical review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 40(5), pages 342-349, September.
    7. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2011. "Using global mapping to create more accurate document‐level maps of research fields," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Isola Ajiferuke & Dietmar Wolfram, 2010. "Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: library and information science as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 623-638, June.
    9. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2011. "Using global mapping to create more accurate document-level maps of research fields," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 286-291.
    11. Chen, Chaomei & Chen, Yue & Horowitz, Mark & Hou, Haiyan & Liu, Zeyuan & Pellegrino, Donald, 2009. "Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 191-209.
    12. Rodriguez, Marko A. & Pepe, Alberto, 2008. "On the relationship between the structural and socioacademic communities of a coauthorship network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 195-201.
    13. Johan Bollen & Herbert Van de Sompel & Aric Hagberg & Ryan Chute, 2009. "A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-11, June.
    14. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2009. "Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(10), pages 2107-2118, October.
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2018. "Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    16. Chen, Chaomei & Song, Min & Heo, Go Eun, 2018. "A scalable and adaptive method for finding semantically equivalent cue words of uncertainty," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 158-180.
    17. Waverly W. Ding & Sharon G. Levin & Paula E. Stephan & Anne E. Winkler, 2010. "The Impact of Information Technology on Academic Scientists' Productivity and Collaboration Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(9), pages 1439-1461, September.
    18. Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese & Paolo Ciancarini & Aldo Gangemi & Silvio Peroni & Francesco Poggi & Valentina Presutti, 2019. "Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 539-562, February.
    19. Xuemei Li & Mike Thelwall & Dean Giustini, 2012. "Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 461-471, May.
    20. Chaomei Chen & Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan & Jianhua Hou, 2010. "The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1386-1409, July.
    21. Zhao, Dangzhi & Strotmann, Andreas, 2008. "Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 229-239.
    22. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding & Qinghua Zhu, 2010. "Mapping library and information science in China: a coauthorship network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 115-131, April.
    23. Xi Zhang & Xianhai Wang & Hongke Zhao & Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos & Yongqiang Sun & Hui Xiong, 2019. "An effectiveness analysis of altmetrics indices for different levels of artificial intelligence publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1311-1344, June.
    24. Howard D. White & Belver C. Griffith, 1981. "Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 32(3), pages 163-171, May.
    25. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2008. "Information science during the first decade of the web: An enriched author cocitation analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(6), pages 916-937, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pin Li & Guoli Yang & Chuanqi Wang, 2019. "Visual topical analysis of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1753-1791, December.
    2. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    3. Jianhua Hou, 2017. "Exploration into the evolution and historical roots of citation analysis by referenced publication year spectroscopy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1437-1452, March.
    4. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    5. Yan, Erjia, 2014. "Research dynamics: Measuring the continuity and popularity of research topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 98-110.
    6. Katalin Orosz & Illés J. Farkas & Péter Pollner, 2016. "Quantifying the changing role of past publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 829-853, August.
    7. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    8. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    9. Francisco Díez-Martín & Alicia Blanco-González & Camilo Prado-Román, 2021. "The intellectual structure of organizational legitimacy research: a co-citation analysis in business journals," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1007-1043, May.
    10. Zohreh Zahedi & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2014. "How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1491-1513, November.
    11. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Radosevic, Slavo & Kiamehr, Mehdi & Gholizadeh, Hossein, 2022. "The intellectual evolution of the technological catch-up literature: Bibliometric analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    12. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    13. Gao, Qiang & Liang, Zhentao & Wang, Ping & Hou, Jingrui & Chen, Xiuxiu & Liu, Manman, 2021. "Potential index: Revealing the future impact of research topics based on current knowledge networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    14. Wang Guizhou & Zhang Si & Yu Tao & Ning Yu, 2021. "A Systematic Overview of Blockchain Research," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 205-238, June.
    15. Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Maria-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones & Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez, 2017. "Co-word analysis and thematic landscapes in Spanish information science literature, 1985–2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 195-217, October.
    16. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    17. Kim, Ha Jin & Jeong, Yoo Kyung & Song, Min, 2016. "Content- and proximity-based author co-citation analysis using citation sentences," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 954-966.
    18. Andrej Kastrin & Dimitar Hristovski, 2021. "Scientometric analysis and knowledge mapping of literature-based discovery (1986–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1415-1451, February.
    19. Haydar Yalcin & Tugrul Daim, 2021. "Mining research and invention activity for innovation trends: case of blockchain technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3775-3806, May.
    20. Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Rosa Lidia Vega-Almeida & José Luis Jiménez-Andrade & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2022. "Evolutionary stages and multidisciplinary nature of artificial intelligence research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5139-5158, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.