Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 37) Show all publications
Colliander, C. & Ahlgren, P. (2019). Comparison of publication-level approaches to ex-post citation normalization. Scientometrics, 120(1), 283-300
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Comparison of publication-level approaches to ex-post citation normalization
2019 (English)In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 120, no 1, p. 283-300Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this paper, we compare two sophisticated publication-level approaches to ex-post citation normalization: an item-oriented approach and an approach falling under the general algorithmically constructed classification system approach. Using articles published in core journals in Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI & A&HCI) during 2009 (n=955,639), we first examine, using the measure Proportion explained variation (PEV), to what extent the publication-level approaches can explain and correct for variation in the citation distribution that stems from subject matter heterogeneity. We then, for the subset of articles from life science and biomedicine (n=456,045), gauge the fairness of the normalization approaches with respect to their ability to identify highly cited articles when subject area is factored out. This is done by utilizing information from publication-level MeSH classifications to create high quality subject matter baselines and by using the measure Deviations from expectations (DE). The results show that the item-oriented approach had the best performance regarding PEV. For DE, only the most fine-grained clustering solution could compete with the item-oriented approach. However, the item-oriented approach performed better when cited references were heavily weighted in the similarity calculations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SPRINGER, 2019
Keywords
Algorithmically constructed classification system approach, Citation impact, Field normalization, Item-oriented approach, Research evaluation
National Category
Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-255179 (URN)10.1007/s11192-019-03121-z (DOI)000471656400014 ()2-s2.0-85066012563 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20190904

Available from: 2019-09-04 Created: 2019-09-04 Last updated: 2019-09-04Bibliographically approved
Ding, J., Shen, Z., Ahlgren, P., Tobias, J. & Minguillo, D. (2019). How does author ethnic diversity affect scientific impact?: A study of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In: 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019 - Proceedings: . Paper presented at 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019, 2 September 2019 through 5 September 2019 (pp. 2606-2607). International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How does author ethnic diversity affect scientific impact?: A study of nanoscience and nanotechnology
Show others...
2019 (English)In: 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019 - Proceedings, International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics , 2019, p. 2606-2607Conference paper, Poster (with or without abstract) (Refereed)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2019
Keywords
bibliometrics, scientometrics
National Category
Information Systems Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-264100 (URN)2-s2.0-85073879818 (Scopus ID)9788833811185 (ISBN)
Conference
17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019, 2 September 2019 through 5 September 2019
Note

Conference code: 152215; Export Date: 21 November 2019; Conference Paper; References: AlShebli, B.K., Rahwan, T., Woon, W.L., The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration (2018) Nature Communication -S, 9, pp. 1-10; Freeman, R.B., Huang, W., Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic coauthorship within the United States (2015) Journal of Labor Economics, 33 (S1), pp. S289-S318; Peterson, M.F., International collaboration in organizational behavior research (2001) Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (1), pp. 59-81; Wang, J., Veugelers, R., Stephan, P., Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators (2017) Research Policy, 46 (8), pp. 1416-1436; Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., Glänzel, W., Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account (2016) Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (5), pp. 1257-1265

Available from: 2019-11-21 Created: 2019-11-21 Last updated: 2019-11-21Bibliographically approved
Yue, T., Yang, L., Ahlgren, P., Ding, J., Shi, S. & Frietsch, R. (2018). A comparison of citation disciplinary structure in science between the G7 countries and the BRICS countries. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(3), 14-30
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A comparison of citation disciplinary structure in science between the G7 countries and the BRICS countries
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Journal of Data and Information Science, ISSN 2096-157X, Vol. 3, no 3, p. 14-30Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study aims to compare the characteristics of citation disciplinary structure between the G7 countries and the BRICS countries. In this contribution, which uses about 1 million Web of Science publications and two publications years (1993 and 2013), we compare the G7 countries and the BRICS countries with regard to this type of structure. For the publication year 2013, cosine similarity values regarding the citation disciplinary structures of these countries (and of nine other countries) were used as input to cluster analysis. We also obtained cosine similarity values for a given country and its citation disciplinary structures across the two publication years. Moreover, for the publication year 2013, the within-country Jeffreys-Matusita distance between publication and citation disciplinary structure was measured. First, the citation disciplinary structures of countries depend on multiple and complex factors. It is therefore difficult to completely explain the formation and change of the citation disciplinary structure of a country. This study suggests some possible causes, whereas detailed explanations might be given by future research. Second, the length of the citation window used in this study is three years. However, scientific disciplines differ in their citation practices. Comparison between citations across disciplines using the same citation window length may affect the citation discipline structure results for some countries. First, the results of this study are based on the WoS database. However, in this database some fields are covered to a greater extent than others, which may affect the results for the citation discipline structure for some studied countries. In future research, we might repeat this study using another database (like Scopus) and, in that case, we would like to make comparisons between the two outcomes. Second, the use of a constant journal set yielded that a large share of the journals covered by WoS year 2013 is ignored in the study. Thus, disciplinary structure is studied based on a quite restricted set of publications. The three mentioned limitations should be kept in mind when the results of this study are interpreted. Disciplinary structure on country level is a highlighted topic for the S&T policy makers, especially for those come from developing countries. This study observes the disciplinary structure in the view of academic impact, and the result will provide some evidence to make decision for the discipline strategy and funding allocation. Besides, Jeffreys-Matusita distance is introduced to measure the similarity of citation disciplinary structure and publication disciplinary structure. By applying this measure, some new observations were drawn, for example, "Based on the comparison of publication disciplinary structure and citation disciplinary structure, the paper finds most BRICS counties have less impact with more publications". The outcome of the cluster analysis indicates that the G7 countries and BRICS countries are quite heterogeneous regarding their citation disciplinary structure. For a majority of the G7 countries, the citation disciplinary structure tend to be more stable compared to BRICS countries with regard to the years 1993 and 2013. Most G7 countries, with United States as an exception, turned out to have lower values on the Jeffreys-Matusita distance than BRICS countries, indicating a higher degree of heterogeneity between the publication and the citation disciplinary structure for the latter countries. In other words, BRICS countries still receive much less citations in most disciplines than their publication output would suggest. G7 countries can still expect more citations than is to be expected based on their publication output, thereby generating relatively more impact than BRICS countries.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sciendo, 2018
Keywords
Bibliometrics, Citation disciplinary structure, Country
National Category
Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-246526 (URN)10.2478/jdis-2018-0012 (DOI)000463264000002 ()2-s2.0-85058788770 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20190402

Available from: 2019-04-02 Created: 2019-04-02 Last updated: 2019-04-29Bibliographically approved
Ding, J., Ahlgren, P., Yang, L. & Yue, T. (2018). Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1817-1852
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels
2018 (English)In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 116, no 3, p. 1817-1852Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper analyzes, using Web of Science publications and two time periods (2004-2006 and 2014-2016), the disciplinary structures in the three prestigious journals Nature, Science and PNAS, compared with two baselines: Non-NSP_Multi (multidisciplinary publications that have other source journals than Nature, Science and PNAS), and Non-Multi (publications assigned to other categories than Multidisciplinary). We analyze the profiles at two levels, journal and country. The results for the journal level show that for Nature and Science, the publications are considerably less concentrated to certain disciplines compared to PNAS. Biology is the dominant discipline for all the three journals. Nature and Science have similar publication shares in Medicine, Geosciences, Physics, Space science, and Chemistry. The publications of PNAS are highly concentrated to two disciplines: Biology and Medicine. Compared with Non-NSP_Multi and Non-Multi, the shares of Biology in NSP journals are higher, whereas the share of Medicine is lower. At the country level, 14 countries are included, among them the five BRICS countries. With respect to the NSP journals, the emphasis disciplines (in terms of world share of publications) of most countries other than USA are the disciplines in which USA has its weakest performance. The disciplinary structures of USA and of most of the other studied countries therefore tend to be different. Regarding Non-NSP_Multi and Non-Multi, the shapes of the disciplinary structures of the 14 countries can be roughly grouped into three groups, while there are more types of shapes for the countries in the NSP journals. For all five units of analysis, the discipline structures of most countries generally change only slightly between different time periods. The structures of some BRICS countries, however, change to a relatively large extent.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SPRINGER, 2018
Keywords
Country, Disciplinary structure, Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Publication volume
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology) Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-234161 (URN)10.1007/s11192-018-2812-9 (DOI)000442007200021 ()2-s2.0-85049066454 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20181019

Available from: 2018-10-19 Created: 2018-10-19 Last updated: 2018-11-12Bibliographically approved
Sjögårde, P. & Ahlgren, P. (2018). Granularity of algorithmically constructed publication-level classifications of research publications: Identification of topics. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 133-152
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Granularity of algorithmically constructed publication-level classifications of research publications: Identification of topics
2018 (English)In: Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1751-1577, E-ISSN 1875-5879, Vol. 12, no 1, p. 133-152Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The purpose of this study is to find a theoretically grounded, practically applicable and useful granularity level of an algorithmically constructed publication-level classification of research publications (ACPLC). The level addressed is the level of research topics. The methodology we propose uses synthesis papers and their reference articles to construct a baseline classification. A dataset of about 31 million publications, and their mutual citations relations, is used to obtain several ACPLCs of different granularity. Each ACPLC is compared to the baseline classification and the best performing ACPLC is identified. The results of two case studies show that the topics of the cases are closely associated with different classes of the identified ACPLC, and that these classes tend to treat only one topic. Further, the class size variation is moderate, and only a small proportion of the publications belong to very small classes. For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed methodology is suitable to determine the topic granularity level of an ACPLC and that the ACPLC identified by this methodology is useful for bibliometric analyses. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier Ltd, 2018
Keywords
Algorithmic classification, Article-level classification, Classification systems, Granularity level, Topic, Computer applications, Bibliometric analysis, Case-studies, Classification system, Different class, Different granularities, Granularity levels, Research topics, Publishing
National Category
Media and Communications
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-223152 (URN)10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.006 (DOI)000427479800010 ()2-s2.0-85039443998 (Scopus ID)
Note

Export Date: 13 February 2018; Article; Correspondence Address: Sjögårde, P.; University Library, Karolinska InstitutetSweden; email: peter.sjogarde@ki.se. QC QC 20180314

Available from: 2018-03-14 Created: 2018-03-14 Last updated: 2018-05-04Bibliographically approved
Tong, S. & Ahlgren, P. (2017). Evolution of three Nobel Prize themes and a Nobel snub theme in chemistry: a bibliometric study with focus on international collaboration. Scientometrics, 112(1), 75-90
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Evolution of three Nobel Prize themes and a Nobel snub theme in chemistry: a bibliometric study with focus on international collaboration
2017 (English)In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 112, no 1, p. 75-90Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this study, three chemistry research themes closely associated with the Nobel Prize are bibliometrically analyzed—Ribozyme, Ozone and Fullerene—as well as a research theme in chemistry not associated with the Nobel Prize (a Nobel snub theme): Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation. We analyze, based on an algorithmically constructed publication-level classification system, the evolution of the four themes with respect to publication volume and international collaboration, using two datasets, one of them a subset of highly cited publications, for each considered time period. The focus of the study is on international collaboration, where co-occurrence of country names in publications is used as a proxy for international collaboration. For all four themes, especially for Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation, the publication volumes increase considerably from the earliest period to the later periods. The international collaboration rate shows an increasing trend for each theme. For Ozone, Fullerene and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation, the international collaboration rate tend to be higher for the highly cited publications compared to full datasets. With regard to the evolution of number of countries per international publication and per highly cited international publication, a vast majority of the distributions are positively skewed, with a large share of publications with two countries. With respect to the last four periods of the study, the concentration to two countries per publication is more pronounced for the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller equation theme compared to the three Nobel Prize themes. © 2017, The Author(s).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2017
Keywords
Bibliometrics, Chemistry, Evolution, International collaboration, Nobel Prize, Publication volume
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-216316 (URN)10.1007/s11192-017-2377-z (DOI)000403466900004 ()2-s2.0-85018287142 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20171110

Available from: 2017-11-10 Created: 2017-11-10 Last updated: 2018-09-11Bibliographically approved
Ahlgren, P., Yue, T., Rousseau, R. & Yang, L. (2017). The role of the Chinese Key Labs in the international and national scientific arena revisited. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 132-143
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The role of the Chinese Key Labs in the international and national scientific arena revisited
2017 (English)In: Research Evaluation, ISSN 0958-2029, E-ISSN 1471-5449, Vol. 26, no 2, p. 132-143Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this contribution, which builds on and develops a study that was published more than 10 years ago, we address the role of the Chinese Key Labs (KLs) in the international and national scientific arena. We give a short overview of the position of KLs in China, including their budget and manpower. Based on large numbers of Chinese publications obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), the KLs are compared across publication years to the rest of China (ChRest) with respect to publication output and citation impact. We also look at collaboration in terms of co-publishing between the KLs and the ChRest. As to publications in the WoS, we found that the contribution of KLs compared with the ChRest is slightly and irregularly increasing (using full counting as well as fractional counting), whereas a stronger increasing trend is observed for the corresponding contribution in the CSCD. We observed an increase in the number of collaborations between KLs and Chinese colleagues, regardless of database. For WoS and field normalized citation indicators, we obtained the expected results that researchers at KLs perform considerably better than other Chinese colleagues and, moreover, perform clearly better than database average. As such we may conclude that KLs have lived up to their promise and made real impact on the international arena.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2017
Keywords
Chinese S&T system, Key Labs, publication volume, citation impact, internationalization, Chinese and foreign journals
National Category
Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-211418 (URN)10.1093/reseval/rvx011 (DOI)000405418600008 ()2-s2.0-85020246459 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20170801

Available from: 2017-08-01 Created: 2017-08-01 Last updated: 2017-08-01Bibliographically approved
Yang, G., Ahlgren, P., Yang, L., Rousseau, R. & Ding, J. (2016). Using multi-level frontiers in DEA models to grade countries/territories. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 238-253
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Using multi-level frontiers in DEA models to grade countries/territories
Show others...
2016 (English)In: Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1751-1577, E-ISSN 1875-5879, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 238-253Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Several investigations to and approaches for categorizing academic journals/institutions/countries into different grades have been published in the past. To the best of our knowledge, most existing grading methods use either a weighted sum of quantitative indicators (including the case of one properly defined quantitative indicator) or quantified peer review results. Performance measurement is an important issue of concern for science and technology (S&T) management. In this paper we address this issue, leading to multi-level frontiers resulting from data envelopment analysis (DEA) models to grade selected countries/territories. We use research funding and researchers as input indicators, and take papers, citations and patents as output indicators. Our research results show that using DEA frontiers we can unite countries/territories by different grades. These grades reflect the corresponding countries' levels of performance with respect to multiple inputs and outputs. Furthermore, we use papers, citations and patents as single output (with research funding and researchers as inputs), respectively, to show country/territory grade changes. In order to increase the insight in this approach, we also incorporate a simple value judgment (that the number of citations is more important than the number of papers) as prior information into the DEA models to study the resulting changes of these Countries/Territories' performance grades.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2016
Keywords
Countries/territories, Grades, Data envelopment analysis (DEA), Efficient frontier
National Category
Information Studies Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Computer Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-185082 (URN)10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.008 (DOI)000371938600021 ()2-s2.0-84956619780 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20160414

Available from: 2016-04-14 Created: 2016-04-11 Last updated: 2018-01-10Bibliographically approved
Ahlgren, P., Pagin, P., Persson, O. & Svedberg, M. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of two subdomains in philosophy: free will and sorites. SCIENTOMETRICS, 103(1), 47-73
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Bibliometric analysis of two subdomains in philosophy: free will and sorites
2015 (English)In: SCIENTOMETRICS, ISSN 0138-9130, Vol. 103, no 1, p. 47-73Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this study we tested the fruitfulness of advanced bibliometric methods for mapping subdomains in philosophy. The development of the number of publications on free will and sorites, the two subdomains treated in the study, over time was studied. We applied the cocitation approach to map the most cited publications, authors and journals, and we mapped frequently occurring terms, using a term co-occurrence approach. Both subdomains show a strong increase of publications in Web of Science. When we decomposed the publications by faculty, we could see an increase of free will publications also in social sciences, medicine and natural sciences. The multidisciplinary character of free will research was reflected in the cocitation analysis and in the term co-occurrence analysis: we found clusters/groups of cocited publications, authors and journals, and of co-occurring terms, representing philosophy as well as non-philosophical fields, such as neuroscience and physics. The corresponding analyses of sorites publications displayed a structure consisting of research themes rather than fields. All in all, both philosophers involved in this study acknowledge the validity of the various networks presented. Bibliometric mapping appears to provide an interesting tool for describing the cognitive orientation of a research field, not only in the natural and life sciences but also in philosophy, which this study shows.

Keywords
Bibliometrics, Cocitation analysis, Free will, Mapping, Philosophy, Sorites
National Category
Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-164437 (URN)10.1007/s11192-015-1535-4 (DOI)000351546100003 ()2-s2.0-84925496264 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20150526

Available from: 2015-04-24 Created: 2015-04-17 Last updated: 2015-05-26Bibliographically approved
Ahlgren, P., Hinders, J., Lindelöw, C., Parmhed, S. & Swedberg, P. (2015). Research collaboration between Stockholm University and other Swedish academic institutions: a bibliometric study to support decisions on library collaboration. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML), 4, 49-60
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Research collaboration between Stockholm University and other Swedish academic institutions: a bibliometric study to support decisions on library collaboration
Show others...
2015 (English)In: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML), ISSN 2241-1925, Vol. 4, p. 49-60Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Academic libraries collaborate in several ways. For instance, collaboration can concern standards for indexing and statistics, technical solutions or collection development. A question that a given academic library might ask is with which other academic libraries the library should principally collaborate. In this study, we show how bibliometric methods can be used to generate information that can support decision making with regard to the question at stake. We evaluate the amount of research collaboration between Stockholm University and other Swedish academic institutions across five publishing years, and for the whole considered time period, where research collaboration is operationalized as co-publishing. A dataset of publications obtained from Web of Science, where each publication has at least one Stockholm University address, is used in the study. Co-publishing rates, non-fractionalized and fractionalized, across the publishing years and for the whole for period, for Stockholm University and other Swedish academic institutions, are reported. Further, parts of the outcome of the study are visualized in terms of co-publishing networks.

National Category
Information Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-171385 (URN)000364647800006 ()
Note

QC 20150817

Available from: 2015-07-29 Created: 2015-07-29 Last updated: 2016-05-27Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-0229-3073

Search in DiVA

Show all publications