medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2011, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2011; 22 (3)

The bibliometric approach to identify paradigms in knowledge domains

Vega ARL; Fernández MJC; de Moya AF

Language: Spanish
References: 61
Page: 251-261
PDF size: 136.07 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The current paper is a brief approximation to Bibliometrics as approach for the identification of paradigms in knowledge domains. It is analyzed the use of Bibliometrics for the study of cognoscitive and social structure of Science, as well as its intellectual history during the last 45 years. The article deals with perspectives based on citation analysis, and particularly processes of co-citation clustering, for the identification of research fronts and emergent paradigms. It is recognized two antagonic visions related to the use of citation analysis as technique for research evaluation: the constructivist critic and the normative theory. It is assumed the normative theory to identify the potential utility of Bibliometrics as approach, tool or method for the analysis of a knowledge domain. It is enunciated the importance of its integration to historical and epistemological approaches for the identification of paradigmatic transformations in the scientific activity.


REFERENCES

  1. Glanzel W, Schoepflin U. Little scientometrics - big scientometrics. . . and beyond. Scientometrics. 1994;30(2/3):375-84.

  2. Tague-Sutcliffe J. An introduction to informetrics. Inform Proces Manag. 1992;28(1):1-3.

  3. Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J Document. 1969;25(4):348- 49.

  4. Cole F, Eales NB. The history of comparative anatomy. Part I: a statistical analysis of the literature. Sci progr. 1917;11:578-96.

  5. Gross PL, Gross EM. College libraries and chemical education. Science. 1927;66:1229-34.

  6. Astrom F. Changes in the LIS research front: time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004. J Amer Soc Inform Scien Technol. 2007;58(7):947-57.

  7. Hjørland B, Albrechtsen H. Toward a New Horizon in Information-Science - Domain-Analysis. J Amer Soc Inform Sci. 1995;46(6):400-25.

  8. Okubo Y. Bibliometrics indicator and analysis of research systems, methods and examples. Paris: OCDE; 1997.

  9. White HD, McCain K. Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of Information Science, 1972-1995. J Amer Soc Inform Sci. 1998;49(4):327-55.

  10. Borgman CL. Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. London: Sage; 1990.

  11. Chen CM. Mapping Scientific Frontiers - The Quest for Knowledge visualization. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2003.

  12. Chen CM, Paul RJ. Visualizing a knowledge domain´s intellectual structure. Computer. 2001;34(3):65-71.

  13. Garfield E. Scientography: mapping the tracks of science. Current Contents: Soc Behav Sci. 1994;7(45):5-10.

  14. Garfield E, Sher IH, Torpie RJ. The use of citation data in writing the history of science. In. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information; 1964.

  15. Pettigrew KE, McKechnie L. The Use of Theory in Information Science Research. J Am Soc Inform Sci Techn. 2001;52(1):6273.

  16. Price D. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963.

  17. Price D. Networks of scientific papers. Science. 1965;149:510-15.

  18. Price D. Science and technology: Distinctions and interrelationships. In: W Gruber & G. Marquis (Eds.). Factors in the transfer of technology. Boston: MIT Press; 1969.

  19. Small HA. Co-citation model of a scientific speciality: a longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science. 1977;7:139-66.

  20. White HD, Griffth BC. Author co-citation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science; 1981;32(3):163- 71.

  21. Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, González-Molina A, Muñoz-Fernández FJ, Herrero-Solana V. Visualización y análisis de la estructura científica española: ISI Web of Science 1990-2005. El Profesional de la Información. 2006;15(4):258-69.

  22. Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, Corera-Álvarez E, González-Molina A, Muñoz-Fernández FJ, Herrero-Solana V. Visualizing the Marrow of Science. J Am Soc Inform Sci and Technol. 2007; 58(14):2167-79.

  23. Vargas-Quesada B, Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, Guerrero-Bote V. Evolución de la estructura científica española: ISI Web of Science 1990-2005. El Profesional de la Información. 2008;17(1):22-37.

  24. Vargas-Quesada B, Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, González-Molina A. Showing the essential science structure of a scientific domain and its evolution. Information Visualization. 2010;9(4):288-300.

  25. Chen CM. CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2006;57(3):359-77.

  26. Morris SA, Yen G, Wu Z, Asnake B. Time line visualization of research fronts. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2003;54(5):413-22.

  27. Persson O. The intellectual base and research front of JASIS 1986-1990. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1994;45(1):31-8.

  28. Chen CM. Mapping Scientific Frontiers - The Quest for Knowledge Visualization. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2003.

  29. Chen CM, Cribben T, Macredie R, Morar S. Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms: two case studies. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2002;53(8):678-89.

  30. Small H. Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. J Docum. 1980;36:183-96.

  31. Kuhn TS. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1971.

  32. Small H. Paradigms, citations and maps of science: A personal history. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2003;54(5):394-99.

  33. Marx W, Bornmann L. How accurately does Thomas Kuhn's model of paradigm change describe the transition from the static view of the universe to the big bang theory in cosmology? A historical reconstruction and citation analysis. Scientometrics. 2010;84:44164.

  34. Small H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1973;24(4):265-9.

  35. Marshakova IV. A system of document connection based on references. Scientific and Technical Information Serial of VINITI; 1973;6(2):3-8.

  36. Small H. Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science; 1978;8:327-40.

  37. Griffith BC, Small H. The structure of scientific literature II: Towards a macro and microstructure for science. Science Studies. 1974;4:339-65.

  38. White HD. Author co-citation analysis: overview and defense. In: Borgman CL (Ed.). Scholary Communication and Bibliometrics. p. 84-106. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1990.

  39. McCain K. Core journal networks and cocitations maps: new bibliometric tool for serials research and management. Library Quaterly. 1991;61(3):311-36.

  40. Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solana V, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández FJ. A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics. 2004;61(1):129-45.

  41. Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Herrero-Solana V, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández FJ. Domain analysis and information retrieval through the construction of heliocentric maps based on ISI-JCR category cocitation. Information Processing and Management. 2005;41(6):1520-33.

  42. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955;122(3159):108-11.

  43. Schneider JW. Verification of bibliometric methods' applicability for thesaurus construction. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Royal School of Library and Information Science; 2004.

  44. Kuhn TS. Second thoughts on paradigms. In: Suppe F (Ed.). The structure of scientific theories. University of Illinois Press; 1977.

  45. Sullivan D, White DH, Barboni EJ. The state of a science: Indicators in the specialty of weak interactions. Social Studies of Science. 1977;7(2):167-200.

  46. Spinak E. Diccionario Enciclopédico de Bibliometría, Cienciometría e Informetría. Paris: UNESCO; 1996.

  47. Cozzens SE. Split citation identity: a case study from economics. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1982;33(4):233-6.

  48. Cozzens SE. What do citations count? The rhetoric first model. Scientometrics. 1989;15(5/6):437-47.

  49. Latour B. Science in Action. Open University: Milton Keynes; 1987.

  50. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Another test of the normative theory of citing. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1989;16:151-72.

  51. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 1989;40(5):342-9.

  52. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics. 1996;36(3):435-44.

  53. Cole S. Making Science. Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.

  54. Garfield E. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1979.

  55. Martyn J. Citation analysis. J Docum. 1975;31(4):290-97.

  56. Merton RK. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973.

  57. Price D. Little Science, Big Science . . . And Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press; 1986.

  58. Merton RK. Foreword. In: Garfield E (Ed.). Citation indexing: its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley; 1979. p. 7-11.

  59. Smith LC. Citation analysis. Library Trends. 1981;30(1):83-106.

  60. Chen CM. Measuring the movement of a research paradigm. In: SPIE (Ed.). San José, CA: Paper presented at the visualization of data analysis. 2005;5669. p. 63-76.

  61. Hjørland B. Domain analysis in information science -Eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative. J Docum. 2002;58(4):422-62.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com