I recently came across this very interesting study by Petrovich and Buonomo, in which they analyze co-citation networks for the last three decades of analytic philosophy. After a bit of conversation with Eugenio, I thought that I would do a little quasi-replication of their results, to take the slightly different methods I’m trying out right now for a little spin.

So I downloaded the sample Petrovich and Buonomo used from the web of science. It consists of the years 1985-2014 from the following 5 journals: *

The question that Petrovich and Buonomo are interested in is the question whether analytic philosophy has become more diverse in these thirty years. There various ways in which one could approach this question. Petrovich and Buonomo go for visual inspection, and I will try to give my own idea on that later. But, first and foremost Eugenio and me were talking about formal evaluation of the co-citation graphs. So the first thing I did was to try and get the transitivities for the different samples. Transitivity

The works of several people was indispensable for this little pet-project. Of course P & B, but also Daniel Probst () who is the main developer behind tmap, the good people of the c???, who are behind the Leiden-community-detection-algorithm, scatterheat package