IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v124y2020i3d10.1007_s11192-020-03538-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping research fields using co-nomination: the case of hyper-authorship heavy flavour physics

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Karaulova

    (University of Manchester)

  • Maria Nedeva

    (University of Manchester
    Lund University)

  • Duncan A. Thomas

    (Aarhus University
    Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU))

Abstract

This paper introduces the use of co-nomination as a method to map research fields by directly accessing their knowledge networks organised around exchange relationships of intellectual influence. Co-nomination is a reputation-based approach combining snowball sampling and social network analysis. It compliments established bibliometric mapping methods by addressing some of their typical shortcomings in specific instances. Here we test co-nomination by mapping one such instance: the idiosyncratic field of CERN-based heavy flavour physics (HFP). HFP is a ‘hyper-authorship’ field where papers conventionally list thousands of authors alphabetically, masking individual intellectual contributions. We also undertook an illustrative author co-citation analysis (ACA) mapping of 2310 HFP articles published 2013–18 and identified using a simple keyword query. Both maps were presented to two HFP scientists for commentary upon structure and validity. Our results suggest co-nomination allows us to access individual-level intellectual influence and discern the experimental and theoretical HFP branches. Co-nomination is powerful in uncovering current and emerging research specialisms in HFP that might remain opaque to other methods. ACA, however, better captures HFP’s historical and intellectual foundations. We conclude by discussing possible future uses of co-nomination in science policy and research evaluation arrangements.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Karaulova & Maria Nedeva & Duncan A. Thomas, 2020. "Mapping research fields using co-nomination: the case of hyper-authorship heavy flavour physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2229-2249, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03538-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03538-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03538-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03538-x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
    2. Luukkonen, Terttu & Nedeva, Maria, 2010. "Towards understanding integration in research and research policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 674-686, June.
    3. Saritas, Ozcan & Nugroho, Yanuar, 2012. "Mapping issues and envisaging futures: An evolutionary scenario approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 509-529.
    4. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    5. Crane, Diana, 1971. "Transnational Networks in Basic Science," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 585-601, July.
    6. Stephen Johnson, 1967. "Hierarchical clustering schemes," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 32(3), pages 241-254, September.
    7. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2014. "Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global model and map of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 670-685, April.
    8. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    9. Lise Degn & Niels Mejlgaard & Jesper Wiborg Schneider, 2019. "Using mixed methods to map vaguely defined research areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 394-404.
    10. Gaston Heimeriks & Marianne Hörlesberger & Peter Van Den Besselaar, 2003. "Mapping communication and collaboration in heterogeneous research networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 391-413, October.
    11. Robert Braam & Peter Besselaar, 2014. "Indicators for the dynamics of research organizations: a biomedical case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 949-971, June.
    12. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    13. Woo Hyoung Lee, 2008. "How to identify emerging research fields using scientometrics: An example in the field of Information Security," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(3), pages 503-525, September.
    14. Nedeva, Maria, 2013. "Between the global and the national: Organising European science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 220-230.
    15. Jeremy P. Birnholtz, 2006. "What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(13), pages 1758-1770, November.
    16. Anne Gentil-Beccot & Salvatore Mele & Travis C. Brooks, 2010. "Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 345-355, August.
    17. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Georghiou, Luke, 1998. "Global cooperation in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 611-626, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dong Hu & Lei Mee Thien & Aidi Ahmi & Ahmed Mohamed, 2023. "The 100 Most-Cited Research Publications on Servant Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, August.

    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. Dorte Henriksen, 2018. "What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1395-1421, March.
    2. Simen G. Enger & Fulvio Castellacci, 2016. "Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1611-1638, December.
    3. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    4. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    5. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    6. João Paulo Coelho Ribeiro & Fábio Duarte & Ana Paula Matias Gama, 2022. "Does microfinance foster the development of its clients? A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-35, December.
    7. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    8. Konstantin Fursov & Alina Kadyrova, 2017. "How the analysis of transitionary references in knowledge networks and their centrality characteristics helps in understanding the genesis of growing technology areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1947-1963, June.
    9. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Including cited non-source items in a large-scale map of science: What difference does it make?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 569-580.
    10. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    11. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2014. "The skewness of scientific productivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 917-934.
    12. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2014. "The impact of publications from mainland China on the trends in alphabetical authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 865-879, June.
    13. Koseoglu, Mehmet Ali & Rahimi, Roya & Okumus, Fevzi & Liu, Jingyan, 2016. "Bibliometric studies in tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 180-198.
    14. S. Hennemann & T. Wang & I. Liefner, 2011. "Measuring regional science networks in China: a comparison of international and domestic bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 535-554, August.
    15. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    16. Hanning Guo & Scott Weingart & Katy Börner, 2011. "Mixed-indicators model for identifying emerging research areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 421-435, October.
    17. Ruimin Ma & Erjia Yan, 2016. "Uncovering inter-specialty knowledge communication using author citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 839-854, November.
    18. Hric, Darko & Kaski, Kimmo & Kivelä, Mikko, 2018. "Stochastic block model reveals maps of citation patterns and their evolution in time," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 757-783.
    19. 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.
    20. Raasch, Christina & Lee, Viktor & Spaeth, Sebastian & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2013. "The rise and fall of interdisciplinary research: The case of open source innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1138-1151.

    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:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03538-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.