| Title |
Science map metaphors: a comparison of network versus hexmap-based visualizations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-017-2596-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katy Börner, Adam H. Simpson, Andreas Bueckle, Robert L. Goldstone |
| Abstract |
Most maps of science use a network layout; few use a landscape metaphor. Human users are trained in reading geospatial maps, yet most have a hard time reading even simple networks. Prior work using general networks has shown that map-based visualizations increase recall accuracy of data. This paper reports the result of a comparison of two comparable renderings of the UCSD map of science that are: the original network layout and a novel hexmap that uses a landscape metaphor to layout the 554 subdisciplines grouped into 13 color-coded disciplines of science. Overlaid are HITS metrics that show the impact and transformativeness of different scientific subdisciplines. Both maps support the same interactivity, including search, filter, zoom, panning, and details on demand. Users performed memorization, search, and retrieval tasks using both maps. Results did not show any significant differences in how the two maps were remembered or used by participants. We conclude with a discussion of results and planned future work. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 29% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Librarian | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 9 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 21% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 26% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,585,544
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#2,284
of 2,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,179
of 439,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#44
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.