This paper compares full and fractional counting methods for constructing bibliometric networks, such as co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks. The full counting method assigns full weight (1) to each co-author or citation, while the fractional counting method assigns equal weight (1/n) to each co-author or citation, where n is the number of co-authors or citations. The authors argue that fractional counting is preferable because it ensures that each action (e.g., co-authoring or citing) has equal weight, regardless of the number of co-authors or citations. This approach prevents highly cited publications or co-authorships from disproportionately influencing network analysis. The paper presents two empirical analyses: one on university co-authorship networks and another on journal bibliographic coupling networks. In the university co-authorship analysis, fractional counting produces a more distinct clustering of universities by country, while full counting results in a more diffuse network. In the journal analysis, fractional counting yields a more accurate representation of journal relationships, as full counting overemphasizes journals with many citations to a single publication. The authors show that in full counting, a small number of highly co-authored publications can have a disproportionately large effect on the network, while in fractional counting, the effect is more evenly distributed. They also demonstrate that fractional counting ensures that each action has equal weight, making it more appropriate for many purposes. The paper concludes that fractional counting is generally preferable for constructing bibliometric networks.This paper compares full and fractional counting methods for constructing bibliometric networks, such as co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks. The full counting method assigns full weight (1) to each co-author or citation, while the fractional counting method assigns equal weight (1/n) to each co-author or citation, where n is the number of co-authors or citations. The authors argue that fractional counting is preferable because it ensures that each action (e.g., co-authoring or citing) has equal weight, regardless of the number of co-authors or citations. This approach prevents highly cited publications or co-authorships from disproportionately influencing network analysis. The paper presents two empirical analyses: one on university co-authorship networks and another on journal bibliographic coupling networks. In the university co-authorship analysis, fractional counting produces a more distinct clustering of universities by country, while full counting results in a more diffuse network. In the journal analysis, fractional counting yields a more accurate representation of journal relationships, as full counting overemphasizes journals with many citations to a single publication. The authors show that in full counting, a small number of highly co-authored publications can have a disproportionately large effect on the network, while in fractional counting, the effect is more evenly distributed. They also demonstrate that fractional counting ensures that each action has equal weight, making it more appropriate for many purposes. The paper concludes that fractional counting is generally preferable for constructing bibliometric networks.