Search results

Citation analysis is an important measure for the assessment of quality and impact of academic entities (authors, papers and publication venues) used for ranking of research articles, authors and publication venues. It is a common observation that high-level publication venues, with few exceptions (Nature, Science and PLOS ONE), are usually topic specific. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the claim correlation analysis between topic specificity and citation count of different types of publication venues (journals, conferences and workshops).

The topic specificity was calculated using the information theoretic measure of entropy (which tells us about the disorder of the system). The authors computed the entropy of the titles of the papers published in each venue type to investigate their topic specificity.

It was observed that venues usually with higher citations (high-level publication venues) have low entropy and venues with lesser citations (not-high-level publication venues) have high entropy. Low entropy means less disorder and more specific to topic and vice versa. The input data considered here were DBLP-V7 data set for the last 10 years. Experimental analysis shows that topic specificity and citation count of publication venues are negatively correlated to each other.

This paper is the first attempt to discover correlation between topic sensitivity and citation counts of publication venues. It also used topic specificity as a feature to rank academic entities.

This study reviews the methods found in the literature for the ranking of authors, identifies the pros and cons of these methods, discusses and compares these methods. The purpose of this paper is to study is to find the challenges and future directions of ranking of academic objects, especially authors, for future researchers.

This study reviews the methods found in the literature for the ranking of authors, classifies them into subcategories by studying and analyzing their way of achieving the objectives, discusses and compares them. The data sets used in the literature and the evaluation measures applicable in the domain are also presented.

The survey identifies the challenges involved in the field of ranking of authors and future directions.

To the best of the knowledge, this is the first survey that studies the author ranking problem in detail and classifies them according to their key functionalities, features and way of achieving the objective according to the requirement of the problem.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of Wikipedia as a venue for academic publishing.

By looking at other sources and studying Wikipedia structures, the paper compares the processes of publishing a peer‐reviewed article in Wikipedia and the open access journal model, discusses the advantages and challenges of adopting Wikipedia in academic publishing, and provides suggestions on how to address the challenges.

Compared to an open access journal model, Wikipedia has several advantages for academic publishing: it is less expensive, quicker, more widely read, and offers a wider variety of articles. There are also several major challenges in adopting Wikipedia in the academic community: the web site structure is not well suited to academic publications; the site is not integrated with common academic search engines such as Google Scholar or with university libraries; and there are concerns among some members of the academic community about the site's credibility and impact in academia.

This paper promotes a fundamental idea for adjusting methods of creating and disseminating academic knowledge. It is a valuable resource for those interested in academic innovation, for research librarians, and for the academic community in general. This topic has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature.

This paper aims to analyse the research contributions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the field of applied linguistics (AL) indexed in the Web of Science core collection for the period between 2011 and 2020.

The author searched key terms in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded categories that publish documents in AL. The author compiled the data, classified these documents according to their research focus and investigated different metrics such as keywords analysis, citation analysis, overseas collaboration and productivity over authors, institutions and sources by using VOSviewer and Excel sheet.

Results found that publications in Saudi Arabia have tremendously increased around three times in the years 2016–2020 than before. As unexpected, highly cited researchers, sources and institutions for the social science and arts and humanities disciplines were higher than the scientific disciplines that investigated linguistic issues such as neurology, audiology and computer science. The area of language teaching and learning was the most researched area in which the highly cited author, journals and keywords analysis metrics occurred within its scope. The highly cited articles were those that collaborated with the world contributing authors and acted as corresponding authors.

The study contributes to the body of literature of AL which shares other categories that investigated language as a central issue. The study provides a fine-grained picture about the research productivity of AL in scientific and social science categories in Saudi Arabia.

The purpose of the study is to know the various factors librarians consider while selecting Open Access (OA) journal for publication and to identify the challenges librarians face with OA journal publishing.

Online questionnaire was designed to collect data from 402 academic librarians in 87 universities in Africa using SurveyMonkey software.

The study found that academic librarians are aware of the “green” and “gold” routes but not familiar with the “diamond” route. The study revealed that a large number of the academic librarians have published only one paper in OA journals, followed by those who have not published any paper in OA journals. The study also revealed that reputation of journal and impact factor of journal were seen as very important among the factors that inform them of choosing OA. The majority of the respondents agreed that author fees, and lack of stable internet connectivity are the major barriers to publishing in OA journals.

The study recommends that academic libraries in institutions of higher learning in Africa should organize seminars periodically on the need for their librarians to research and publish in OA journals.

Identifying factors involved in author decisions to publish in OA journals will help illuminate issues that may encourage or discourage author support of OA publishing models. Further understanding of these issues can assist the efforts to improve author perceptions of and confidence in OA publications.

It is believed that this study of African librarians publishing in OA journals is the first study in the region.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of research evaluation policies and their interpretation on academics’ writing practices in three different higher education institutions and across three different disciplines. Specifically, the paper discusses how England’s national research excellence framework (REF) and institutional responses to it shape the decisions academics make about their writing.

In total, 49 academics at three English universities were interviewed. The academics were from one Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics discipline (mathematics), one humanities discipline (history) and one applied discipline (marketing). Repeated semi-structured interviews focussed on different aspects of academics’ writing practices. Heads of departments and administrative staff were also interviewed. Data were coded using the qualitative data analysis software, ATLAS.ti.

Academics’ ability to succeed in their career was closely tied to their ability to meet quantitative and qualitative targets driven by research evaluation systems, but these were predicated on an unrealistic understanding of knowledge creation. Research evaluation systems limited the epistemic choices available to academics, partly because they pushed academics’ writing towards genres and publication venues that conflicted with disciplinary traditions and partly because they were evenly distributed across institutions and age groups.

This work fills a gap in the literature by offering empirical and qualitative findings on the effects of research evaluation systems in context. It is also one of the only papers to focus on the ways in which individuals’ academic writing practices in particular are shaped by such systems.

Academic rankings are facing various issues, including the use of data sources that are not publicly verifiable, subjective parameters, a narrow focus on research productivity and regional biases and so forth. This research work is intended to enhance creditability of the ranking process by using the objective indicators based on publicly verifiable data sources.

The proposed ranking methodology – OpenRank – drives the objective indicators from two well-known publicly verifiable data repositories: the ArnetMiner and DBpedia.

The resultant academic ranking reflects common tendencies of the international academic rankings published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (SRC), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE). Evaluation of the proposed methodology advocates its effectiveness and quick reproducibility with low cost of data collection.

Implementation of the OpenRank methodology faced the issue of availability of the quality data. In future, accuracy of the academic rankings can be improved further by employing more relevant public data sources like the Microsoft Academic Graph, millions of graduate's profiles available in the LinkedIn repositories and the bibliographic data maintained by Association for Computing Machinery and Scopus and so forth.

The suggested use of open data sources would offer new dimensions to evaluate academic performance of the higher education institutions (HEIs) and having comprehensive understanding of the catalyst factors in the higher education.

The research work highlighted the need of a purposely built, publicly verifiable electronic data source for performance evaluation of the global HEIs. Availability of such a global database would help in better academic planning, monitoring and analysis. Definitely, more transparent, reliable and less controversial academic rankings can be generated by employing the aspired data source.

We suggested a satisfying solution for improvement of the HEIs' ranking process by making the following contributions: (1) enhancing creditability of the ranking results by merely employing the objective performance indicators extracted from the publicly verifiable data sources, (2) developing an academic ranking methodology based on the objective indicators using two well-known data repositories, the DBpedia and ArnetMiner and (3) demonstrating effectiveness of the proposed ranking methodology on the real data sources.

The purpose of this paper is to examine academics’ awareness of and attitudes towards Wikipedia and Open Access journals for academic publishing to better understand the perceived benefits and challenges of these models.

Bases for analysis include comparison of the models, enumeration of their advantages and disadvantages, and investigation of Wikipedia's web structure in terms of potential for academic publishing. A web survey was administered via department-based invitations and listservs.

The survey results show that: Wikipedia has perceived advantages and challenges in comparison to the Open Access model; the academic researchers’ increased familiarity is associated with increased comfort with these models; and the academic researchers’ attitudes towards these models are associated with their familiarity, academic environment, and professional status.

The major limitation of the study is sample size. The result of a power analysis with GPower shows that authors could only detect big effects in this study at statistical power 0.95. The authors call for larger sample studies that look further into this topic.

This study contributes to the increasing interest in adjusting methods of creating and disseminating academic knowledge by providing empirical evidence of the academics’ experiences and attitudes towards the Open Access and Wikipedia publishing models. This paper provides a resource for researchers interested in scholarly communication and academic publishing, for research librarians, and for the academic community in general.

The Internet of Things (IoT) has attracted wide attention from researchers to address the potential of this technology in various industries recently. This study aims to investigate different characteristics of worldwide research on the IoT using bibliometrics, network analysis and altmetrics. Growth of the literature, publication types, languages, publication countries and research subjects are addressed. The scientific and social impact of the journal articles has also been examined using citation and altmetrics scores.

The Scopus database was searched for articles indexed under the terms “Internet of Thing*” or “IoT” or “Internet of Everything*” or “Web of Thing*”, and a total of 13,725 articles from 2011 to 2016 were retrieved and analysed.

There was a continuous increase in the number of publications per year over the period, with a 6.7-fold rise in the number of publications, with the highest share of research output (4,989) published in 2016. Contribution of authors at the micro, meso and macro levels was analysed. About 89 per cent of total publications were the result of collaborative efforts, and Asia-Pacific was responsible for almost 53 per cent of world scientific production of IoT literature. Generally, the IoT research are found in publications concentrating on computer networks and communications, electrical and electronic engineering and computer science applications. The results also showed that the presence of IoT research on the social web is still low, with 6.8 per cent of total publications presenting some altmetric activity.

The work reported is limited to only Scopus-indexed publications. While the search methodology aimed to be as inclusive as possible, it may not have captured all scholarly research output in the IoT world.

The findings of this study may help researchers understand the performance of IoT research from across the world and suggest directions for further research.

This paper reviews the literature of the IoT in past five years using rigorous bibliometric, altmetric and network analysis tools.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.