The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?

Scientometrics

Volumn 105, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 1809-1831

  Ellegaard, Ole ^a   Wallin, Johan A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Bibliometric analysis; Citation analysis; Impact of publications; Publication analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947126384     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ardanuy, J. (2013). Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951–2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(8), 1751–1755.
2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century-A review. Journal of Informetrics,2(1), 1–52.
3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics,82(3), 495–506.
4. Barth, M., Haustein, S., & Scheidt, B. (2014). The life sciences in German–Chinese cooperation: an institutional-level co-publication analysis. Scientometrics,98(1), 99–117.
5. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. ICWSM,8, 361–362.
6. Dalpe, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics,55(2), 189–213.
7. DeLooze, M. A., & Lemarie, J. (1997). Corpus relevance through co-word analysis: an application to plant proteins. Scientometrics,39(3), 267–280.
8. Derrick, G., Jonkers, K., & Lewison, G. (2012). Characteristics of bibliometrics articles in library and information sciences (LIS) and other journals. In Proceedings, 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. STI 2012, Montreal Canada, (pp. 449–551).
9. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
10. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2013). Identification of environmentally relevant chemicals in bibliographic databases: A comparative analysis. SpringerPlus,2(1), 255.
11. Frandsen, T. F., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,56(1), 58–62.
12. Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Journal of Informetrics,3(3), 173–179.
13. Glänzel, W. (1996). The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology. Scientometrics, 35(2), 167–176.
14. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics… and beyond. Scientometrics,30(2–3), 375–384.
15. Grandjean, P., Eriksen, M. L., Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2011). The Matthew effect in environmental science publication: A bibliometric analysis of chemical substances in journal articles. Environmental Health,10, 8.
16. Harzing, A.-W. (2010). The publish or perish book: Tarma Software Research Melbourne.
17. Herther, N. K. (2009). Research evaluation and citation analysis: Key issues and implications. The Electronic Library,27(3), 361–375.
18. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature,520(7548), 429–431.
19. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,102(46), 16569–16572.
20. Huffman, M. D., Baldridge, A., Bloomfield, G. S., Colantonio, L. D., Prabhakaran, P., Ajay, V. S., et al. (2013). Global cardiovascular research output, citations, and collaborations: A time trend bibliometric analysis (1999–2008). PLoS One,8(12), 7.
21. InCites, Essential Science Indicators.(2015). Web of Science (WoS). Thomson Reuters.
22. Jonkers, K., & Derrick, G. (2012). The bibliometric bandwagon: Characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(4), 829–836.
23. Kaur, J., Hoang, D. T., Sun, X., Possamai, L., JafariAsbagh, M., Patil, S., & Menczer, F. (2012). Scholarometer: A social framework for analyzing impact across disciplines. PLoS One,7(9), e43235.
24. Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., & Menczer, F. (2013). Universality of scholarly impact metrics. Journal of Informetrics,7(4), 924–932.
25. Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of electronic resources in medical libraries,7(3), 196–217.
26. Lin, W. Y. C. (2012). Research status and characteristics of library and information science in Taiwan: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,92(1), 7–21.
27. Liu, X., Zhan, F. B., Hong, S., Niu, B., & Liu, Y. (2012). A bibliometric study of earthquake research: 1900–2010. Scientometrics,92(3), 747–765.
28. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (2005). Bibliometric maps of field of science. Information Processing and Management,41(6), 1534–1547.
29. Meho, L. I. (2006). The rise and rise of citation analysis. arXiv:preprint physics/0701012.
30. Michel, J. B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Pickett, J. P., et al. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science,331(6014), 176–182.
31. Pellegrino Jr, D. A. (2011). Interactive visualization systems and data integration methods for supporting discovery in collections of scientific information: DTIC document. Thesis. Drexel University. USA.
32. Song, Y., & Zhao, T. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of global forest cology research during 2002–2011. SpringerPlus,2(1), 1–9.
33. Tang, L. (2013). Does “birds of a feather flock together” matter—Evidence from a longitudinal study on US–China scientific collaboration. Journal of Informetrics,7(2), 330–344.
34. van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & van den Berg, J. (2010). A Comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(12), 2405–2416.
35. Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology,97(5), 261–275.
36. Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(12), 2419–2432.
37. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics,62(1), 117–131.
38. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,49(4), 327–355.
39. Wolfram, D. (2003). Applied informetrics for information retrieval research. New Direction in Information Management no. 36. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
40. Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends,55(1), 32–36.
41. Zhuang, Y. H., Liu, X. J., Nguyen, T., He, Q. Q., & Hong, S. (2013). Global remote sensing research trends during 1991–2010: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,96(1), 203–219.
42. Zibareva, I., Vedyagin, A., & Bukhtiyarov, V. (2014). Nanocatalysis: A bibliometric analysis. Kinetics and Catalysis,55(1), 1–11.
43. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2003). Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation. Scientometrics,56(2), 259–282.