It is very popular in bibliometrics to present results on institutions not only as tabular lists, but also on maps (see, for example, the Leiden Ranking). However, the problem with these visualisations is that institutions are frequently spatially clustered in larger cities whereby institutions are positioned one above the other. In this Brief Communication, we propose as an alternative to visualise bibliometric data on the city rather than the institution level to avoid this problem.
MaisonobeMEckertDGrossettiMet al. The world network of scientific collaborations between cities: domestic or international dynamics?J Informetrics2016; 10(4): 1025–1036.
2.
van NoordenR. Cities: building the best cities for science. Which urban regions produce the best research – and can their success be replicated? Nature 2010; 467(7318): 906–908.
3.
FrenkenKHoekmanJ.Spatial scientometrics and scholarly impact: a review of recent studies, tools, and methods. In: DingYRousseauRWolframD (eds) Measuring scholarly impact. London: Springer, 2014, pp. 127–146.
4.
BornmannLStefanerMde Moya AnegónFet al. Ranking and mapping of universities and research-focused institutions worldwide based on highly-cited papers: a visualization of results from multi-level models. Online Informat Rev2014; 38(1): 43–58.
5.
HicksDWoutersPWaltmanLet al. Bibliometrics: the Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature2015; 520(7548): 429–431.
6.
GauffriauMLarsenPOMayeIet al. Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods. Scientometrics2008; 77(1): 147–176.
GlänzelWSchubertA.Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact. J Informat Sci1988; 14(2): 123–127.
9.
BornmannLGlänzelW.Applying the CSS method to bibliometric indicators used in (university) rankings. Scientometrics2017; 110(2): 1077–1079.
10.
BornmannLWaltmanL.The detection of ‘hot regions’ in the geography of science: a visualization approach by using density maps. J Informetrics2011; 5(4): 547–553.
