Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting

By Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez, Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck. J. Informetrics, 2016

1,207 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The analysis of bibliometric networks, such as co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks, has received a considerable amount of attention. Much less attention has been paid to the construction of these networks. We point out that different approaches can be taken to construct a bibliometric network. Normally the full counting approach is used, but we propose an alternative fractional counting approach. The basic idea of the fractional counting approach is that each action, such as co-authoring or citing a publication, should have equal weight, regardless of for instance the number of authors, citations, or references of a publication. We present two empirical analyses in which the full and fractional counting approaches yield very different results. These analyses deal with co-authorship networks of universities and bibliographic coupling networks of journals. Based on theoretical considerations and on the empirical analyses, we conclude that for many purposes the fractional counting approach is preferable over the full counting one.

Subfields: Molecular Biology, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5557f2bab78e91c8c83ba094f246ac26e698081f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Molecular Biology

  1. Gabriela Grosseck
  2. R. Bran
  3. L. Țîru

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

  1. Gabriela Grosseck
  2. R. Bran
  3. L. Țîru

In Statistics and Probability

  1. Gabriela Grosseck
  2. R. Bran
  3. L. Țîru

Citations in the corpus