ArticleScientometrics2025
Towards multiple ontologies in science mapping. A tribute to Loet Leydesdorff.
Article in Scientometrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article reviews Loet Leydesdorff's contributions to science mapping. It explains how over the years, his mapping techniques evolved from journal mapping to global maps of science and finally towards interactive interfaces portraying multiple classifications and ontologies. It then critically reviews the challenges faced by current approaches to science mapping, which implicitly assume a 'natural' epistemic structure, with examples from two recent case studies. We observe that bottom-up algorithmic approaches, either based on citation or semantic approaches, lack conceptual consistency regarding the type of categories used: in a same classification a category captures methods, another one has materials, a third one contains empirical objects and a fourth is focused on theories, rather than having a single logic. I argue that science mapping would produce more useful representations by using ontologies based on a single logic that aligns with the particular conceptual needs of the analysis. Novel classification methods based on machine learning and language models hold promise to produce these tailored, question-driven ontologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.