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

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 2,310 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 conomination in science policy and research evaluation arrangements. Article Highlights The paper presents co-nomination approach and explains how it can be used to map fields of science and communities that are hard to access through codified sources  CERN-based heavy flavour physics, a hyper-authorship field within particle physics, is used as the empirical case study  The paper maps heavy flavour physics using co-nomination and author co-citation, then deliberates about the merits of each approach

The 100 Most-Cited Research Publications on Servant Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…This question stems from the recognition that identifying the key authors and their interconnections can provide insights into the intellectual structure of the field, influential scholars, and potential research collaborations. It helps us understand the central figures in servant leadership research and the co-citation relationships that indicate the intellectual influence and interrelationships among authors (Karaulova et al, 2020).…”

How “international” is international research collaboration?

“…IRCs tend to be more costly to establish and sustain, because researchers encounter technical, communication, resource, cultural, administrative, and language barriers (Cetina, 1999; Gaulé & Piacentini, 2013; Stahl et al, 2010). Researchers typically require clear incentives for IRC, such as access to unique data, materials, expertise, or research infrastructure (Bozeman & Corley, 2004; Corley et al, 2006; Karaulova et al, 2020; Melkers & Kiopa, 2010; van Rijnsoever et al, 2008). IRCs are often considered “elite” collaborations involving resource‐ and reputation‐endowed researchers (Luukkonen et al, 1992).…”

“…In certain types of “big science,” access to large‐scale experimental facilities is organized around stable long‐term IRCs (Karaulova et al, 2020). In other fields, the nature of scientific problems and resources needed to address them do not necessarily require an IRC.…”

Barriers to attracting the best researchers: perceptions of academics in economics and physics in three European countries

“…As a type of knowledge, physics is cumulatively oriented, with an emphasis on the quantifiable and universal and on simplifying; as a research subject, it is thematically and theoretically fragmented. Physics is moreover a cost-intensive experimental discipline, largely international in its organization and collaboration patterns, and consequently characterized by many time-limited projects and positions, group-based work, and demanding academic careers (Karaulova et al, 2020;Laudel & Bielick, 2019). Like other STEM disciplines, physics is more closely linked to industry, and work experience outside academia is more common than in most of the social sciences (Borlaug et al, 2019;Reymert & Thune, 2022).…”