By applying different clustering algorithms, the author strived to construct the best visual representation of scientific domains and disciplines in Poland. Journals and their disciplinary categories constituted a data set. A comparative analysis of maps was based on both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Complex patterns of eight maps were evaluated taking into account both the local proximity of disciplines and the whole structure of presented domains. Final clustering quality value was introduced and calculated in reference to the knowledge domains. The authors underlined the role of quantitative and qualitative methods in combination in the mapping evaluation. The best results were obtained with the T-distributed stochastic neighbour embedding (t-SNE) algorithm. This youngest technique may have the biggest potential for semantic information studies and in the scope of broadly understood semantic solutions.
KulczyckiEEngelsTNowotniakR. Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities in Flanders and Poland. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2017 Wuhan: 16th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, 16–20 October 2017, pp. 95–104.
14.
de Solla PriceDJ. Networks of scientific papers. Science1965; 149(3683): 510–515.
15.
LeydesdorffLRafolsI.A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech2009; 60(2): 348–362.
16.
KulczyckiE.Assessing publications through a bibliometric indicator: the case of comprehensive evaluation of scientific units in Poland. Res Eval2017; 26: 41–52.
17.
IoannidisJPAKlavansRBoyackKW.Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature2018; 561: 167–169.
18.
VeldenTBoyackKGläserJet al. Comparison of topic extraction approaches and their results. Scientometrics2017; 111: 1169–1221.
19.
BoyackKWKlavansRBörnerK.Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics2005; 64(3): 351–374.
20.
Van EckNJWaltmanLDekkerRet al. A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: multidimensional scaling and VOS. JASIST2010; 61(12): 2405–2416.
21.
BarabásiAL.Network Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, networksciencebook.com
22.
ChenC.Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J Data Inform Sci2017; 2(2): 1–40.
23.
WhiteHD.Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: a remapping of paradig-matic information scientists. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2003; 54(5): 423–434.
24.
BollenJVan de SompelHBettencourtLet al. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS ONE2009; 4(3): e4803.
25.
AkdagSAAGaoCSucheckiKet al. Need to categorize: a comparative look at the categories of universal decimal classification system and Wikipedia. Leonardo2012; 45(1): 84–85.
26.
PradhanP.Science mapping and visualization tools used in bibliometric & scientometric studies: an overview. INFLIBNET News2016; 23: 19–33.
27.
WaltmanLvan EckNJ.A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection. European Physical Journal B2013; 86: 471.
28.
BoyackKWKlavansR. Accurately identifying topics using text: mapping PubMed. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on science and technology indicators, Leiden, 12–14 September 2018. New York: Springer.
29.
WhiteHDLinXMcCainKW. Two modes of automated domain analysis: multidimensional scaling vs. Kohonen feature mapping of information science authors. In: Proceedings of the fifth International ISKO conference (eds HaidiMManiezJPolitSA), 1998, pp. 57–61. Würzberg: Ergon Verlag.
OsinskaVBalaP. Study of dynamics of structured knowledge: qualitative analysis of different mapping approaches. J Inform Sci2015; 41(2): 197–208.
32.
Moya-AnegónFHerrero-SolanaVJiménez-ContrerasE. A connectionist and multivariate approach to science maps: the SOM, clustering and MDS applied to library and information science research. J Inform Sci2006; 32(1): 63–77.
33.
VeldenTHinzeSScharnhorstAet al. Exploration of reproducibility issues in scientometric research. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on science and technology indicators, Leiden, 12–14 September 2018. New York: Springer.
34.
WaltmanLBoyackKWColavizzaGet al. A principled methodology for comparing relatedness measures for clustering publications, arXiv, 2019, arXiv:1901.06815v2.
35.
OsinskaVMalakP. Faculties activity research based on local and global databases. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2017 Wuhan: 16th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, 16–20 October 2017.
ZareHShooshtariPGuptaAet al. Open access data reduction for spectral clustering to analyze high throughput flow cytometry data BMC. Bioinformatics2010; 11: 403, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/403
40.
von LuxburgU. A tutorial on spectral clustering. Stat Comput2007; 17(4): 395–416.
41.
TenenbaumJBde SilvaVLangfordJC. A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science2000; 290: 2319–2323.
42.
van der MaatenLJPHintonGE. Visualizing high-dimensional data using t-SNE. J Mach Learn Res2008; 11: 2579–2605.
43.
HintonGERoweisST. Stochastic neighbor embedding. In: JordanMILeCunYSollaSA (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 15. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 833–840.
44.
PlotnickREGardnerRH. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology1993; 8(3): 201–211.
