Search results

Spatial bibliometrics and scientometrics have traditionally focused on examining both country and regional levels; however, in recent years, numerous spatial analyses on the city level have been carried out. While city-level scientometric analyses have gained popularity among policymakers and statistical/economic research organizations, researchers in the field of bibliometrics are divided regarding whether it is possible to observe the spatial unit “city” through bibliometric and scientometric tools. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the most significant challenges ahead of spatial scientometrics focusing on the city level by examining relevant scientometric studies.

This analysis involves the most significant spatial scientometric studies focusing on the city level and carefully examines how they collect bibliometric and/or scientometric data, what methodologies they employ to process bibliometric data and most importantly, how they approach the spatial unit “city”.

After systematically scrutinizing relevant studies in the field, three major problems have been identified: there is no standardized method of how cities should be defined and how metropolitan areas should be delineated; there is no standardized method of how bibliometric and scientometric data on the city level should be collected and processed; and it is not clearly defined how cities can profit from the results of bibliometric and scientometric analysis focusing on them.

This is the first study that compiles a “database” of scientometric studies focusing on the city level. The paper not only reveals major challenges ahead of city level spatial analysis but recommends some possible solution as well.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis of prior scientometric research of the knowledge management (KM) field.

A total of 108 scientometric studies of the KM discipline were subjected to meta-analysis techniques.

The overall volume of scientometric KM works has been growing, reaching up to ten publications per year by 2012, but their key findings are somewhat inconsistent. Most scientometric KM research is published in non-KM-centric journals. The KM discipline has deep historical roots. It suffers from a high degree of over-differentiation and is represented by dissimilar research streams. The top six most productive countries for KM research are the USA, the UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, and Spain. KM exhibits attributes of a healthy academic domain with no apparent anomalies and is progressing towards academic maturity.

Scientometric KM researchers should use advanced empirical methods, become aware of prior scientometric research, rely on multiple databases, develop a KM keyword classification scheme, publish their research in KM-centric outlets, focus on rigorous research of the forums for KM publications, improve their cooperation, conduct a comprehensive study of individual and institutional productivity, and investigate interdisciplinary collaboration. KM-centric journals should encourage authors to employ under-represented empirical methods and conduct meta-analysis studies and should discourage conceptual publications, especially the development of new frameworks. To improve the impact of KM research on the state of practice, knowledge dissemination channels should be developed.

This is the first documented attempt to conduct a meta-analysis of scientometric research of the KM discipline.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a structured literature review of scientometric research of the knowledge management (KM) discipline for the 2012–2019 time period.

A total of 175 scientometric studies of the KM discipline were identified and analyzed.

Scientometric KM research has entered the maturity stage: its volume has been growing, reaching six publications per month in 2019. Scientometric KM research has become highly specialized, which explains many inconsistent findings, and the interests of scientometric KM researchers and their preferred inquiry methods have changed over time. There is a dangerous trend toward a monopoly of the scholarly publishing market which affects researchers’ behavior. To create a list of keywords for database searches, scientometric KM scholars should rely on the formal KM keyword classification schemes, and KM-centric peer-reviewed journals should continue welcoming manuscripts on scientometric topics.

Stakeholders should realize that the KM discipline may successfully exist as a cluster of divergent schools of thought under an overarching KM umbrella and that the notion of intradisciplinary cohesion and consistency should be abandoned. Journal of Knowledge Management is unanimously recognized as a leading KM journal, but KM researchers should not limit their focus to the body of knowledge documented in the KM-centric publication forums. The top six most productive countries are the USA, the UK, Taiwan, Canada, Australia and China. There is a need for knowledge brokers that may deliver the KM academic body of knowledge to practitioners.

This is the most comprehensive, up-to-date analysis of the KM discipline.

The study aims to analyze the synergy of artificial intelligence (AI), with scientometrics, webometrics and bibliometrics to unlock and to emphasize the potential of the applications and benefits of AI algorithms in these fields.

By conducting a systematic literature review, our aim is to explore the potential of AI in revolutionizing the methods used to measure and analyze scholarly communication, identify emerging research trends and evaluate the impact of scientific publications. To achieve this, we implemented a comprehensive search strategy across reputable databases such as ProQuest, IEEE Explore, EBSCO, Web of Science and Scopus. Our search encompassed articles published from January 1, 2000, to September 2022, resulting in a thorough review of 61 relevant articles.

(1) Regarding scientometrics, the application of AI yields various distinct advantages, such as conducting analyses of publications, citations, research impact prediction, collaboration, research trend analysis and knowledge mapping, in a more objective and reliable framework. (2) In terms of webometrics, AI algorithms are able to enhance web crawling and data collection, web link analysis, web content analysis, social media analysis, web impact analysis and recommender systems. (3) Moreover, automation of data collection, analysis of citations, disambiguation of authors, analysis of co-authorship networks, assessment of research impact, text mining and recommender systems are considered as the potential of AI integration in the field of bibliometrics.

This study covers the particularly new benefits and potential of AI-enhanced scientometrics, webometrics and bibliometrics to highlight the significant prospects of the synergy of this integration through AI.

This paper aims to assess the impact of research in the field of scientometrics by using the altmetrics (social media metrics) approach.

This is an applied study which uses scientometric and altmetrics methods. The research population consists of the studies and their citations published in the two core journals (Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics) in a period of five years (included 1,738 papers and 11,504 citations). Collecting and extracting the studies directly was carried from Springer and ScienceDirect databases. The Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com, was used to collect data on studies from various sources (www.altmetric.com/). The research studies with the altmetric scores were identified (included 830 papers). The altmetric scores represent the quantity and quality of attention that the study has received on social media. The association between altmetric scores and citation indicators was investigated by using correlation tests.

The findings indicated a significant, positive and weak statistical relationship between the number of citations of the studies published in the field of scientometrics and the altmetric scores of these studies, as well as the number of readers of these studies in the two social networks (Mendeley and Citeulike) with the number of their citations. In this study, there was no statistically significant relationship between the number of citations of the studies and the number of readers on Twitter. In sum, the above findings suggest that some social networks and their indices can be representations of the impact of scientific papers, similar citations. However, owing to the weakness of the correlation coefficients, the replacement of these two categories of indicators is not recommended, but it is possible to use the altmetrics indicators as complementary scientometrics indicators in evaluating the impact of research.

Investigating the impact of research on social media can reflect the social impact of research and can also be useful for libraries, universities, and research organizations in planning, budgeting, and resource allocation processes.

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.

This paper focuses on the differences in domain intellectual structure discovery between author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA) and author co-citation analysis (ACA) considering all authors. The purpose of this study is to examine whether and in what ways these two all-author network approaches yield different results.

The sample was collected from the database of Web of Science, including all articles published in Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics from 2011 to 2020. First, 100 representative authors were selected from each set, and ABCA matrices and ACA matrices were constructed. Second, factor analysis was carried out on the matrices, to detect the intellectual structure of scientometrics and informetrics.

The intellectual structures identified by ABCA and ACA are similar overall, but the results differ somewhat when it comes to specific structures. The ABCA is more sensitive to some highly collaborative research teams and presents a clearer picture of current intellectual structures and trends while ACA seems to have some advantages in representing the more traditional and proven research topics in the field. The combined use of ABCA and ACA allows for a more comprehensive and specific intellectual structure of research fields.

This paper compares the performance of ABCA and ACA detecting the intellectual structure of the domain from the perspective of all authors, revealing the intellectual structure of scientometrics and informetrics comprehensively.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-12-2020-0540.

This study aims to examine the research productivity of Pakistan Agricultural Research Council’s (PARC’s) researchers published during 2001–2020 by using scientometric indicators. The study explored the growth and collaborative trends along with authorship and institutional collaborative patterns at the national and international levels.

The study was conducted in four phases. Firstly, a search strategy was designed to retrieve reliable data sets. During the second phase, data from PARC research was retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). In the third phase, the data were combined, and duplications were removed. Finally, the data were analysed using RStudio and VOSviewer.

The study identified 2,868 research publications from 16 communication channels spanning over the period of 2001–2020. The growth rate varied during the study period and the year 2020 was the most productive year of the organization. Most of the research was produced in multi-authorship and five authors were dominant. Pakistan Journal of Botany was the most preferred and cited source. Moreover, PARC research collaboration with Pakistani researchers was more than their international counterparts.

Like other research, this research has some limitations. For example, this research is based on secondary data extracted from WoS and Scopus databases, world-renowned online academic. However, researchers should keep in mind while interpreting the results of this study. Secondly, the research publications published by PARC researchers during 2001–2020 were considered. Finally, this research considered English language literature only.

The study’s key theoretical contribution is its strategy for merging WoS and Scopus in RStudio, while its findings could assist agriculture research stakeholders in identifying new areas of research, awards, promotions and identification of research gaps.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to use scientometric indicators to evaluate PARC’s research productivity. This detailed analysis provides a deeper understanding of PARC’s contribution to agriculture research and its potential implications.

Many economic, political and socio-cultural events in the 2020s have been strong headwinds for architecture, engineering and construction (AEC). Nevertheless, technological advancements (e.g. artificial intelligence (AI), big data and robotics) provide promising avenues for the development of AEC. This study aims to map the state of the literature on automation in AEC and thereby be of value not only to those researching automation and its composition of a variety of distinct technological and system classes within AEC, but also to practitioners and policymakers in shaping the future of AEC.

This review adopts scientometric methods, which have been effective in the research of large intra and interdisciplinary domains in the past decades. The full dataset consists of 1,871 articles on automation in AEC.

This overarching scientometric review offers three interdisciplinary streams of research: technological frontiers, project monitoring and applied research in AEC. To support the scientometric analysis, the authors offer a critical integrative review of the literature to proffer a multilevel, multistage framework of automation in AEC, which demonstrates an abundance of technological paradigm discussions and the inherent need for a holistic managerial approach to automation in AEC.

The authors underline employee well-being, business sustainability and social growth outcomes of automation and provide several managerial implications, such as the strategic management approach, ethical management view and human resource management perspective. In doing so, the authors seek to respond to the Sustainable Development Goals proposed by the United Nations as this becomes more prevalent for the industry and all levels of society in general.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a scientometric analysis of the body of literature contained in 11 major knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) peer‐reviewed journals.

A total of 2,175 articles published in 11 major KM/IC peer‐reviewed journals were carefully reviewed and subjected to scientometric data analysis techniques.

A number of research questions pertaining to country, institutional and individual productivity, co‐operation patterns, publication frequency, and favourite inquiry methods were proposed and answered. Based on the findings, many implications emerged that improve one's understanding of the identity of KM/IC as a distinct scientific field.

The pool of KM/IC journals examined did not represent all available publication outlets, given that at least 20 peer‐reviewed journals exist in the KM/IC field. There are also KM/IC papers published in other non‐KM/IC specific journals. However, the 11 journals that were selected for the study have been evaluated by Bontis and Serenko as the top publications in the KM/IC area.

Practitioners have played a significant role in developing the KM/IC field. However, their contributions have been decreasing. There is still very much a need for qualitative descriptions and case studies. It is critically important that practitioners consider collaborating with academics for richer research projects.

This is the most comprehensive scientometric analysis of the KM/IC field ever conducted.