How to interpret algorithmically constructed topical structures of research specialties? A case study comparing an internal and an external mapping of the topical structure of invasion biology

In our paper we seek to address a shortcoming in the scientometric literature, namely that, given the proliferation of algorithmic approaches to topic detection from bibliometric data, there is a relative lack of studies that validate and create a deeper understanding of the topical structures these...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inarXiv.org
Main Authors Held, Matthias, Velden, Theresa
Format Paper
LanguageEnglish
Published Ithaca Cornell University Library, arXiv.org 09.05.2019
Subjects
Algorithms
Bibliometrics
Biology
Citation analysis
Comparative analysis
Construction
Mapping
Scientometrics
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In our paper we seek to address a shortcoming in the scientometric literature, namely that, given the proliferation of algorithmic approaches to topic detection from bibliometric data, there is a relative lack of studies that validate and create a deeper understanding of the topical structures these algorithmic approaches generate. To take a closer look at this issue, we investigate the results of the new Leiden algorithm when applied to the direct citation network of a field-level data set. We compare this internal perspective which is constructed from the citation links within a data set of 30,000 publications in invasion biology, with an external perspective onto the topic structures in this research specialty, which is based on a global science map in form of the CWTS microfield classification underlying the Leiden Ranking. We present an initial comparative analysis of the results and lay out our next steps that will involve engaging with domain experts to examine how the algorithmically identified topics relate to understandings of topics and topical perspectives that operate within this research specialty.
ISSN:2331-8422