A comparison of 3 productive authors’ research domains based on sources from articles, cited references and citing articles using social network analysis

• Published in: Medicine (Baltimore) Vol. 101; no. 44; p. e31335
• Main Authors: Ho, Sam Yu-Chieh, Chien, Tsair-Wei, Huang, Chien-Cheng, Tsai, Kang-Ting
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hagerstown, MD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 04.11.2022
• Subjects: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
• ISSN: 1536-5964; 0025-7974; 1536-5964
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031335

An individual's research domain (RD) can be determined from objective publication data (e.g., medical subject headings and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms) by performing social network analysis. Bibliographic coupling (such as cocitation) is a similarity metric that relies on citation analysis to determine the similarity in RD between 2 articles. This study compared RD consistency between articles as well as their cited references and citing articles (ARCs).BACKGROUNDAn individual's research domain (RD) can be determined from objective publication data (e.g., medical subject headings and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms) by performing social network analysis. Bibliographic coupling (such as cocitation) is a similarity metric that relies on citation analysis to determine the similarity in RD between 2 articles. This study compared RD consistency between articles as well as their cited references and citing articles (ARCs).A total of 1388 abstracts were downloaded from PubMed and authored by 3 productive authors. Based on the top 3 clusters in social network analysis, similarity in RD was observed by comparing their consistency using the major MeSH terms in author articles, cited references and citing articles (ARC). Impact beam plots with La indices were drawn and compared for each of the 3 authors.METHODSA total of 1388 abstracts were downloaded from PubMed and authored by 3 productive authors. Based on the top 3 clusters in social network analysis, similarity in RD was observed by comparing their consistency using the major MeSH terms in author articles, cited references and citing articles (ARC). Impact beam plots with La indices were drawn and compared for each of the 3 authors.Sung-Ho Jang (South Korea), Chia-Hung Kao (Taiwan), and Chin-Hsiao Tseng (Taiwan) published 445, 780, and 163 articles, respectively. Dr Jang's RD is physiology, and Dr Kao and Dr Tseng's RDs are epidemiology. We confirmed the consistency of the RD terms by comparing the major MeSH terms in the ARC. Their La indexes were 5, 5, and 6, where a higher value indicates more extraordinary research achievement.RESULTSSung-Ho Jang (South Korea), Chia-Hung Kao (Taiwan), and Chin-Hsiao Tseng (Taiwan) published 445, 780, and 163 articles, respectively. Dr Jang's RD is physiology, and Dr Kao and Dr Tseng's RDs are epidemiology. We confirmed the consistency of the RD terms by comparing the major MeSH terms in the ARC. Their La indexes were 5, 5, and 6, where a higher value indicates more extraordinary research achievement.RD consistency was confirmed by comparing the main MeSH terms in ARC. The 3 approaches of RD determination (based on author articles, the La index, and the impact beam plots) were recommended for bibliographical studies in the future.CONCLUSIONRD consistency was confirmed by comparing the main MeSH terms in ARC. The 3 approaches of RD determination (based on author articles, the La index, and the impact beam plots) were recommended for bibliographical studies in the future.