A comparison of citation-based clustering and topic modeling for science mapping

Science mapping is an important tool to gain insight into scientific fields, to identify emerging research trends, and to support science policy. Understanding the different ways in which different science mapping approaches capture the structure of scientific fields is critical. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two commonly used approaches, topic modeling (TM) and citation-based clustering (CC), to assess their respective strengths, weaknesses, and the characteristics of their results. We compare the two approaches using cluster-to-topic and topic-to-cluster mappings based on science maps of cardiovascular research (CVR) generated by TM and CC. Our findings reveal that relations between topics and clusters are generally weak, with limited overlap between topics and clusters. Only in a few exceptional cases do more than one-third of the documents in a topic belong to the same cluster, or vice versa. CC excels at identifying diseases and generating specialized clusters in Clinical Treatment & Surgical Procedures, while TM focuses on sub-techniques within diagnostic techniques, provides a general perspective on Clinical Treatment & Surgical Procedures, and identifies distinct topics related to practical guidelines. Our work enhances the understanding of science mapping approaches based on TM and CC and delivers practical guidance for scientometricians on how to apply these approaches effectively.