Search results

Assessing the research performance of researchers offers inducement toward excellence in research. This study aims to analyze the research productivity of the most prolific authors of Pakistan considering their trends toward publications, citations and collaboration.

Top 100 authors from the top 10 Pakistani universities from Web of Science over the 10 years with the rigorous data cleaning process were selected. Scientometric analysis techniques were carried out to evaluate the research profile of these authors.

The findings revealed that majority of the productive authors were male working in the position of Professor in the physical sciences area. The publications and citations gradually increase with time. They preferred to collaborate for their publications, while first authorship publications were found less in number. Moreover, the propensity to collaborate at the international level increases double-fold from the first five years to the next five years period. In addition, the position of the authors was explored among different performance metrics. The finding exhibits variation in the ranking of authors among them. The impact of numbers of authors, funding status, publication of articles, presence of collaboration and international collaboration on the dependent variable and citation count was insignificant. However, the publication of review papers has a significant impact on the citation counts.

Findings have significant implications for policymakers to make maximum opportunities for researchers to strengthen linkages for collaboration and increase the funding prospects.

Studies on this topic are scarce, and therefore, this study provides useful recommendations to researchers and institutes to improve research productivity.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied.

The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading “Information Science and Library Science” there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors’ names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles.

A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature.

The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design is outlined based on the derivation of a behavioural model of the information seeking patterns of academic social scientists. The information seeking patterns of a variety of academic social scientists were broken down into six characteristics: starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, and extracting. These characteristics constitute the principal generic features of the different individual patterns, and together provide a flexible behavioural model for information retrieval system design. The extent to which these characteristics are available on existing systems is considered, and the requirements for implementing the features on an experimental system are set out.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the utility of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar as citation analysis tools for the social sciences.

The 25 most‐accessed articles in 163 social sciences journals are searched in three citation databases.

Web of Science has long been the only tool for citation analysis. Scopus and Google Scholar, while still new to the market, are complementary to Web of Science and in some cases can provide a more nuanced view of the importance of scholarly articles in the social sciences.

As libraries struggle to provide the best tools to their users, they may wish to consider the freely‐available Google Scholar as a substitute or complement to expensive databases such as Web of Science and Scopus.

Most analyses of citation databases have focused on the sciences. Because this study examined the social sciences literature, it has expanded on the research available on Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus.

India has a prominent place in scientific activity among the third world countries. This is evident from its high production of publications in different branches of science and technology as well as from its accelerated growth of research and development work within the country. Almost all the papers, notes, reviews, corrections and correspondence published in scientific journals contain citations. These cite generally by title, author and where and when published, documents that support, provide precedent for illustration orelaborate on what the author has to say. Citations are the formal, explicit linkages between papers that have particular points in common. A citation index is built around these linkages. It lists publications that have been cited and identifies the sources of the citation. Anyone conducting a literature search can find from one to dozens of additional papers on a subject, just by knowing one that has been cited. This communication outlines the development of a citation index in India.

ResearchIndex is a recently‐announced service that can identify and index citations found within Web‐based electronic publications without human intervention. In addition to indexing electronic journals, ResearchIndex can automatically index non‐journal literature including reports, conference papers, and preprints, among other types of grey literature. It offers users the opportunity to view the textual context of a candidate cited work and provides access to the full‐text of any incorporated source document. Access to related and similar work in the ResearchIndex corpus is also made available.

This study aims to examine human resource development (HRD) research as represented by the citations to the publications in the four journals sponsored by the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) from 2005 to 2011.

The authors collected citation data from Google Scholar (GS) using Publish or Perish 3 (PoP3) and compared the four journals on the metrics of h, hc, g, e and other Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) commonly reported indexes.

Citation data during the seven-year period provided an overall picture on the status of HRD research and publications. It showed that while HRD journals have made impressive research impact by generating worldwide scholarly citations in multiple languages, additional effort in improving the quality and the impact of research and publications is needed.

This study offers new insights on a number of important issues related to HRD research assessment, research quality, journal impact and editorial performance.

This is an initial effort in the HRD literature that comprehensively analyzes and compares the four AHRD journals. It offers new insights on the assessment of HRD research and journal impact.

The purpose of this study is to measure the quality of nuclear science and technology research using the scientometric indicators, like activity index, attractivity index and publication efficiency index.

The present scientometric study is based on the bibliographic data extracted from the core collection of the Web of Science database from 1989 to 2019. The data was collected using the advanced search feature, with a search string of 28 related terms. The bibliographic data for all the journal articles, excluding all other formats, was downloaded for statistical analysis.

The present study highlights the growth pattern and the research efforts devoted to the field of nuclear science and technology worldwide, as reflected through the Core Collection of the Web of Science database, for 31 years from 1989 to 2019. The USA has emerged as the topmost producer, with a total share of almost 29% with respect to the world literature followed by Japan, Germany, France and UK. However, the relative citation impact has been the highest for Netherlands followed by the USA, Germany, France and UK, respectively. The study depicted that the activity index, also called as the relative performance indicator, has been the highest for the USA, whereas the attractivity index has been the highest for China, indicating its dominance in attracting citations to its publications in the field of nuclear science and technology. The publication efficiency index, the value has been the maximum for Iran, for which the value has been greater than 1 (1.618). The measure suggests that Iran’s research effectiveness in the field of nuclear science and technology has been more than the research effort devoted to the field.

The paper was based on the data retrieved from a single database, and the results may vary across other databases. Hence, caution should be taken while generalizing the findings.

Several scientometric studies have taken place in the field of nuclear science and technology, particularly in its allied branches, but none of the studies has focused on evaluating the research efforts carried out by the countries in terms of activity index, attractivity index and publication efficiency index, and the present study is an attempt to fill the gap.

The purpose of this paper is to present a bibliometric analysis of scientific output of the knowledge management (KM), the aim being to offer an overview of research activity in this field and characterize its most significant aspects. In addition, this study aims to quantitatively analyze KM research trends, forecasts, and citations from 1993 to 2012 in Web of Science (WOS).

A total of 12,925 documents related to KM research were collected from following databases: Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. These documents were carefully reviewed and subjected to bibliometric data analysis techniques.

A number of research questions pertaining to patterns in scientific outputs, subject categories and major journals, author keywords frequencies, characteristics of the international collaboration, most cited papers and significant papers distribution of KM research were proposed and answered. In addition, there are five research sights on KM research are as follows: management science, computer science, information science, business, and engineering. Based on these findings, many implications emerged that improve one's understanding of the identity of KM as a distinct multi-discipline scientific field.

Comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of the analyzed KM-related data set in WOS because of some KM-centric journals are not indexed by Thomson Reuters.

The paper offers an overview and evaluation of research activity into the KM viewed through the WOS during 1993-2012.

The purpose of this paper is to construct a model for measuring the strength and weakness of individual disciplines.

The model is developed based on the balanced approach. The model is tested on Iranian and Malaysian social sciences publications between 1991‐2008 as a case study.

The result indicates that the differences in rankings for measures of publication output, citation distribution, and mean observed citation rate are large, which justifies the use of the scientific power index which is introduced in this paper.

Scientific power index proposes an objective mode of measuring performance at an aggregate level that will allow a comparison of individual fields within different disciplinary areas like technological sciences, medicine, natural science, social sciences, and humanities at national or global levels. The disciplinary characterization of national research efforts identifies the mainstream and dominant scientific fields, thus the developed index can be important tool for science policy.