Search results

This study aims to focus on publications that jointly address robots in the tourism field and the technology acceptance model (TAM).

This study adopts bibliometric analysis. Publications listed in the Web of Science database constitute the scope of this research. 51 publications were analyzed within the scope of the research.

Between the years 2017 and 2023, an upward trend in the number and citations of publications was identified. It has been observed that article studies are more prevalent compared to other types of publications. When considering the indexes of the publications, a significant majority were found to be in Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI)-EXPANDED. The status of the keywords identified within the scope of the research in the abstracts of the publications has been presented. The keyword “robot” was found to be the most frequently occurring in the abstracts. The abstracts were also analyzed, and the publications were accordingly clustered into five distinct themes.

This study offers a comprehensive evaluation of publications concerning the use of robots in the tourism sector, framed within the context of the TAM. Within the scope of the study, the findings were interpreted using bibliometric analysis. The publications have been categorized into themes. The results presented provide insights into the necessity for further publications in this field.

With the emergence of the different Industry 4.0 technologies and the interconnectedness between the physical and cyber components within manufacturing systems, the manufacturing environment is becoming more susceptible to unexpected disruptions, and manufacturing systems need to be even more resilient than before. Hence, the purpose of this work is to explore how does incorporating Industry 4.0 into current manufacturing systems affects (positively or negatively) its resiliency.

A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was performed with a focus on studying the manufacturing system’s resilience when applying Industry 4.0 technologies. The SLR is composed of four phases, which are (1) questions formulation, (2) determining an adequate search strategy, (3) publications filtering and (4) analysis and interpretation.

From the SLR results’ analysis, four potential research opportunities are proposed related to conducting additional research within the research themes in this field, considering less studied Industry 4.0 technologies or more than one technology, investigating the impact of some technologies on manufacturing system’s resilience, exploring more avenues to incorporate resiliency to preserve the state of the system, and suggesting metrics to quantify the resilience of manufacturing systems.

Although there are a number of publications discussing the resiliency of manufacturing systems, none fully investigated this topic when different Industry 4.0 technologies have been considered. In addition to determining the current research state-of-art in this relatively new research area and identifying potential future research opportunities, the main value of this work is in providing insights about this research area across three different perspectives/streams: (1) Industry 4.0 technologies, (2) resiliency and (3) manufacturing systems and their intersections.

The study showcases the social impact (online attention) of funded research compared to nonfunded for the BRICS nations. The key themes achieving online attention across the funded and nonfunded publications have also been identified.

A total of 1,507,931 articles published across the BRICS nations for a period of three (03) years were downloaded from the Clarivate Analytics' InCites database of Web of Science (WoS). “Funding Acknowledgement Analysis (FAA)” was used to identify the funded and nonfunded publications. The altmetric score of the top highly cited (1%) publications was gauged from the largest altmetric data provider, “Altmetric.com”, using the DOI of each publication. One-way ANOVA test was used to know the impact of funding on the mentions (altmetrics) across different data sources covered by Altmetric.com. The highly predominant keywords (hotspots) have been mapped using bibliometric software, “VOSviewer”.

The mentions across all the altmetric sources for funded research are higher compared to nonfunded research for all nations. It indicates the altmetric advantage for funded research, as funded publications are more discussed, tweeted, shared and have more readers and citations; thus, acquiring more social impact/online attention compared to nonfunded publications. The difference in means for funded and nonfunded publications varies across various altmetric sources and nations. Further, the authors’ keyword analysis reveals the prominence of the respective nation names in publications of the BRICS.

The study showcases the utility of indexing the funding information and whether research funding increases social impact return (online attention). It presents altmetrics as an important impact assessment and evaluation framework indicator, adding one more dimension to the research performance. The linking of funding information with the altmetric score can be used to assess the online attention and multi-flavoured impact of a particular funding programme and source/agency of a nation so that necessary strategies would be framed to improve the reach and impact of funded research. It identifies countries that achieve significant online attention for their funded publications compared to nonfunded ones, along with the key themes that can be utilised to frame research and investment plans.

The study represents the social impact of funded research compared to nonfunded across the BRICS nations.

Official publications at the British Library Lending Division include the published and ‘semi‐published’ documents of national and inter‐governmental departments, agencies and fringe bodies, together with local government publications. The maintenance of such a collection presents special problems and the Division has a special section to deal with these. The general principles for selection depend upon the categories being acquired. British official publications published by HMSO are received on a subscription basis. Those not published by HMSO are either selected individually, or acquired under depository arrangements with the issuing Department. British local government publications are being acquired through a firm specializing in local government documentation. Foreign official publications are either acquired on demand, or obtained through back up libraries such as the Official Publications Library of the British Library Reference Division or via international interlibrary loan. There are special arrangements to acquire the output of particular inter‐governmental organizations such as OECD, FAO, Unesco, IAEA and the Division has been a main depository library for all EC publications since 1973. Thousands of official reports from the United States are acquired through agencies such as NTIS and ERIC. Recording and shelving of official publications vary according to the type of publication eg serial, monograph, microfiche etc. Some of the material acquired is indexed in the Division's publication British Reports, Translations and Theses and selected input is forwarded for inclusion in SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe).

This study is concerned with a problem in measuring citation impact with the aid of percentile data, which arises from the assignment of publications (or the journals in which the publications have appeared) by Thomson Reuters for the Web of Science to more than one subject category. If there is more than one subject category for a publication, it is initially unclear which category is to be used to create the reference set for the calculation of the percentile. This paper seeks to address these issues.

In this study the author would like to look at whether the calculation of differences between the citation impact of research institutions is affected by whether the minimum (the maximum percentile), the maximum (the minimum percentile), the mean or the median impact (percentile) for the different subject categories is used. The study is based on a sample of percentile data for three research institutions (n=4,232).

The result of the comparison of citation impact of the three institutions remains very similar for all the calculation methods, but on a different level.

It is the first study, which investigates how far it makes a difference in the comparison of the citation impact of three different research institutes whether – with multiple assignments of subject categories to one publication – the minimum, the maximum, the mean or the median inverted percentile is used. An answer to the question is very relevant since different methods are used in practical application. For example, the web-based research evaluation tool InCites uses the minimum percentile.

This paper's aim is to examine the citation impact of Iranian funded research publications and compare it with research which received no funding.

Using a bibliometric method, the study investigated 80,300 Iranian publications published from 2000 to 2009 in SCI‐EXPANDED to discover the percentage of funded publications and to determine the citation impact of these publications in comparison with unfunded ones.

The results of the study showed that around 12.5 per cent of Iranian publications were funded and the number of funded publications has increased dramatically over the last four years. The citation impact of funded publications was higher in almost all of the subject fields. The highest number of funded publications belonged to the universities subordinate to The Ministry of Science, Research and Technology.

The impact and quality of research is influenced by different factors, for instance receiving funding and research facilities. As this issue has not been previously examined in Iran, the present study determines whether funding can influence the impact of Iranian research.

The paper aims to investigate the rate of Iranian researchers collaboration with their colleagues in other countries in science citation index (SCI). In addition, it seeks to investigate the visibility of publications by Iranian researchers, and particularly the visibility of papers resulting from international collaboration.

The paper employs the survey research method to answer research questions. Any publication recorded in the SCI database from 1998 to 2007 with at least one Iranian author was recognized and transferred to a database in Excel. The total records were 33,813. This number mostly includes articles, letters, notes, and reviews.

The results showed that Iranian researchers have had scientific collaboration with 115 countries, and that their numbers have increased between 1998 and 2007. The results also showed that the number of domestic articles per year was 2‐3.5 times more than international ones. Investigating international collaboration in different subject areas revealed that geosciences had the biggest number of publications co‐authored internationally. Iran's main partners were the USA, Canada, and UK, respectively. European researchers were the main counterparts of Iranian researchers. In addition, Iranian researchers had mostly co‐published with their colleagues in advanced countries. Among Iranian universities and research institutions, the University of Tehran had the highest collaboration at the international level. The results revealed that the average number of citations received by international co‐authored publications was more than those received by domestic co‐authored publications.

The paper shows the situation of international collaboration among Iranian researchers and the impact of publications resulting from international collaboration.

The problems of identification and acquisition of official publications are common to most countries both developed and developing. A study of the availability and use of official publications in libraries was carried out in 1981. 565 libraries in 50 countries were sent questionnaires; the response rate was 35%. Most respondents reported a growing volume of official publications and had ambitious collection development policies. Heavy reliance was placed on deposit but purchase was used as the main tool of collection building. Bibliographic control is seriously deficient and presents problems for tracing new publications. The organization of official publications varies between different parts of the world, from complete integration in the main library stock to wholly separate collections — the latter is most common in North America and Africa. Little information was available about the use of official publications. Interlending arrangements did not appear to be a major issue.

The single publication h index has been introduced by Schubert as the h index calculated from the list of citing publications of one single publication. This paper aims to look at the calculation of the single publication h index and related performance measures.

In this paper a web application is presented where the single publication h index and related performance measures (the single publication m index, h² lower, h² centre, and h² upper) can be automatically calculated for any publication indexed by Google Scholar.

The use of the application is demonstrated by means of the citation performance of two publications.

To the authors' knowledge this web application is the first instrument to automatically calculate the single publication h index and related performance measures based on Google Scholar data. This is a new service especially from the perspective of the related performance measures.

The proliferation of administrative publications presents an acute problem to public authorities as well as to librarians whose job it is to keep records of them. The widening of the fields covered or controlled by government departments is a phenomenon common to all countries. They are producing an ever‐increasing number of publications for their own needs as well as to keep the public informed, which is of primary importance in a democracy. However, the Government and Parliament have been trying for a long time to avoid an excessive and disorganized proliferation of publications which are a drain on the state budget. As for the librarian, he has to keep on top of this rising tide. He has to trace, record, file, store and place at the disposal of the public documents which represent a privileged source of information, particularly in the field of social sciences, but which are often difficult to obtain.