A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics

Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature. In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the “laws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments

Utilising content marketing metrics and social networks for academic visibility

There are numerous assumptions on research evaluation in terms of quality and relevance of academic contributions. Researchers are becoming increasingly acquainted with bibliometric indicators, including; citation analysis, impact factor, h-index, webometrics and academic social networking sites. In this light, this chapter presents a review of these concepts as it considers relevant theoretical underpinnings that are related to the content marketing of scholars. Therefore, this contribution critically evaluates previous papers that revolve on the subject of academic reputation as it deliberates on the individual researchers’ personal branding. It also explains how metrics are currently being used to rank the academic standing of journals as well as higher educational institutions. In a nutshell, this chapter implies that the scholarly impact depends on a number of factors including accessibility of publications, peer review of academic work as well as social networking among scholars.peer-reviewe

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research

The evaluation of citation distributions.

This paper reviews a number of recent contributions that demonstrate that a blend of welfare economics and statistical analysis is useful in the evaluation of the citations received by scientific papers in the periodical literature. The paper begins by clarifying the role of citation analysis in the evaluation of research. Next, a summary of results about the citation distributions’ basic features at different aggregation levels is offered. These results indicate that citation distributions share the same broad shape, are highly skewed, and are often crowned by a power law. In light of this evidence, a novel methodology for the evaluation of research units is illustrated by comparing the high- and low-citation impact achieved by the U.S., the European Union, and the rest of the world in 22 scientific fields. However, contrary to recent claims, it is shown that mean normalization at the sub-field level does not lead to a universal distribution. Nevertheless, among other topics subject to ongoing research, it appears that this lack of universality does not preclude sensible normalization procedures to compare the citation impact of articles in different scientific fields.

Understanding the relevance of national culture in international business research: a quantitative analysis

This review is a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the International Business literature whose focus is on national culture. The analysis relies on a broad range of bibliometric techniques as productivity rankings, citation analysis (individual and cumulative), study of collaborative research patterns, and analysis of the knowledge base. It provides insights on (I) faculty and institutional research productivity and performance; (II) articles, institutions, and scholars’ influence in the contents of the field and its research agenda; and (III) national and international collaborative research trends. The study also explores the body of literature that has exerted the greatest impact on the researched set of selected articles.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review

Bibliometrics has become an essential tool for assessing and analyzing the output of scientists, cooperation between universities, the effect of state-owned science funding on national research and development performance and educational efficiency, among other applications. Therefore, professionals and scientists need a range of theoretical and practical tools to measure experimental data. This review aims to provide an up-to-date review of the various tools available for conducting bibliometric and scientometric analyses, including the sources of data acquisition, performance analysis and visualization tools. The included tools were divided into three categories: general bibliometric and performance analysis, science mapping analysis, and libraries; a description of all of them is provided. A comparative analysis of the database sources support, pre-processing capabilities, analysis and visualization options were also provided in order to facilitate its understanding. Although there are numerous bibliometric databases to obtain data for bibliometric and scientometric analysis, they have been developed for a different purpose. The number of exportable records is between 500 and 50,000 and the coverage of the different science fields is unequal in each database. Concerning the analyzed tools, Bibliometrix contains the more extensive set of techniques and suitable for practitioners through Biblioshiny. VOSviewer has a fantastic visualization and is capable of loading and exporting information from many sources. SciMAT is the tool with a powerful pre-processing and export capability. In views of the variability of features, the users need to decide the desired analysis output and chose the option that better fits into their aims

A comparison of the scientific performance of the U. S. and the European Union at the turn of the XXI century.

In this paper, scientific performance is identified with the impact journal articles achieve through the citations they receive. The empirical exercise refers to 3.6 million articles published in 1998-2002 in 22 scientific fields, and the more than 47 million citations they receive in 1998-2007. The first finding is that a failure to exclude co-authorship among member countries within the EU (European Union) may lead to a serious upward bias in the assignment of articles to this geographical area. In the second place, standard indicators, such as normalized mean citation ratios, are silent about what takes place in different parts of the citation distribution. Consequently, this paper compares the publication shares of the U.S. and the EU at every percentile of the world citation distribution in each field. In 15 disciplines, as well as in all sciences as a whole, the EU share of total publications is greater than that of the U.S. one. But as soon as the citations received by these publications are taken into account the picture is completely reversed. The mean citation rate in the U.S. is greater than in the EU in every one of the 22 fields. In seven fields, the initial gap between the U.S. and the EU widens up as we advance towards the more cited articles, while in the remaining 15 fields –except for Agricultural Sciences– the U.S. always surpasses the EU when it counts, namely, at the upper tail of citation distributions. For all sciences as a whole, the U.S publication share becomes greater than that of the EU one for the top 50% of the most highly cited articles.

Panoramic Mapping of Urban Social Sustainability: A 35-Year Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis

In recent years, ensuring social sustainability has been a global concern for sustainable urban development in both the academic arena and sustainability science. Many studies have been conducted in this area, but a bibliometric analysis has not yet been done previously. This study identified research streams and research hotspots in the urban social sustainability field based on a bibliometric analysis from 1985 to 2020, involving 1,623 documents from the Web of Science database. We used two software packages, Bibliometrix (Biblioshiny) and VOSviewer, for performance and science mapping analysis. The result showed that this research field is growing fast in multiple disciplines. In the publication trend analysis, we found significant changes since 2015. Analysis of leading countries and institutions revealed that developed countries are performing better than developing countries in producing publications on urban social sustainability. In the content analysis, we selected 214 documents and found that the survey method was the most used. Additionally, we found that 13.08 percent of papers (28 out of 214) used as many as 21 different theories, where ‘stakeholder theory,’ ‘planning theory,’ ‘theory of urbanism as a way of life,’ and ‘theory of good city form’ were significantly used. The findings of this study can assist researchers and practitioners by providing valuable insights into the research area of urban social sustainability

An approach based on the geometric mean of basic quantitative and qualitative bibliometric indicators to evaluate and analyse the research performance of countries and institutions

We present a straightforward procedure to evaluate the scientific contribution of territories and institutions that combines the size-dependent geometric mean, Q, of the number of research documents (N) and citations (C), and a scale-free measure of quality, q=C/N. We introduce a Global Research Output (GRO-index) as the geometric mean of Q and q. We show that the GRO-index correlates with the h-index, but appears to be more strongly correlated with other well known, widely used bibliometric indicators. We also compute relative GRO-indexes (GROr) associated with the scientific production within research fields. We note that although total sums of GROr values are larger than the GRO-index, due to the non-linearity in the computation of the geometric means, both counts are nevertheless highly correlated. That enables us to make useful comparative analyses among territories and institutions. Furthermore, to identify strengths and weaknesses of a given country or institution, we compute a Relative Research Output count (RROr-index) to tackle variations of the C/N ratio across research fields. Moreover, by using a wealth-index also based on quantitative and qualitative variables, we show that the GRO and RRO indexes are highly correlated with the wealth of the countries and the states of the USA. Given the simplicity of the procedures introduced in this paper and the fact that their results are easily understandable by non-specialists, we believe they could become as useful for the assessment of the research output of countries and institutions as the impact factor is for journals or the h-index for individuals.Comment: Page 3: The formula for the p-index was wrong (but the right formula was used to draw Fig. 5a), as well as in P7 the formula for the quantitative and qualitative parameters related to the p-index. Fig 7: Japan was associated with Western and not Asian countries; in caption, we added: Green letters correspond to countries of former Soviet-Union and satellite countries. P16 L1,added:Except Japa