Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science

Strict all-author-based ACA is applied to the Information Science field, in that all authors of all cited references in a classic IS dataset are counted, and in that even the diagonal values of the co-citation matrix are computed in their theoretically optimal form.

Abstract

Although it is generally understood that different citation counting methods can produce quite different author rankings, and although "optimal" author co-citation counting methods have been identified theoretically, studies that compare author co-citation counting methods in author co-citation analysis (ACA) studies are still rare. The present study applies strict all-author-based ACA to the Information Science (IS) field, in that all authors of all cited references in a classic IS dataset are counted, and in that even the diagonal values of the co-citation matrix are computed in their theoretically optimal form. Using Scopus instead of SSCI as the data source, we find that results from a theoretically optimal all-author ACA appear to be excellent in practice, too, although in a field like IS where co-authorship levels are relatively low, its advantages over classic first-author ACA appear considerably smaller than in the more highly collaborative ones targeted before. Nevertheless, we do find some differences between the two approaches, in that first-author ACA appears to favor theorists who presumably tend to work alone, while all-author ACA appears to paint a somewhat more recent picture of the field, and to pick out some collaborative author clusters.