Seven clusters of data visualization articles in Scopus using social network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyse the bibliographic characteristics and content of articles on Data Visualization published in journals indexed by Scopus written by researchers from throughout the world. We conducted a bibliometric and content analysis of publication in the Scopus database. We only retrieved articles written in English. We conducted content analysis using the VOSviewer software and visualized the co-occurrence of keywords and bibliographic coupling of sources and countries. Following the study protocol, we found 862 articles on Data Visualization over the past 30 years. The most productive journal that published these articles was Lecture Notes In Computer Science (n=32). The most productive country was the United States (n=305). Based on citations, the most influential authors, and journals were Thorvaldsdóttir et al., (2013) [Thorvaldsdóttir, H., Robinson, J. T., & Mesirov, J. P. (2013). Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): High-performance genomics data visualization and exploration. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 14(2), 178–192.] (n=4699), and IEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (n=656). The keywords of research on Data Visualization formed 7 clusters (e.g. Data Visualization, Visualization, and Human). From a global perspective, Data Visualization research in the past 30 years has increased significantly. There were European published journals nominated publications. Thus, Asian countries need to conduct more active research on this topic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.102 | 0.094 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".