Environmental sciences research in northern Australia, 2000-2011: A bibliometric analysis within the context of a national research assessment exercise

Scientometrics

Volumn 98, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 265-281

  Mamtora, Jayshree ^a   Wolstenholme, Jacqueline K ^b   Haddow, Gaby ^c  

^a CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Charles Darwin University; Environmental sciences; Excellence in Research for Australia; Fields of Research codes; James Cook University; Northern Australia

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891743017     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1037-1     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93(3), 1005-1017. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-012-0714-9.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ANZSRC) (2008). Retrieved February 4, 2012, from Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Codes Acess: http://www. abs. gov. au/ausstats/absat. nsf/0/4AE1B46AE2048A28CA25741800044242?opendocument.
3. Australian Research Council (2012). Retrieved June 4, 2012 from ERA Factsheet Acess: http://www. arc. gov. au/era/era_2012/era_2012. htm/ERAFactsheet_Jan2012_1. pdf.
4. Australian Research Council. (2012b). Retrieved February 4, 2012, from ERA 2012 Journal List Acess: http://www. arc. gov. au/era/era_2012/era_journal_list. htm.
5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-008-0216-y.
6. Belter, C. W. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of NOAA's office of ocean and exploration research. Scientometrics, 95(2), 629-644. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-012-0836-0.
7. Bennett, D., Genoni, P., & Haddow, G. (2011). FoR codes pendulum: Publishing choices with Australian research assessment. Australia Universities Review, 53(2), 88-98.
8. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 1. doi: 10. 1186/1742-5581-3-1.
9. Charles Darwin University (2011a). Retrieved June 2, 2012, from Capability statement Access: http://www. cdu. edu. au/research/capabilitystatement. pdf.
10. Charles Darwin University. (2011b). Retrieved June 2, 2012, from Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods. Strategic Plan 2011-2015. Consultation draft, 16 August 2011 Access: http://riel. cdu. edu. au/sites/default/files/RIEL_Strategic_Plan-Consultation_draft. pdf.
11. Gray, E. & Hodkinson, S. Z. (2008). Comparison of Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Impact Factors for ecology and environmental sciences journal. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 54 (Summer). doi: 10. 5062/f4ff3q9g.
12. James Cook University (2012a). Retrieved August 14, 2012, from Research Profile Access: http://www. jcu. edu. au/research/JCUPRD_025773. html.
13. James Cook University (2012b). Retrieved August 14, 2012, from The JCU Research Plan 2011-2013 Access: http://www. jcu. edu. au/research_innovation/public/groups/everyone/documents/advice/jcu_096433. pdf.
14. Khan, M. A., & Ho, Y.-S. (2012). Top-cited articles in environmental sciences: Merits and demerits of citation analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 431, 122-127. doi: 10. 1016/j. scitotenv. 2012. 05. 035.
15. Konur, O. (2011). The scientometric evaluation on the research on the algae and bio-energy. Applied Energy, 88(10), 3532-3540.
16. Leblond, M. (2012). Author self-citations in the field of ecology. Scientometrics, 91(3), 943-953. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-011-0565-9.
17. Li, J., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S. (2011). Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation Index-Expanded analysis. Global and Planetary Change, 77(1-2), 13-20.
18. Liu, X., Zhang, L., & Hong, S. (2011). Global biodiversity research during 1900-2009: A bibliometric analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(4), 807-826. doi: 10. 1007/s10531-010-9981-z.
19. Lopresti, R. (2010). Citation accuracy in environmental science journals. Scientometrics, 85(3), 647-655. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-010-0293-6.
20. Meho, L., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 20677.
21. Salisbury, L. (2009). Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative review of content and searching capabilities. The Charleston Advisor, (July), 5-18.
22. Sun, J., Ni, J., & Ho, Y.-S. (2011). Scientometric analysis of coastal eutrophication research during the period of 1993 to 2008. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13(2), 353-366. doi: 10. 1007/s10668-010-9265-5.
23. Times Higher Education (2011). Top institutions in Australia and New Zealand for research in environmental sciences and ecology. Retrieved January 10, 2012 from Times Higher Education Access: http://www. timeshighereducation. co. uk/story. asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=416271.
24. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0146-3.