Structure off my preliminary work to comprehend the scholastic citation network for noncommunicable illness and worldwide health, I began to question: how has this scholastic understanding network altered structurally in time? Were the documents that were released earliest in the network the ones that stayed dominant in regards to citations? What disciplines/ locations of scholarship do the dominant documents tend to come from?

So, I chose to run the very same analysis I provided for the last post for for the cumulative citation network for each year from 1994 through 2016.

A number of fascinating observations:

1. As was clear in my previous post, there appears to be an essential inflection point around 1997. The plot of variety of typical citations in time and the variety of short articles released each year reveals that the variety of short articles released each year and the typical variety of citations per short article lines cross each other around then. Likewise in the network plots, we see that the network, for the very first time, broadens beyond the preliminary core of about 5 or 6 documents to a brand-new domain of documents formerly beyond the network. A concern: what are those documents? What triggers the modification in the typical variety of citations and triggers the fast boost in the variety of documents released each year?
2. It appears (though I still require to evaluate this statistically) that the core group of documents that initially comprised the center of the network, stay centrally situated and establish a mostly core-periphery structure to this citation network. Is this real? Are the documents that are crucial early in the network still essential later in the late 2010’s?
3. I question what the “framing” of these documents are? Do they tend towards the dominant 4 × 4 framing that the WHO has supported, in spite of the truth that it most likely misses out on much of the NCD experience of the majority of the extremely bad individuals worldwide?

There is far more to be done, however it’s cool to see these approaches yielding an intriguing story, and possibly description to why we see NCDs of the poorest constantly marginalized in the worldwide health policy arguments.