Showing papers in "Scientometrics in 2016"
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich's extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals) to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented.
Abstract: Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus. The objective of this research is to describe the journal coverage of those two databases and to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented. To do this we compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in WoS (13,605 journals) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich's extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals). Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduce biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used. These results imply that in the context of comparative research evaluation, WoS and Scopus should be used with caution, especially when comparing different fields, institutions, countries or languages. The bibliometric community should continue its efforts to develop methods and indicators that include scientific output that are not covered in WoS or Scopus, such as field-specific and national citation indexes.
1,686 citations
TL;DR: A longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases, suggesting that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons.
Abstract: This article aims to provide a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the coverage of the three major bibliometric databases: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science. Based on a sample of 146 senior academics in five broad disciplinary areas, we therefore provide both a longitudinal and a cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases. Our longitudinal comparison of eight data points between 2013 and 2015 shows a consistent and reasonably stable quarterly growth for both publications and citations across the three databases. This suggests that all three databases provide sufficient stability of coverage to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons. Our cross-disciplinary comparison of the three databases includes four key research metrics (publications, citations, h-index, and hI, annual, an annualised individual h-index) and five major disciplines (Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Sciences and Life Sciences). We show that both the data source and the specific metrics used change the conclusions that can be drawn from cross-disciplinary comparisons.
930 citations
TL;DR: Probably some factors such as the quality of the paper, journal impact factor, number of authors, visibility and international cooperation are stronger predictors for citations, than authors’ gender, age and race; characteristics of results and discussion and so on.
Abstract: The majority of academic papers are scarcely cited while a few others are highly cited. A large number of studies indicate that there are many factors influencing the number of citations. An actual review is missing that provides a comprehensive review of the factors predicting the frequency of citations. In this review, we performed a search in WoS, Scopus, PubMed and Medline to retrieve relevant papers. In overall, 2087 papers were retrieved among which 198 relevant papers were included in the study. Three general categories with twenty eight factors were identified to be related to the number of citations: Category one: "paper related factors": quality of paper; novelty and interest of subject; characteristics of fields and study topics; methodology; document type; study design; characteristics of results and discussion; use of figures and appendix in papers; characteristics of the titles and abstracts; characteristics of references; length of paper; age of paper; early citation and speed of citation; accessibility and visibility of papers. Category two: "journal related factors": journal impact factor; language of journal; scope of journal; form of publication. Category three: "author(s) related factors": number of authors; author's reputation; author's academic rank; self-citations; international and national collaboration of authors; authors' country; gender, age and race of authors; author's productivity; organizational features; and funding. Probably some factors such as the quality of the paper, journal impact factor, number of authors, visibility and international cooperation are stronger predictors for citations, than authors' gender, age and race; characteristics of results and discussion and so on.
477 citations
TL;DR: The emerging trends in PPP research have shifted away from concession pricing and concession periods, PPP legislation, procurement management, critical success factors, value for money and PPP project governance toward risk allocation, performance evaluation, renegotiation of concession contracts, real option evaluation and contract management, which are likely to define the new research frontier in the field of PPPResearch.
Abstract: The last decade has witnessed rapid development in the literature on public---private partnerships (PPPs); however, there have been few attempts to map the global research in this domain. To identify the state of the field and trends in PPP research, the CiteSpace software package was used in this study to conduct a series of content analyses and examine global patterns among publications, including the distribution of core authors and institutions; high-frequency categories and keywords; journal and author contributions; highly cited papers and hot topics of research; and trends with regard to co-author analysis, co-word analysis, co-citation analysis, and particularly cluster analysis. We present all research focuses in a scientometric way and arrive at the following findings. First, the most significant developments and progress in PPP research have occurred primarily in China, the US, the UK and Australia. Second, the existing studies in the field of PPP research focus primarily on Engineering, Business and Economics, and Public Administration. Third, the emerging trends in PPP research have shifted away from concession pricing and concession periods, PPP legislation, procurement management, critical success factors, value for money and PPP project governance toward risk allocation, performance evaluation, renegotiation of concession contracts, real option evaluation and contract management, which are likely to define the new research frontier in the field of PPP research.
215 citations
TL;DR: The aim of the study is to identify the most relevant countries in this field and the leading trends that are occurring during the last years and to give a global overview of the current academic state of the art in the area.
Abstract: Many countries are investing a lot in innovation in order to modernize their economies. A key step in this process is the development of academic research in innovation. This article analyzes the leading countries in innovation research between 1989 and 2013 from an academic perspective. The aim of the study is to identify the most relevant countries in this field and the leading trends that are occurring during the last years. The work also introduces a general perspective analyzing the research developed in several supranational regions. The main advantage of this contribution is that it gives a global overview of the current academic state of the art in the area. The analysis focuses on the most productive and influential countries in innovation research classifying the results in periods of 5 years. The leading journals in the field are also studied individually identifying the most productive countries in each of the journals. The results show that the publications of each country are biased by the country origin of the journal. The USA and the UK are the leading countries in this field being the UK the most productive one in per capita terms among the big countries.
202 citations
TL;DR: This paper analyses 25 years of performance management research published in the English-language journals included in SSCI database, separating the business domain from public sector one, and provides a framework to track this literature over the 25-year period.
Abstract: Our paper analyses 25 years of performance management research published in the English-language journals, included in SSCI database, separating the business domain from public sector one We used a content analysis for showing the relationships between the subfields of performance management and the time evolution Through a multiple correspondence analysis based on keywords we provide a framework to track this literature over the 25-year period We conclude the paper with a discussion on future pathways in the performance management literature
182 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on the current challenges for altmetrics and identify three major issues: heterogeneity, data quality and particular dependencies, with an emphasis on past developments in bibliometrics.
Abstract: With increasing uptake among researchers, social media are finding their way into scholarly communication and, under the umbrella term altmetrics, are starting to be utilized in research evaluation. Fueled by technological possibilities and an increasing demand to demonstrate impact beyond the scientific community, altmetrics have received great attention as potential democratizers of the scientific reward system and indicators of societal impact. This paper focuses on the current challenges for altmetrics. Heterogeneity, data quality and particular dependencies are identified as the three major issues and discussed in detail with an emphasis on past developments in bibliometrics. The heterogeneity of altmetrics reflects the diversity of the acts and online events, most of which take place on social media platforms. This heterogeneity has made it difficult to establish a common definition or conceptual framework. Data quality issues become apparent in the lack of accuracy, consistency and replicability of various altmetrics, which is largely affected by the dynamic nature of social media events. Furthermore altmetrics are shaped by technical possibilities and are particularly dependent on the availability of APIs and DOIs, strongly dependent on data providers and aggregators, and potentially influenced by the technical affordances of underlying platforms.
172 citations
TL;DR: An overview of the altmetrics landscape is provided, comparing tool features, social media data sources, and social media events provided by altmetric aggregators, and a meta-analysis across more than 40 cross-metric validation studies shows overall a weak correlation.
Abstract: Altmetrics is an emergent research area whereby social media is applied as a source of metrics to assess scholarly impact. In the last few years, the interest in altmetrics has grown, giving rise to many questions regarding their potential benefits and challenges. This paper aims to address some of these questions. First, we provide an overview of the altmetrics landscape, comparing tool features, social media data sources, and social media events provided by altmetric aggregators. Second, we conduct a systematic review of the altmetrics literature. A total of 172 articles were analysed, revealing a steady rise in altmetrics research since 2011. Third, we analyse the results of over 80 studies from the altmetrics literature on two major research topics: cross-metric validation and coverage of altmetrics. An aggregated percentage coverage across studies on 11 data sources shows that Mendeley has the highest coverage of about 59 % across 15 studies. A meta-analysis across more than 40 cross-metric validation studies shows overall a weak correlation (ranging from 0.08 to 0.5) between altmetrics and citation counts, confirming that altmetrics do indeed measure a different kind of research impact, thus acting as a complement rather than a substitute to traditional metrics. Finally, we highlight open challenges and issues facing altmetrics and discuss future research areas.
159 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the rise in co-authorship in the Social Sciences over a 34-year period and found that the most substantial rises have occurred in subject categories, where the research often is based on the use of experiments, large data set, statistical methods and/or team-production models.
Abstract: This article examines the rise in co-authorship in the Social Sciences over a 34-year period. It investigates the development in co-authorship in different research fields and discusses how the methodological differences in these research fields together with changes in academia affect the tendency to co-author articles. The study is based on bibliographic data about 4.5 million peer review articles published in the period 1980---2013 and indexed in the 56 subject categories of the Web of Science's Social Science Citation Index. The results show a rise in the average number of authors, share of co-authored and international co-authored articles in the majority of the subject categories. However, the results also show that there are great disciplinary differences to the extent of the rises in co-authorship. The subject categories with a great share of international co-authored articles have generally experienced an increase in co-authorship, but increasing international collaboration is not the only factor influencing the rise in co-authorship. Hence, the most substantial rises have occurred in subject categories, where the research often is based on the use of experiments, large data set, statistical methods and/or team-production models.
155 citations
TL;DR: This study provides an overview of the knowledge management literature from 1980 through 2014 by employing bibliometric and text mining analyses on a sample of 500 most cited articles to examine the impact of factors such as number of authors, references, pages, and keywords on the number of citations that they received.
Abstract: This study provides an overview of the knowledge management literature from 1980 through 2014. We employ bibliometric and text mining analyses on a sample of 500 most cited articles to examine the impact of factors such as number of authors, references, pages, and keywords on the number of citations that they received. We also investigate major trends in knowledge management literature including the contribution of different countries, variations across publication years, and identifying active research areas and major journal outlets. Our study serves as a resource for future studies by shedding light on how trends in knowledge management research have evolved over time and demonstrating the characteristics of the most cited articles in this literature. Specifically, our results reveal that the most cited articles are from United States and United Kingdom. The most prolific year in terms of the number of published articles is 2009 and in terms of the number of citations is 2012. We also found a positive relationship between the number of publications' keywords, references, and pages and the number of citations that they have received. Finally, the Journal of Knowledge Management has the largest share in publishing the most cited articles in this field.
153 citations
TL;DR: The main aim of this article is to clarify the on-going evolution of scientific fields that might be driven by the plexus (interwoven combination of parts in a system) of research disciplines, which generates emerging research fields with high growth rates of international scientific collaboration.
Abstract: A fundamental problem in the field of the social studies of science is how to measure the patterns of international scientific collaboration to analyse the structure and evolution of scientific fields. This study here confronts the problem by developing an allometric model of morphological changes in order to measure and analyse the relative growth of international research collaboration in comparison with domestic collaboration only for fields of science. Statistical analysis, based on data of internationally co-authored papers from National Science Foundation (1997---2012 period), shows an acceleration (a disproportionate relative growth) of collaboration patterns in medical sciences, social sciences, geosciences, agricultural sciences, and psychology (predominantly applied fields). By contrast, some predominantly basic fields, including physics and mathematics, have lower levels of relative growth in international scientific collaboration. These characteristics of patterns of international research collaboration seem to be vital contributing factors for the evolution of the social dynamics and social construction of science. The main aim of this article is therefore to clarify the on-going evolution of scientific fields that might be driven by the plexus (interwoven combination of parts in a system) of research disciplines, which generates emerging research fields with high growth rates of international scientific collaboration.
TL;DR: The main findings of the factor analysis suggest that there is a clear division between strategic entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship, and the concept of strategic behavior affects most strategic management research as evidenced by the co-citation analysis.
Abstract: Strategic management remains a recent field of research that is dynamic and changing with the global business economy. Given the sheer importance of research on this field of business management, this paper aims to conduct a co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research. We map the authors and the most relevant approaches as well as detailing the new theoretical perspectives to strategic management theory. The analysis conducted uses three multivariate statistical analysis techniques in addition to the co-citation matrix to shed light on these issues. By incorporating all the citations that are included in the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index, we analyze co-citation patterns of the strategic management field during the period 1971---2014 and identify six subfields (clusters) that constitute the intellectual structure and investigate their mutual relationships. The main findings of the factor analysis suggest that there is a clear division between strategic entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship. In addition, the concept of strategic behavior affects most strategic management research as evidenced by the co-citation analysis. A debate of future directions on the strategic management literature is discussed, which highlights the importance of combining more of a strategic entrepreneurship perspective based on behavioral intentions to the emerging research.
TL;DR: Performance data do explain to a certain extent why male careers in the sample develop much faster than female researchers’ careers; but controlling for performance differences, it is found that gender is an important determinant too and the process of hiring academic staff still remains biased.
Abstract: We take up the issue of performance differences between male and female researchers, and investigate the change of performance differences during the early career. In a previous paper it was shown that among starting researchers gendered performance differences seem small to non-existent (Van Arensbergen et al. 2012). If the differences do not occur in the early career anymore, they may emerge in a later period, or may remain absent. In this paper we use the same sample of male and female researchers, but now compare performance levels about 10 years later. We use various performance indicators: full/fractional counted productivity, citation impact, and relative citation impact in terms of the share of papers in the top 10 % highly cited papers. After the 10 years period, productivity of male researchers has grown faster than of female researcher, but the field normalized (relative) citation impact indicators of male and female researchers remain about equal. Furthermore, performance data do explain to a certain extent why male careers in our sample develop much faster than female researchers' careers; but controlling for performance differences, we find that gender is an important determinant too. Consequently, the process of hiring academic staff still remains biased.
TL;DR: An analytical clarification is proposed by listing an informed set of (sometimes unsolved) problems in bibliometrics which can shed light on the tension between simple but invalid indicators that are widely used (e.g., the h-index) and more sophisticatedicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation practices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or are difficult to interpret.
Abstract: Bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factors, h-indices, and total citation counts are algorithmic artifacts that can be used in research evaluation and management. These artifacts have no meaning by themselves, but receive their meaning from attributions in institutional practices. We distinguish four main stakeholders in these practices: (1) producers of bibliometric data and indicators; (2) bibliometricians who develop and test indicators; (3) research managers who apply the indicators; and (4) the scientists being evaluated with potentially competing career interests. These different positions may lead to different and sometimes conflicting perspectives on the meaning and value of the indicators. The indicators can thus be considered as boundary objects which are socially constructed in translations among these perspectives. This paper proposes an analytical clarification by listing an informed set of (sometimes unsolved) problems in bibliometrics which can also shed light on the tension between simple but invalid indicators that are widely used (e.g., the h-index) and more sophisticated indicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation practices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or are difficult to interpret.
TL;DR: This study explores the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI), and investigates if cited research data “impacts” the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetric scores from various social media platforms.
Abstract: In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the Thomson Reuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data "impacts" the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media platforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of the three altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed that research data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase in citing data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics "foot-prints" is even lower (4---9 %) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between the number of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e. survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higher altmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of all research data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by the DCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research data cited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, we observed that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetrics scores.
TL;DR: It is illustrated how scientific workflows and the Taverna workbench in particular can be used in bibliometrics, and the specific capabilities of Taverna that makes this software a powerful tool in this field are discussed.
Abstract: Scientific workflows organize the assembly of specialized software into an overall data flow and are particularly well suited for multi-step analyses using different types of software tools. They are also favorable in terms of reusability, as previously designed workflows could be made publicly available through the myExperiment community and then used in other workflows. We here illustrate how scientific workflows and the Taverna workbench in particular can be used in bibliometrics. We discuss the specific capabilities of Taverna that makes this software a powerful tool in this field, such as automated data import via Web services, data extraction from XML by XPaths, and statistical analysis and visualization with R. The support of the latter is particularly relevant, as it allows integration of a number of recently developed R packages specifically for bibliometrics. Examples are used to illustrate the possibilities of Taverna in the fields of bibliometrics and scientometrics.
TL;DR: There are differences in the level of efficiency from the two perspectives, because of the weight differences, and a comparison between the efficiency scores of these projects and their success scores reveals differences that may have significant implications.
Abstract: A collaborative Ph.D. project, carried out by a doctoral candidate, is a type of collaboration between university and industry. Due to the importance of such projects, researchers have considered different ways to evaluate the success, with a focus on the outputs of these projects. However, what has been neglected is the other side of the coin--the inputs. The main aim of this study is to incorporate both the inputs and outputs of these projects into a more meaningful measure called efficiency. A ratio of the weighted sum of outputs over the weighted sum of inputs identifies the efficiency of a Ph.D. project. The weights of the inputs and outputs can be identified using a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method. Data on inputs and outputs are collected from 51 Ph.D. candidates who graduated from Eindhoven University of Technology. The weights are identified using a new MCDM method called Best Worst Method (BWM). Because there may be differences in the opinion of Ph.D. candidates and supervisors on weighing the inputs and outputs, data for BWM are collected from both groups. It is interesting to see that there are differences in the level of efficiency from the two perspectives, because of the weight differences. Moreover, a comparison between the efficiency scores of these projects and their success scores reveals differences that may have significant implications. A sensitivity analysis divulges the most contributing inputs and outputs.
TL;DR: International co-authorship has a positive contribution to the FWCI of the institution, yet there are untapped potential to enhance the collaboration among young institutions.
Abstract: We investigated the effect of international collaboration (in the form of international co-authorship) on the impact of publications of young universities ( 100 years old). The following impact indicators are used in this study, they are: (1) the 5-year citations per paper (CPP) data, (2) the international co-authorship rate, (3) the CPP differential between publications with and without international co-authorships, and (4) the difference between the percentage of international co-authored publications falling in the global top 10 % highly cited publications and the percentage of overall publications falling in the global top 10 % highly cited publications (Δ%Top10%). The increment of 5-year (2010---2014) field weighted citation impact (FWCI) of internationally co-authored papers over the 5-year overall FWCI of the institutions in SciVal® is used as another indicator to eliminate the effect of discipline difference in citation rate. The results show that, for most top institutions, the difference between the citations per paper (CPP) for their publications with and without international co-authorship is positive, with increase of up to 5.0 citations per paper over the period 1996---2003. Yet, for some Asian institutions, by attracting a lot of researchers with international background and making these collaborating "external" authors as internal researchers, these institutions have created a special kind of international collaboration that are not expressed in co-authorship, and the CPP gaps between publications with and without international co-authorship are relatively small (around 0---1 citations per paper increment) for these institutions. The top old institutions have higher CPP than young institutions, and higher annual research expenditures; while young universities have a higher relative CPP increment for the current 5-year period over the previous 5-year period. The Δ%Top10% for international co-authored publications is generally higher than that for all journal publications of the same institution. With the increase of international co-authorship ratio, the mean geographical collaboration distance (MGCD, an indication of increased international co-authorship) of one institution based on the Leiden Ranking data also increases, and young institutions have relatively higher CPP increment over MGCD increment. International co-authorship has a positive contribution to the FWCI of the institution, yet there are untapped potential to enhance the collaboration among young institutions.
TL;DR: A study to identify and analyze the literature, define the maturity of a research area, and synthesize the criteria for assessing maturity is presented to develop a generalized maturity assessment framework that establishes a comprehensive set of criteria, which can be adapted for use across a variety of research areas.
Abstract: In recent years, many disciplines have begun to adopt more systematic and standardized approaches to evaluate the impact and development of a research area with a stronger emphasis on quantitative techniques. In particular, identifying and analyzing the published literature have become important exercises for many disciplines and methods such as systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis have become more regularly used to obtain a deeper understanding of a research area. One concept that is of particular interest is the maturity, or level of development, of a research area. While this concept has been mentioned in many works, it has not yet been formalized, resulting in a lack of consensus concerning the definition of research area maturity and analysis techniques to assess maturity. Therefore, most assessments of research area maturity consider only a subset of the possible criteria with significant differences in the metrics and analyses used among different disciplines. Due to the inconsistencies in the definition and assessment of this concept, a comprehensive synthesis of this literature area is needed. This paper presents the results of a study to identify and analyze the literature, define the maturity of a research area, and synthesize the criteria for assessing maturity. The results are used to develop a generalized maturity assessment framework that establishes a comprehensive set of criteria, which can be adapted for use across a variety of research areas.
TL;DR: Data from scholarly publishing in the SSH are used that go beyond the coverage in the commercial data sources in order to give a more comprehensive representation of scholarly publishingIn the SSH, research quality, internationalization, and societal relevance can be promoted without categorical hierarchies of publications.
Abstract: This article investigates the developments during the last decades in the use of languages, publication types and publication channels in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The purpose is to develop an understanding of the processes of internationalization and to apply this understanding in a critical examination of two often used general criteria in research evaluations in the SSH. One of them is that the coverage of a publication in Scopus or Web of Science is seen in itself as an expression of research quality and of internationalization. The other is that a specific international language, English, and a specific type of publication, journal articles, are perceived as supreme in a general hierarchy of languages and publication types. Simple distinctions based on these criteria are contrary to the heterogeneous publication patterns needed in the SSH to organize their research adequately, present their results properly, reach their audiences efficiently, and thereby fulfil their missions. Research quality, internationalization, and societal relevance can be promoted in research assessment in the SSH without categorical hierarchies of publications. I will demonstrate this by using data from scholarly publishing in the SSH that go beyond the coverage in the commercial data sources in order to give a more comprehensive representation of scholarly publishing in the SSH.
TL;DR: A bibliometric analysis based on the related articles in the Science Citation Index Expanded database was conducted to gain insight into global trends and hot issues of metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), finding that adsorption took the lead, followed by catalysis, as a result of their ultrahigh porosity and even their catalytic property.
Abstract: A bibliometric analysis based on the related articles in the Science Citation Index Expanded database was conducted to gain insight into global trends and hot issues of metal---organic frameworks (MOFs). The word clusters of synthesis methods, MOFs' properties and potential applications and some representative MOFs with related supporting words in title, author keywords, abstract, along with KeyWords Plus were proposed to provide the clues to discover the current research emphases. Y index was introduced to assess the publication characteristics related to the number of first author and corresponding author highly cited articles. Top eight classic articles with total citations since publication to the end of 2014 more than 1000 times (TC2014 > 1000) and top eight classic articles with citations in 2014 more than 165 times (C2014 > 165) were selected and assessed regarding distribution of outputs in journals, publications of authors, institutions, as well as their citation life cycles. Solvothermal (including hydrothermal) method and diffusion (slow evaporation) were used mostly to prepare MOFs. Series representative MOFs, as well as the corresponding composites or film (membrane) arose the wide interests from researchers due to their excellent performances. Among the various properties and potential applications of MOFs, adsorption (gas adsorption and liquid adsorption) took the lead, followed by catalysis (including photocatalysis), as a result of their ultrahigh porosity and even their catalytic property. The results of Y index analysis revealed that most highly cited articles in MOFs field were contributed by Yaghi, O.M. as corresponding author, who published 27 articles with TC2014 (number of citations since its publication to the end of 2014) ź100. Omar M. Yaghi, as corresponding author (reprint author), contributed most classic articles, which dealt with synthesis strategy of MOFs with high porosity and high capacity of gas storage. The remaining classic ones concerned to catalysis and drug delivery. These classic articles were published in four high impact journals. The analyses on citation life cycles of the classic articles with highest TC2014 and C2014 can help the researchers in MOFs related fields gain insight into their impact histories.
TL;DR: These analyses show that, in each sub-period, the number of institutions involved, as measured by papers published, increased significantly and a significant number of new institutions participated in the strategic management community via the SMJ, however, a few institutions from the US dominated the field.
Abstract: This study explores the evolution of institutional collaborations in articles published in the Strategic Management Journal between 1980 and 2014 via descriptive analysis and social network analysis. These analyses show that, in each sub-period, the number of institutions involved, as measured by papers published, increased significantly and a significant number of new institutions participated in the strategic management community via the SMJ. However, a few institutions from the US dominated the field. The collaboration network was weakly clustered, fragmented, and scattered, and the relationship among institutions was not close. International collaborations have been growing based on center-periphery, international trade, and social factors, instead of geographic proximity. An inclusive evaluation of the results, limitations, and suggestions for future research is provided.
TL;DR: The results suggest that young researchers who work in large teams are more likely to produce high quality publications and that strategic, targeted and high priority funding programs lead to higher quantity and quality of publications.
Abstract: This paper analyzes the impact of several influencing factors on scientific production of researchers. Time related statistical models for the period of 1996 to 2010 are estimated to assess the impact of research funding and other determinant factors on the quantity and quality of the scientific output of individual funded researchers in Canadian natural sciences and engineering. Results confirm a positive impact of funding on the quantity and quality of the publications. In addition, the existence of the Matthew effect is partially confirmed such that the rich get richer. Although a positive relation between the career age and the rate of publications is observed, it is found that the career age negatively affects the quality of works. Moreover, the results suggest that young researchers who work in large teams are more likely to produce high quality publications. We also found that even though academic researchers produce higher quantity of papers it is the researchers with industrial affiliation whose work is of higher quality. Finally, we observed that strategic, targeted and high priority funding programs lead to higher quantity and quality of publications.
TL;DR: It is found that index size estimates of these two search engines tend to vary dramatically over time, with Google generally possessing a larger index than Bing, which raises doubts about the reliability of previous one-off estimates.
Abstract: One of the determining factors of the quality of Web search engines is the size of their index. In addition to its influence on search result quality, the size of the indexed Web can also tell us something about which parts of the WWW are directly accessible to the everyday user. We propose a novel method of estimating the size of a Web search engine's index by extrapolating from document frequencies of words observed in a large static corpus of Web pages. In addition, we provide a unique longitudinal perspective on the size of Google and Bing's indices over a nine-year period, from March 2006 until January 2015. We find that index size estimates of these two search engines tend to vary dramatically over time, with Google generally possessing a larger index than Bing. This result raises doubts about the reliability of previous one-off estimates of the size of the indexed Web. We find that much, if not all of this variability can be explained by changes in the indexing and ranking infrastructure of Google and Bing. This casts further doubt on whether Web search engines can be used reliably for cross-sectional webometric studies.
TL;DR: Bibliometric analysis and review was conducted to evaluate the trend of MapReduce research assessment publications indexed in Scopus from 2006 to 2015 and presented several open challenges on big data processing with MapReduced as future research directions.
Abstract: The continuous increase in computational capacity over the past years has produced an overwhelming flow of data or big data, which exceeds the capabilities of conventional processing tools. Big data signify a new era in data exploration and utilization. The MapReduce computational paradigm is a major enabler for underlying numerous big data platforms. MapReduce is a popular tool for the distributed and scalable processing of big data. It is increasingly being used in different applications primarily because of its important features, including scalability, fault tolerance, ease of programming, and flexibility. Thus, bibliometric analysis and review was conducted to evaluate the trend of MapReduce research assessment publications indexed in Scopus from 2006 to 2015. This trend includes the use of the MapReduce framework for big data processing and its development. The study analyzed the distribution of published articles, countries, authors, keywords, and authorship pattern. For data visualization, VOSviewer program was used to produce distance- and graph-based maps. The top 10 most cited articles were also identified based on the citation count of publications. The study utilized productivity measures, domain visualization techniques and co-word to explore papers related to MapReduce in the field of big data. Moreover, the study discussed the most influential articles contributed to the improvements in MapReduce and reviewed the corresponding solutions. Finally, it presented several open challenges on big data processing with MapReduce as future research directions.
TL;DR: There are numerous dimensions of co-authorship, the most influential of which is informal and relational and with little (directly) to do with intellectual and/or other resource contributions.
Abstract: Science and technology policy academics and evaluators use co-authorship as a proxy for research collaboration despite knowing better. Anecdotally we understand that an individual might be listed as an author on a particular publication for numerous reasons other than research collaboration. Yet because of the accessibility and other advantages of bibliometric data, co-authorship is continuously used as a proxy for research collaboration. In this study, a national (US) sample of academic researchers was asked about their relationships with their closest research collaborators--some with whom respondents reported having co-authored and some with whom respondents reported not co-authoring. The results suggest there are numerous dimensions of co-authorship, the most influential of which is informal and relational and with little (directly) to do with intellectual and/or other resource contributions. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Generally we advise academics and evaluators interested in tracking co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration to collect additional data beyond those available from popular bibliometric resources because such information means better-informed modeling and better-informed policy and management decision making.
TL;DR: The results show that the understanding of the scientific performance of an institution changes with a more careful account for the unit of analysis used in the assessment.
Abstract: Considering that modern science is conducted primarily through a network of collaborators who organize themselves around key researchers, this research develops and tests a characterization and assessment method that recognizes the particular endogenous, or self-organizing characteristics of research groups. Instead of establishing an ad-hoc unit of analysis and assuming an unspecified network structure, the proposed method uses knowledge footprints, based on backward citations, to measure and compare the performance/productivity of research groups. The method is demonstrated by ranking research groups in Physics, Applied Physics/Condensed Matter/Materials Science and Optics in the leading institutions in Mexico, the results show that the understanding of the scientific performance of an institution changes with a more careful account for the unit of analysis used in the assessment. Moreover, evaluations at the group level provide more accurate assessments since they allow for appropriate comparisons within subfields of science. The proposed method could be used to better understand the self-organizing mechanisms of research groups and have better assessment of their performance.
TL;DR: Some light is shed on the dangers associated with the new “all-in-one” indicator altmetric score.
Abstract: Altmetrics have gained momentum and are meant to overcome the shortcomings of citation-based metrics. In this regard some light is shed on the dangers associated with the new "all-in-one" indicator altmetric score.
TL;DR: This paper used a large dataset of scholarly publications disambiguated at the individual level to create a map of science where links connect pairs of fields based on the probability that an individual has published in both of them.
Abstract: In recent years scholars have built maps of science by connecting the academic fields that cite each other, are cited together, or that cite a similar literature. But since scholars cannot always publish in the fields they cite, or that cite them, these science maps are only rough proxies for the potential of a scholar, organization, or country, to enter a new academic field. Here we use a large dataset of scholarly publications disambiguated at the individual level to create a map of science--or research space--where links connect pairs of fields based on the probability that an individual has published in both of them. We find that the research space is a significantly more accurate predictor of the fields that individuals and organizations will enter in the future than citation based science maps. At the country level, however, the research space and citations based science maps are equally accurate. These findings show that data on career trajectories--the set of fields that individuals have previously published in--provide more accurate predictors of future research output for more focalized units--such as individuals or organizations--than citation based science maps.
TL;DR: Using the “Usage Count” provided by the Web of Science platform, the usage data of five journals in the field of Information Science and Library Science is collected and analyzed, finding that the distribution of usage fits a power law and researchers prefer to use more recent papers.
Abstract: Usage data of scholarly articles provide a direct way to explore the usage preferences of users. Using the "Usage Count" provided by the Web of Science platform, we collect and analyze the usage data of five journals in the field of Information Science and Library Science, to investigate the usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science. Our analysis finds that the distribution of usage fits a power law. And according to the time distribution of usage, researchers prefer to use more recent papers. As to those old papers, citations play an important role in determining the usage count. Highly cited old papers are more likely to be used even a long time after publication.