Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse




Journal Article

What counts as Aaesthetics in science? A bibliometric analysis and visualization of the scientific literature from 1970 to 2018


Anglada-Tort,  Manuel
Research Group Computational Auditory Perception, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Max Planck Society;
Department of Audio Communication, Technische Universität Berlin;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

Anglada-Tort, M., & Skov, M. (2022). What counts as Aaesthetics in science? A bibliometric analysis and visualization of the scientific literature from 1970 to 2018. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 16(3), 553-568. doi:10.1037/aca0000350.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0007-1E7D-D
Many scientific disciplines give rise to research published under the moniker of aesthetics. For instance, both psychology and neuroscience have highly active subfields focused on aesthetics research, known as empirical aesthetics and neuroaesthetics. However, it remains unclear what aesthetics is about, and, consequently, if aesthetics research pursued by different scientific disciplines addresses common problems. It is, therefore, difficult to assess how well aesthetics is doing as a scientific enterprise, identify and compare its main subfields, and quantify its productivity. To give an unbiased account of what counts as aesthetics across scientific disciplines, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of every publication found in Web of Science tagged as aesthetics. Spanning, 1970 to 2018, the retrieved literature comprised a total of 27,159 papers, 45,832 authors, and 123 countries. Visualization and bibliometric techniques were used to investigate the main research trends and subfields, growth of publications, citation analysis, and country productivity and collaborations. From 1970 to 2018, there was a clear increase in aesthetics research over time, with a stronger growth in recent years. The retrieved documents received a total of 217,931 citations, with a mean of 8.02 citations per document (SD = 25.7). Both a cluster analysis of the data, and a comparative analysis a posteriori, revealed that the aesthetics literature clusters into distinct research areas that differ significantly in their object of interest, research productivity and impact. This finding suggests that aesthetics is better thought of as a confederate of research traditions than a whole unified by common problems and research strategies.