Abstract

There are many different relatedness measures, based for instance on citation relations or textual similarity, that can be used to cluster scientific publications. We propose a principled methodology for evaluating the accuracy of clustering solutions obtained using these relatedness measures. We formally show that the proposed methodology has an important consistency property. The empirical analyses that we present are based on publications in the fields of cell biology, condensed matter physics, and economics. Using the BM25 text-based relatedness measure as the evaluation criterion, we find that bibliographic coupling relations yield more accurate clustering solutions than direct citation relations and cocitation relations. The so-called extended direct citation approach performs similarly to or slightly better than bibliographic coupling in terms of the accuracy of the resulting clustering solutions. The other way around, using a citation-based relatedness measure as evaluation criterion, BM25 turns out to yield more accurate clustering solutions than other text-based relatedness measures.

Highlights

  • Clustering of scientific publications is an important problem in the field of bibliometrics

  • The results obtained when this relatedness measure is used to cluster publications are included in the GA plots. These results provide an upper bound for the results that can be obtained using the citationbased relatedness measures. (Recall from section 2.3 that the highest possible accuracy is obtained when publications are clustered based on the same relatedness measure that is used as the evaluation criterion.) All relatedness measures use a value of 20 for the parameter M of the top M relatedness approach

  • We have introduced a principled methodology for evaluating the accuracy of clustering solutions obtained using different relatedness measures

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Clustering of scientific publications is an important problem in the field of bibliometrics. Bibliometricians have employed many different clustering techniques (e.g., Gläser, Scharnhorst, & Glänzel, 2017; Šubelj, Van Eck, & Waltman, 2016). They have used various different relatedness measures to cluster publications. One perspective is that there is no absolute notion of accuracy (e.g., Gläser et al, 2017). Following this perspective, each relatedness measure yields clustering solutions that are accurate in their own right, and it is not meaningful to ask whether one clustering solution is more accurate than another one.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call