Search

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This quali‐quantitative study analysed the 100 most‐cited papers in core dental public health (DPH) journals focusing on understanding international knowledge production. Methods: The DPH journals were selected from titles and scopes at Web of Science Core Collection database up to March 2020. Further comparisons were performed at Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Some bibliometric parameters were extracted as follows: title, number of citations, citation density (number of citations per year), first author's country, year of publication, study design and subject. VOSviewer software was used to create graphical bibliometric maps. Results: Papers were ranked by the total number of citations, which ranged from 104 to 1,019, and six papers were cited more than 400 times. Papers were published from 1974 to 2013, mainly in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Most frequent study designs were cross‐sectional (30%) and nonsystematic review (25%). Most papers were from Europe (54%) and North America (31%). First authors were predominantly from the United Kingdom (17%), United States of America (17%) and Canada (14%). VOSviewer map of co‐authorship demonstrated the existence of clusters in the research collaboration. Although epidemiology was the most frequent subject (84%), health services research presented eight times higher citation density. Conclusions: Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals were predominantly observational studies from Anglo‐Saxon countries. Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals tend to be cross‐sectional studies carried out in the United States with highest citation in health services research. Locker D, Petersen PE and Sheiham A are a landmark for DPH field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the scientific backbone from the citation network of a research domain. Existing approaches ignored the semantic relationships between the citing and cited publications, resulting in several adverse issues, in terms of coherence of main paths and coverage of significant studies. This paper advocated the semantic main path network analysis approach to alleviate these issues based on citation function analysis. A wide variety of SciBERT‐based deep learning models were designed for identifying citation functions. Semantic citation networks were built by either including important citations, for example, extension, motivation, usage and similarity, or excluding incidental citations like background and future work. Semantic main path network was built by merging the top‐K main paths extracted from various time slices of semantic citation network. In addition, a three‐way framework was proposed for the quantitative evaluation of main path analysis results. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis on three research areas of computational linguistics demonstrated that, compared to semantics‐agnostic counterparts, different types of semantic main path networks provide complementary views of scientific knowledge flows. Combining them together, we obtained a more precise and comprehensive picture of domain evolution and uncover more coherent development pathways between scientific ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variations in citation practices have been studied from a wide range of perspectives. Nonetheless, little research has addressed how the interplay between disciplines and research methodologies can affect the formal representation of citations in research articles. This paper, adopting a multi‐perspective design, is an attempt to fill this void by analyzing a purposive sample of 180 research article independent introductions from theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics journals, categorized into three research methodologies. Significant differences were found in these practices because of the disciplinary conventions and the research methodologies employed in the articles; however, the epistemological effects underlying research methodologies (i.e., how members of a discourse community perceive knowledge generation and use through knowledge validation and proving) were by far more evident than the disciplinary bearings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is over 20 years since Michael Crotty's groundbreaking critique of phenomenological research in nursing. However, rather than entering into the acrimonious discussions that followed, we developed a research method that we believed translated Gadamer's philosophy into the world of empirical research. Fundamental to that work was our differentiation of hermeneutics from phenomenology. The aim of the present paper was to provide a critical analysis of the citations from publication in 2003 until the end of 2017. We identified 402 citations of which 362 were included. One hundred and sixty‐three articles mentioned the article in passing, usually in a list of authors who had discussed hermeneutics. Sixteen citations misrepresented the method mainly claiming that we discussed a method for hermeneutic phenomenology (or phenomenological hermeneutics). Of the 117 citations that partially used the method, the main focus was the four steps of data analysis. Sixty studies used our method in totality although they derive from varying philosophical standpoints. Disappointingly, there has been little critique of our Gadamerian research method. For health disciplines to truly make progress in the academic stage, it is vital that we engage in with critique, some of which will come through open and honest reflexive engagement with our topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]