The paper discusses the construction of bibliometric networks, focusing on the differences between full counting and fractional counting methods. Full counting assigns equal weight to each action, regardless of the number of authors or citations, while fractional counting assigns equal weight to each action, regardless of the number of co-authors or citations. The authors argue that fractional counting is preferable for many purposes due to its ability to distribute the influence of actions equally, regardless of their scale. They present empirical analyses of co-authorship networks of universities and bibliographic coupling networks of journals, showing that fractional counting yields more balanced and meaningful results compared to full counting. The paper concludes that fractional counting is a more appropriate method for constructing bibliometric networks, as it provides a more equitable representation of the relationships between entities.The paper discusses the construction of bibliometric networks, focusing on the differences between full counting and fractional counting methods. Full counting assigns equal weight to each action, regardless of the number of authors or citations, while fractional counting assigns equal weight to each action, regardless of the number of co-authors or citations. The authors argue that fractional counting is preferable for many purposes due to its ability to distribute the influence of actions equally, regardless of their scale. They present empirical analyses of co-authorship networks of universities and bibliographic coupling networks of journals, showing that fractional counting yields more balanced and meaningful results compared to full counting. The paper concludes that fractional counting is a more appropriate method for constructing bibliometric networks, as it provides a more equitable representation of the relationships between entities.