Analysis and Visualization Data of Covid-19 Based on Scopus

This study analyzes the amount of documentation about COVID-19 by year, publication source, institution, country, type of document, and funding agency and maps it based on keywords. The research data was obtained through the Scopus database with the keywords novel corona virus or corona virus 2019 or covid 2019 and covid 19, which were further explored. For mapping, the Covid 19 data, the VOSviewer software was used. The findings show that there are 723 covid 19 documents, 569 of which can be accessed openly and 154 can be accessed by subscription. Most of the COVID-19 data published in the Journal of The American College of Radiology with the subject categories discussed were radiology, nuclear medicine, and imaging. Huazhong University of Science and Technology is the most productive institution in producing covid 19 data. China is the country that produces the most covid data. The most type of Covid 19 data documents are articles with the most medicine subject category. Most of the funding sponsors were awarded by the National Science Foundation of China. The visualization of the covid 19 data was mapped into 5 clusters with the most groups from each cluster being cluster 1 being severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, cluster 2 coronavirus disease 2019, cluster 3 fever (fever), cluster 4 epidemiology, cluster 5 disease severity

Os efeitos da pandemia do Covid-19 no desempenho das revistas acadêmicas: o caso da Turquia

Since the beginning of 2020, “Covid-19” has affected the whole world in an unprecedented way in modern times. It is inevitable that this pandemic, which has negatively affected many fields, will also have an impact on academic journals. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the performance of academic journals. In our study, a “Data Envelopment Analysis” methodology with 3 inputs and 3 outputs was used to determine the relative “performance of the journals”. Within the scope of the study, 109 journals published in “Turkey” and scanned in “Web of Science” indexes were examined. Results show that eleven journals were efficient in 2019, while in 2020 this number decreased to seven. Four fields have been positively affected by the pandemic and journals publishing in these fields have increased their efficiencies. Eighteen fields were adversely affected by the pandemic and the efficiency of journal publishing in these fields decreased. Eleven fields and journals publishing in these fields maintained their efficiency both before and during the pandemic. As the Covid-19 pandemic is not over yet, our data is limited. In the coming years, more detailed and comprehensive studies can be carried out with more extensive data and a further number of journals from different countries

Radiologic Clinics of North America; Bibliometric Spectrum of Publications from 2000 to 2019.

Aim: The aim of this study is to present the bibliometric analysis of papers published in Radiologic Clinic of North America (RCNA) from 2000 to 2019. Design/Methodology: The Elsevier’s Scopus database was used as a source to retrieve the bibliographic records published from 2000 to 2019. The data was evaluated on the following parameters, growth of publications and their citation impact by year, most contributing institutions and countries, productive authors, authorship patterns, most-cited papers, frequently used keywords and flow of knowledge. Only original and review articles were used for analysis, other types of documents were excluded. Microsoft Excel, SPSS and VOSviewer software were used for data analysis. Results: A fluctuation was detected in the number of publications. A total of 1,401 papers were selected, of whom 1,241 (88.57%) were review articles and 160 (11.42%) were research articles. The mean and standard deviation (SD) scores of papers were 70 and 6.15 respectively. All selected papers received 34,145 citations with a mean score of 24.37 citations per paper (SD 1019.55). The study found that all top-10 contributing institutions belonged to the USA and the USA was also found most productive country. Out of the ten-most productive authors, nine were affiliated with USA and two-author pattern found a most preferred pattern. Conclusion: The finding of this study exposed that the USA is the most productive country in terms of authors, institutions and even in citing the literature of RCNA

The Research Space: using the career paths of scholars to predict the evolution of the research output of individuals, institutions, and nations

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

Small female citation advantages for US journal articles in medicine

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by SAGE in Journal of Information Science on 16/02/2022, available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520942729 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Female underrepresentation continues in senior roles within academic medicine, potentially influenced by a perception that female research has less citation impact. This article provides systematic evidence of (a) female participation rates from the perspective of published journal articles in 46 Scopus medical subject categories 1996-2018 and (b) gender differences in citation rates 1996-2014. The results show female proportion increases 1996-2018 in all fields and a female majority of first authored articles in two fifths of categories, but substantial differences between fields: A paper is 7.3 times more likely to have a female first author in Obstetrics and Gynecology than in Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. Only three fields had a female last author majority by 2018, a probable side effect of ongoing problems with appointing female leaders. Female first-authored research tended to be more cited than male first-authored research in most fields (59%), although with a maximum difference of only 5.1% (log-transformed normalised citations). In contrast, male last-authored research tends to be more cited than female last-authored research, perhaps due to cases where a senior male has attracted substantial funding for a project. These differences increase if team sizes are not accounted for in the calculations. Since female first-authored research is cited slightly more than male first-authored research, properly analysed bibliometric data considering career gaps should not disadvantage female candidates for senior roles

Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus

Journal classification systems play an important role in bibliometric analyses. The two most important bibliographic databases, Web of Science and Scopus, each provide a journal classification system. However, no study has systematically investigated the accuracy of these classification systems. To examine and compare the accuracy of journal classification systems, we define two criteria on the basis of direct citation relations between journals and categories. We use Criterion I to select journals that have weak connections with their assigned categories, and we use Criterion II to identify journals that are not assigned to categories with which they have strong connections. If a journal satisfies either of the two criteria, we conclude that its assignment to categories may be questionable. Accordingly, we identify all journals with questionable classifications in Web of Science and Scopus. Furthermore, we perform a more in-depth analysis for the field of Library and Information Science to assess whether our proposed criteria are appropriate and whether they yield meaningful results. It turns out that according to our citation-based criteria Web of Science performs significantly better than Scopus in terms of the accuracy of its journal classification system

Excellence mapping: Bibliometric study of the productivity and the impact of scientific publications of the JRC: Mapping of scientific areas and application areas: Volume 1: General analysis and benchmarking

This report analyses the productivity and the impact of the scientific work of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in specific scientific areas by means of publications and citations analysis in order to identify and map areas of excellence. The excellence mapping is structured as two volumes: the first volume concentrates on benchmarking the scientific publications and the second one on aspects of scientific collaborations. In order to benchmark the JRC impact, five indicators based on citations and size-independent metrics are used. On the basis of these indicators, the JRC performance is compared with the Top-15 organisations in the world having the highest absolute number of citations in a given scientific area, and against the world average.JRC.A.2-Planning, Evaluation and Knowledge Managemen

Standing on Academic Shoulders: Measuring Scientific Influence in Universities

This article measures scientific influence by means of citations to academic papers. The data source is the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the scientific institutions included are the top 110 U.S. research universities; the 12 main fields that classify the data cover nearly all of science; and the time period is 1981-1999. Altogether the database includes 2.4 million papers and 18.8 million citations. Thus the evidence underlying our findings accounts for much of the basic research conducted in the United States during the last quarter of the 20th century. This research in turn contributes a significant part of knowledge production in the U.S. during the same period. The citation measure used is the citation probability, which equals actual citations divided by potential citations, and captures average utilization of cited literature by individual citing articles. The mean citation probability within fields is on the order of 10-5. Cross-field citation probabilities are one-tenth to one-hundredth as large, or 10-6 to 10-7. Citations between pairs of citing and cited fields are significant in less than one-fourth of the possible cases. It follows that citations are largely bounded by field, with corresponding implications for the limits of scientific influence. Cross-field citation probabilities appear to be symmetric for mutually citing fields. Scientific influence is asymmetric within fields, and occurs primarily from top institutions to those less highly ranked. Still, there is significant reverse influence on higher-ranked schools. We also find that top institutions are more often cited by peer institutions than lower-ranked institutions are cited by their peers. Overall the results suggest that knowledge spillovers in basic science research are important, but are circumscribed by field and by intrinsic relevance. Perhaps the most important implication of the results are the limits that they seem to impose on the returns to scale in the knowledge production function for basic research, namely the proportion of available knowledge that spills over from one scientist to another.

Scientific Teams and Institution Collaborations: Evidence from U.S. Universities, 1981-1999

This paper explores recent trends in the size of scientific teams and in institutional collaborations. The data derive from 2.4 million scientific papers written in 110 leading U.S. research universities over the period 1981-1999. We measure team size by the number of authors on a scientific paper. Using this measure we find that team size increases by 50 percent over the 19-year period. We supplement team size with measures of domestic and foreign institutional collaborations, which capture the geographic dispersion of team workers. The time series evidence suggests that the trend towards larger and more dispersed teams accelerates at the start of the 1990s. This acceleration suggests a sudden decline in the cost of collaboration, perhaps due to improvements in telecommunications. Using a panel of top university departments we find that private universities and departments whose scientists have earned prestigious awards participate in larger teams, as do departments that have larger amounts of federal funding. Placement of former graduate students is a key determinant of institutional collaborations, especially collaborations with firms and foreign scientific institutions. Finally, the evidence indicates that scientific influence increases with team size and institutional collaborations. Since increasing team size implies an increase in the division of labor, these results suggest that scientific productivity increases with the scientific division of labor.