The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists
Abstract
In their 1998 article “Visualizing a discipline: An author cocitation analysis of information science, 1972–1995,” White and McCain used multidimensional scaling, hierarchical clustering, and factor analysis to display the specialty groupings of 120 highly‐cited (“paradigmatic”) information scientists. These statistical techniques are traditional in author cocitation analysis (ACA). It is shown here that a newer technique, Pathfinder Networks (PFNETs), has considerable advantages for ACA. In PFNETs, nodes represent authors, and explicit links represent weighted paths between nodes, the weights in this case being cocitation counts. The links can be drawn to exclude all but the single highest counts for author pairs, which reduces a network of authors to only the most salient relationships. When these are mapped, dominant authors can be defined as those with relatively many links to other authors (i.e., high degree centrality). Links between authors and dominant authors define specialties, and links between dominant authors connect specialties into a discipline. Maps are made with one rather than several computer routines and in one rather than many computer passes. Also, PFNETs can, and should, be generated from matrices of raw counts rather than Pearson correlations, which removes a computational step associated with traditional ACA. White and McCain's raw data from 1998 are remapped as a PFNET. It is shown that the specialty groupings correspond closely to those seen in the factor analysis of the 1998 article. Because PFNETs are fast to compute, they are used in AuthorLink, a new Web‐based system that creates live interfaces for cocited author retrieval on the fly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
de Solla Price, D. J., & Page, T. (1961) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1937650 · Cited by 444
Baldi, S. (1998) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657504 · Cited by 335
Cited by
Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · Cited by 21,484
Searching for intellectual turning points: progressive knowledge domain visualization
Chen, C. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0307513100 · Cited by 2,791
Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Chen, C. (2017) · Journal of Data and Information Science · doi:10.1515/jdis-2017-0006 · Cited by 1,925
How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well‐known similarity measures
Eck, N. J. V., & Waltman, L. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21075 · Cited by 966
Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- White, H. D.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-01-30
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 423-434
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W2106336702
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 17.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.10228
- The paper
- White, H. D. (2003). Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10228
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.