The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed.
展开▼
机译：本研究审查了作者共同引文分析（ACA）的基本方面的一个 - 定义了共同引用计数的方式。共同传算提供了所有后续统计分析和映射的数据，我们将基于两种不同类型的共同传递计数进行比较ACA结果 - 传统类型仅计算在引用的工作作者中的第一个一方面和非传统类型，考虑到另一方面引用的第一个作者的作者。结果表明，通过这种非传统作者共同传算机制作的图片包含更多的一致作者组，因此可以更加清晰。 However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed.讨论了这些效果的原因。
展开▼
