4.5 Article

Similarity network fusion for scholarly journals

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101226

关键词

Similarity network fusion; Generalized distance correlation; Partial distance correlation; Multilayer social networks; Communities in networks; Co-citation network; Interlocking authorship network; Interlocking editorship network; Gatekeepers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the intellectual and social proximity among scholarly journals using network fusion techniques. The results show that editors play a major role in defining the boundaries of scholarly communities within the fused network structure, while clusters of journals in information and library sciences and statistics reflect sub-field specializations, and in economics, clusters of journals are more related to alternative methodological approaches.
This paper explores intellectual and social proximity among scholarly journals by using network fusion techniques. Similarities among journals are initially represented by means of a three-layer network based on co-citations, common authors and common editors. The information contained in the three layers is then combined by building a fused similarity network. The fusion consists in an unsupervised process that exploits the structural properties of the layers. Subsequently, partial distance correlations are adopted for measuring the contribution of each layer to the structure of the fused network. Finally, the community morphology of the fused network is explored by using modularity. In the three fields considered (i.e. economics, information and library sciences and statistics) the major contribution to the structure of the fused network arises from editors. This result suggests that the role of editors as gatekeepers of journals is the most relevant in defining the boundaries of scholarly communities. In information and library sciences and statistics, the clusters of journals reflect sub-field specializations. In economics, clusters of journals appear to be better interpreted in terms of alternative methodological approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据