The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other
Open accessAbstract
This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: D imension 1 can be interpreted as citation‐based versus noncitation‐based, and D imension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.
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
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks
Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1401890.1402008 · Cited by 2,231
Luukkonen, T. (1997) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02461121 · Cited by 94
Cited by
bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 · Cited by 16,064
Pournader, M., Shi, Y., Seuring, S., & Koh, S. C. L. (2020) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1650976 · Cited by 854
Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators
(2019) · Springer Handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3 · Cited by 300
Xia, F., Wang, W., Bekele, T. M., & Liu, H. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2016.2641460 · Cited by 266
Citation analysis: A social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization
Hjørland, B. (2013) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2013.07.001 · Cited by 244
Metadata
- Authors
- Yan, E., & Ding, Y.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-05-31
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1313-1326
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W1975107573
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.22680
- The paper
- Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2012). Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22680
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.