Isn't this bibliographic coupling?? Co-citation link should be the other way around i.e two papers (in a selected set of papers) have a co-citation link if they are together cited by a third paper. Just asking to clarify a confusion.
Dear @ahmadammar! Co-citations and bibliographic coupling are related to the same phenomenon, but the former focuses on the papers that make citations whereas the latter focuses on the papers that received citations (i.e., the references). You can see in the video that we have indeed run a co-citation analysis. Except for the term "the other way around", your explanation is correct ("two papers have a co-citation link if they are together cited by a third paper"). That is exactly what we have shown in the blue co-citation network of 56 references cited by the first paper. The green and red networks in Vosviewer also show the papers that have been co-cited once. The two references in the middle of the green and red networks in Vosviewer were co-cited twice, by the two papers making citations located at the top-center and top-right of the slide (which then are bibliographic coupled). We did not run the bibliographic coupling analysis in Vosviewer, but they are indeed shown on the slides (as I guess you asked). The paper on the top left corner is not bibliographic coupled, whereas the other two (on the top center and the top right) are coupled bibliographically. Best regards!
Excellent presentation. I just want to make sure I understand something. You compared three papers. There would be a record in Web of Science of each one of those, but you can't run the co-citation analysis on those three records correct? It looks like you had to download all of the references for those three papers from WoS. Then you could run the analysis. Is that correct? Or, can you capture all of the references when you download the records for the three papers? It looks like you only selected three records in Vos Viewer when you were creating the map. I hope that makes sense. Excellent video!!!!
Dear Gary Atwood: I just downloaded the 3 records for this video (their references were included as metadata; sometimes you have to click a button in WoS to include this information while exporting). This video is part of a series (playlist) in the channel: ruclips.net/p/PLOvje25F2DyN3-7bk4j825gbYl8Wy8iUA I guess the first video of the playlist will cover most of your questions. Regarding the questions and options you made, this one would be the best fit: "Or, can you capture all of the references when you download the records for the three papers? It looks like you only selected three records in Vos Viewer when you were creating the map" Regarding exporting the records from WoS, you may also check this video: ruclips.net/video/4PHEbKRVL1Q/видео.html Although it is in Br-Portuguese, I selected the exact moment where I click the option-button to download references information while exporting records' information. Sincerely,
Parabéns pelo conteúdo amigo, é importante ter Br contribuindo na qualidade da pesquisa acadêmica. Congrats
Isn't this bibliographic coupling?? Co-citation link should be the other way around i.e two papers (in a selected set of papers) have a co-citation link if they are together cited by a third paper. Just asking to clarify a confusion.
Dear @ahmadammar! Co-citations and bibliographic coupling are related to the same phenomenon, but the former focuses on the papers that make citations whereas the latter focuses on the papers that received citations (i.e., the references). You can see in the video that we have indeed run a co-citation analysis. Except for the term "the other way around", your explanation is correct ("two papers have a co-citation link if they are together cited by a third paper"). That is exactly what we have shown in the blue co-citation network of 56 references cited by the first paper. The green and red networks in Vosviewer also show the papers that have been co-cited once. The two references in the middle of the green and red networks in Vosviewer were co-cited twice, by the two papers making citations located at the top-center and top-right of the slide (which then are bibliographic coupled). We did not run the bibliographic coupling analysis in Vosviewer, but they are indeed shown on the slides (as I guess you asked). The paper on the top left corner is not bibliographic coupled, whereas the other two (on the top center and the top right) are coupled bibliographically. Best regards!
thankyou@@AcademiaInovar
Excellent presentation. I just want to make sure I understand something. You compared three papers. There would be a record in Web of Science of each one of those, but you can't run the co-citation analysis on those three records correct? It looks like you had to download all of the references for those three papers from WoS. Then you could run the analysis. Is that correct? Or, can you capture all of the references when you download the records for the three papers? It looks like you only selected three records in Vos Viewer when you were creating the map. I hope that makes sense. Excellent video!!!!
Dear Gary Atwood: I just downloaded the 3 records for this video (their references were included as metadata; sometimes you have to click a button in WoS to include this information while exporting).
This video is part of a series (playlist) in the channel: ruclips.net/p/PLOvje25F2DyN3-7bk4j825gbYl8Wy8iUA
I guess the first video of the playlist will cover most of your questions.
Regarding the questions and options you made, this one would be the best fit:
"Or, can you capture all of the references when you download the records for the three papers? It looks like you only selected three records in Vos Viewer when you were creating the map"
Regarding exporting the records from WoS, you may also check this video: ruclips.net/video/4PHEbKRVL1Q/видео.html
Although it is in Br-Portuguese, I selected the exact moment where I click the option-button to download references information while exporting records' information.
Sincerely,
@@AcademiaInovar Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I think that I understand it now.
That music is irritating....
please remove music, and be a little bit louder please.
Thanks for your feedback Rakeshk!