Visualizing the world's scientific publications

Chen, Rex H.-G.; Chen, Chi-Ming

doi:10.1002/asi.23591

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Zhang and Feng (2014) analyzed the growth and development of research productivity concerning artificial blood vessels with HistCite. Work has been also done on visualizing the global pattern of scientific publications by analyzing aggregated Science Citation Index data (Chen and Chen, 2016). All of these achievements can be shown as examples which can contribute to bibliometric analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution features and intellectual structures of digital humanities

Wang

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct a retrospective bibliometric analysis of documents about digital humanities, an emerging but interdisciplinary movement. It examines the distribution of research outputs and languages, identifies the active journals and institutions, dissects the network of categories and cited references, and interprets the hot research topics. Design/methodology/approach The source data are derived from the Web of Science (WoS) core collection. To reveal the holistic landscape of this field, VOSviewer and CiteSpace as popular visualization tools are employed to process the bibliographic data including author, category, reference, and keyword. Furthermore, the parameter design of the visualization tools follows the general procedures and methods for bibliometric analysis. Findings There is an obviously rapid growth in digital humanities research. English is still the leading academic language in this field. The most influential authors all come from or have scientific relationships with Europe and North America, and two leading countries of which are the UK and USA. Digital humanities is the result of a dynamic dialogue between humanistic exploration and digital means. This research field is closely associated with history, literary and cultural heritage, and information and library science. Research limitations/implications This analysis relies on the metadata information extracted from the WoS database; however, some valuable literatures in the field of digital humanities may not be retrieved from the database owing to the inherent challenge of topic search. This study is also restricted by the scope of publications, the limitation regarding the source of data is that WoS database may have underrepresented publications in this domain. Originality/value The output of this paper could be a valuable reference for researchers and practitioners interesting in the knowledge domain of digital humanities. Moreover, the conclusions of this retrospective analysis can be deemed as the comparable foundation for future study.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution features and intellectual structures of digital humanities

Wang

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moya-Anegón & Herrero-Solana [15] also included the social sciences, although these data did not figure strongly into the results, which featured three clusters of nations–the biomedical cluster, the basic science and engineering cluster, and the agriculture cluster. Finally, Chen & Chen [16] grouped 100 nations into 12 groups using minimum spanning trees, finding that nations within each group were similar in terms of geography, ethnicity, or economic status. Further clustering placed nine of those groups into three main clusters–a Western cluster focused on biomedicine, an Asian and East European cluster focused on the natural sciences, and a third cluster associated with developing countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Research Focus of Nations: Economic vs. Altruistic Motivations

Klavans

Boyack

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What motivates the research strategies of nations and institutions? We suggest that research primarily serves two masters–altruism and economic growth. Some nations focus more research in altruistic (or non-economic) fields while others focus more research in fields associated with economic growth. What causes this difference? Are there characteristics that would suggest why a nation is more aligned with altruism or economic growth? To answer this question, we have identified nine major fields of research by analyzing the publication activity of 4429 institutions using Scopus data. Two fields of research are clearly altruistic (there is relatively little involvement by industry) and two fields are clearly aligned with economic growth. The altruistic vs. economic nature of nations based on their publication profiles across these fields is correlated with national indicators on wealth, education, capitalism, individualism, power, religion, and language. While previous research has suggested that national research strategy is aligned with national wealth, our analysis shows that national wealth is not highly correlated with the tradeoff between altruistic and economic motives. Instead, the tradeoff is largely captured by a culture of individualism. Accordingly, implications for national research strategies are discussed.

show abstract

“…How are unequal relations in knowledge understood in the scholarship of science? Most studies are in scientometrics, which conducts quantitative analyses of bibliometric data (Mingers and Leydesdorff 2015;Chen and Chen 2016). Though scientometric papers are rarely highly theorized, the most utilized framework is world systems theory.…”

Section: The Center-periphery Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model

Marginson¹,

Xu²

2023

Comparative Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The autonomous global system of science, grounded in collegial networks of scientists, publishing and cross-border papers, is expanding rapidly. Science infrastructure is spreading to a growing number of countries. Though the United States remains the leading country, strong national science systems have emerged in China and other countries outside Euro-America. Yet the multi-polarization of economic capacity and scientific output plays out within a continuing Euro-American science world regulated by an inside/outside binary.Global science remains primarily Anglo-American in language, leading institutions, disciplinary and publishing regimes, agendas and topics. Non-English and endogenous knowledges are excluded. Scholarship on global science does not effectively address its inequalities and homogenization. The paper critiques the dominant interpretation of relations of power in science, world-systems theory with its center-periphery model. This theory, which is statist and economic determinist, fails to grasp the growth and pluralization of global science, and its relation with national science systems. The center-periphery model normalizes the Eurocentrism it opposes, radically under-estimating agency outside the 'center' countries, as shown by science networking on the 'semi-periphery' and 'periphery'.The paper argues for a more ontologically open theorization of global power in science, in terms of cultural hegemony, and for an ecology of knowledges approach.

show abstract

Visualizing the world's scientific publications

Cited by 13 publications

References 44 publications

Distribution features and intellectual structures of digital humanities

Distribution features and intellectual structures of digital humanities

The Research Focus of Nations: Economic vs. Altruistic Motivations

Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About