BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Wouter de Nooy

Wouter de Nooy appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital Librariesphysics.soc-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

The "Tournaments" Metaphor in Citation Impact Studies: Power-Weakness Ratios (PWR) as a Journal Indicator

Ramanujacharyulu's (1964) Power-Weakness Ratio (PWR) measures impact by recursively multiplying the citation matrix by itself until convergence is reached in both the cited and citing dimensions; the quotient of these values is defined as PWR, whereby "cited" is considered as power and "citing" as weakness. Analytically, PWR is an attractive candidate for measuring journal impact because of its symmetrical handling of the rows and columns in the asymmetrical citation matrix, its recursive algorithm, and its mathematical elegance. In this study, PWR is discussed and critically assessed in relation to other size-independent recursive metrics. A test using the set of 83 journals in "information and library science" (according to the Web-of-Science categorization) converged, but did not provide interpretable results. Further decomposition of this set into homogeneous sub-graphs shows that--like most other journal indicators--PWR can perhaps be used within homogeneous sets, but not across citation communities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Can "Hot Spots" in the Sciences Be Mapped Using the Dynamics of Aggregated Journal-Journal Citation Relations?

Using three years of the Journal Citation Reports (2011, 2012, and 2013), indicators of transitions in 2012 (between 2011 and 2013) are studied using methodologies based on entropy statistics. Changes can be indicated at the level of journals using the margin totals of entropy production along the row or column vectors, but also at the level of links among journals by importing the transition matrices into network analysis and visualization programs (and using community-finding algorithms). Seventy-four journals are flagged in terms of discontinuous changes in their citations; but 3,114 journals are involved in "hot" links. Most of these links are embedded in a main component; 78 clusters (containing 172 journals) are flagged as potential "hot spots" emerging at the network level. An additional finding is that PLoS ONE introduced a new communication dynamics into the database. The limitations of the methodology are elaborated using an example. The results of the study indicate where developments in the citation dynamics can be considered as significantly unexpected. This can be used as heuristic information; but what a "hot spot" in terms of the entropy statistics of aggregated citation relations means substantively can be expected to vary from case to case.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Dynamics of Triads in Aggregated Journal-Journal Citation Relations: Specialty Developments at the Above-Journal Level

Dyads of journals related by citations can agglomerate into specialties through the mechanism of triadic closure. Using the Journal Citation Reports 2011, 2012, and 2013, we analyze triad formation as indicators of integration (specialty growth) and disintegration (restructuring). The strongest integration is found among the large journals that report on studies in different scientific specialties, such as PLoS ONE, Nature Communications, Nature, and Science. This tendency towards large-scale integration has not yet stabilized. Using the Islands algorithm, we also distinguish 51 local maxima of integration. We zoom into the cited articles that carry the integration for: (i) a new development within high-energy physics and (ii) an emerging interface between the journals Applied Mathematical Modeling and the International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. In the first case, integration is brought about by a specific communication reaching across specialty boundaries, whereas in the second, the dyad of journals indicates an emerging interface between specialties. These results suggest that integration picks up substantive developments at the specialty level. An advantage of the bottom-up method is that no ex ante classification of journals is assumed in the dynamic analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Aggregated journal-journal citation relations in Scopus and Web-of-Science matched and compared in terms of networks, maps, and interactive overlays

We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science and Social Science Citation Indexes (SCI and SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global maps were developed for the two sets separately; sets of documents can then be compared using overlays to both maps. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the two sets; that is, 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was then pursued on the set of journals shared between the two databases and the two sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (that is, numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman's \r{ho} > 0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important--they are citing shared journals rather than being cited by them--but the humanities are covered better in Scopus than in JCR.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the US National Science Board. We compare (i) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (ii) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi & Castellano (2012a), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Innovation as a Nonlinear Process, the Scientometric Perspective, and the Specification of an "Innovation Opportunities Explorer"

The process of innovation follows non-linear patterns across the domains of science, technology, and the economy. Novel bibliometric mapping techniques can be used to investigate and represent distinctive, but complementary perspectives on the innovation process (e.g., "demand" and "supply") as well as the interactions among these perspectives. The perspectives can be represented as "continents" of data related to varying extents over time. For example, the different branches of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in the Medline database provide sources of such perspectives (e.g., "Diseases" versus "Drugs and Chemicals"). The multiple-perspective approach enables us to reconstruct facets of the dynamics of innovation, in terms of selection mechanisms shaping localizable trajectories and/or resulting in more globalized regimes. By expanding the data with patents and scholarly publications, we demonstrate the use of this multi-perspective approach in the case of RNA Interference (RNAi). The possibility to develop an "Innovation Opportunities Explorer" is specified.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access