DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations

This paper explores the characteristics of DataCite to determine its possibilities and potential as a new bibliometric data source to analyze the scholarly production of open data. Open science and the increasing data sharing requirements from governments, funding bodies, institutions and scientific journals has led to a pressing demand for the development of data metrics. As a very first step towards reliable data metrics, we need to better comprehend the limitations and caveats of the information provided by sources of open data. In this paper, we critically examine records downloaded from the DataCite's OAI API and elaborate a series of recommendations regarding the use of this source for bibliometric analyses of open data. We highlight issues related to metadata incompleteness, lack of standardization, and ambiguous definitions of several fields. Despite these limitations, we emphasize DataCite's value and potential to become one of the main sources for data metrics development.Comment: Paper accepted for publication in Journal of Informetric

A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators

An increasing demand for bibliometric assessment of individuals has led to a growth of new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of established ones. The aim of this review is to contribute with objective facts about the usefulness of bibliometric indicators of the effects of publication activity at the individual level. This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on the individual author level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application.Comment: to be published in Scientometrics, 201

Arts and Humanities Literature: Bibliometric Characteristics of Contributions by Turkish Authors

Scholarly communication in arts and humanities differs from that in the sciences. Arts and humanities scholars rely primarily on monographs as amedium of publication whereas scientists consider articles that appear in scholarly journals as the single most important publication outlet. The number of journal citation studies in arts and humanities is therefore limited. In this article, we investigate the bibliometric characteristics of 507 arts and humanities journal articles written by authors affiliated with Turkish institutions and indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) between the years 1975–2003. Journal articles constituted more than 60% of all publications. One third of all contributions were published during the last 4 years (1999–2003) and appeared in 16 different journals. An overwhelming majority of contributions (91%) were written in English, and 83% of them had single authorship. Researchers based at Turkish universities produced 90% of all publications. Two thirds of references in publications were to monographs. The median age of all references was 12 years. Eighty percent of publications authored by Turkish arts and humanities scholars were not cited at all while the remaining 20% (or 99 publications) were cited 304 times (anaverage of three citations per publication). Self-citation ratio was 31%. Two thirds of the cited publications were cited for the first time within 2 years of their publications

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

A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators

We address the question how citation-based bibliometric indicators can best be normalized to ensure fair comparisons between publications from different scientific fields and different years. In a systematic large-scale empirical analysis, we compare a traditional normalization approach based on a field classification system with three source normalization approaches. We pay special attention to the selection of the publications included in the analysis. Publications in national scientific journals, popular scientific magazines, and trade magazines are not included. Unlike earlier studies, we use algorithmically constructed classification systems to evaluate the different normalization approaches. Our analysis shows that a source normalization approach based on the recently introduced idea of fractional citation counting does not perform well. Two other source normalization approaches generally outperform the classification-system-based normalization approach that we study. Our analysis therefore offers considerable support for the use of source-normalized bibliometric indicators

The nature and trends of agricultural research development in Africa : an informetric study

The study recognizes Agriculture as the mainstay activity of most economies in Africa and analyses research nature and trends in the discipline by using descriptive informetrics and focusing on seven indicators, by using the AGRICOLA and ISI-E databases from 1991 to 2005. We observed that research output in the discipline is much higher in South Africa and Kenya, and research collaboration is greater than non-collaborative research output and collaboration is less among African countries. The most popular research domains were found to exist in environmental science, soil science, plant/crop production and [agricultural] economics. Helpful conclusions and recommendations for an Agricultural policy, capacity and research orientation have been made