A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front

This paper builds on previous research concerned with the classification and specialty mapping of research fields. Two methods are put to test in order to decide if significant differences as to mapping results of the research front of a science field occur when compared. The first method was based on document co-citation analysis where papers citing co-citation clusters were assumed to reflect the research front. The second method was bibliographic coupling where likewise citing papers were assumed to reflect the research front. The application of these methods resulted in two different types of aggregations of papers: (1) groups of papers citing clusters of co-cited works and (2) clusters of bibliographically coupled papers. The comparision of the two methods as to mapping results was pursued by matching word profiles of groups of papers citing a particular co-citation cluster with word profiles of clusters of bibliographically coupled papers. Findings suggested that the research front was portrayed in two considerably different ways by the methods applied. It was concluded that the results in this study would support a further comparative study of these methods on a more detailed and qualitative ground. The original data set encompassed 73,379 articles from the fifty most cited environmental science journals listed in Journal Citation Report, science edition downloaded from the Science Citation Index on CD-ROM.