Search results

1 – 10 of over 1000
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 31 January 2020

Mehri Sedighi

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

Abstract

Purpose

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

Design/methodology/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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, vol. 69 no. 4/5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2514-9342

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 9 November 2015

Nedra Ibrahim, Anja Habacha Chaibi and Mohamed Ben Ahmed

– This paper aims to propose a new qualitative indicator for the evaluation of the productions of researchers in any discipline.

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to propose a new qualitative indicator for the evaluation of the productions of researchers in any discipline.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on the study of existing quantitative indicators, the authors’ approach consisted of the hybridization of two indicators. This hybridization is based on the individual H_index (Hi_index) and H_index contemporary (Hc_index) weighted by qualitative factors. The initial sources of the data are online bibliographic databases, such as Google Scholar and Publish or Perish.

Findings

A new scientometric indicator was used to compare the scientific production quality of researchers and their classification (as part of a research community) as the classification of national and international research institutions. The authors have applied a new indicator to compare and classify the members of their laboratory, RIADI, according to their quality of scientific production.

Practical implications

The indicator is an improvement of the H_index. It is a measure that can have an impact on society (influencing research attitudes, affecting quality of research). By this contribution, the authors measure more than one aspect by involving all the external factors that can affect the quality of research.

Originality/value

This paper fulfils a gap in the literature concerning the absence of a qualitative indicator among the set of existing quantitative measures. Additionally, this paper addresses the limitations of the existing qualitative practices, such as peer review and citation analysis. In the new qualitative indicator, the authors involve all of these qualitative aspects: the influence of the age of the paper, the number of co-authors, the order of the co-authors, the impact factor of journals and the conference rankings.

Details

New Library World, vol. 116 no. 11/12
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0307-4803

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 28 February 2019

Mohammad Karim Saberi and Faezeh Ekhtiyari

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of highly cited papers of Library and information science (LIS).

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of highly cited papers of Library and information science (LIS).

Design/methodology/approach

This study is quantitative research that was conducted using scientometrics and altmetrics indicators. The research sample consists of LIS classic papers. The papers contain highly cited papers of LIS that are introduced by Google Scholar. The research data have been gathered from Google Scholar, Scopus and Plum Analytics Categories. The data analysis has been done by Excel and SPSS applications.

Findings

The data indicate that among the highly cited articles of LIS, the highest score regarding the usage, captures, mentions and social media and the most abundance of citations belong to “Citation advantage of open access articles” and “Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems.” Based on the results of Spearman statistical tests, there is a positive significant correlation between Google Scholar Citations and all studied indicators. However, only the correlation between Google Scholar Citations with capture metrics (p-value = 0.047) and citation metrics (p-value = 0.0001) was statistically significant.

Originality/value

Altmetrics indicators can be used as complement traditional indicators of Scientometrics to study the impact of papers. Therefore, the Altmetrics knowledge of LIS researchers and experts and practicing new studies in this field will be very important.

Details

Performance Measurement and Metrics, vol. 20 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1467-8047

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 17 April 2009

Péter Jacsó

The purpose of the paper is to explore the extent of the absence of data elements that are critical from the perspective of scientometric evaluation of the scientific…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the paper is to explore the extent of the absence of data elements that are critical from the perspective of scientometric evaluation of the scientific productivity and impact of countries in terms of the most common indicators – such as the number of publications, the number of citations and the impact factor (the ratio of citations received to papers published), and the effect these may have on the h‐index of countries – in two of the most widely used citation‐enhanced databases.

Design/methodology/approach

The author uses the Scopus database and Thomson‐Reuters' (earlier known as ISI) three citation databases (Science, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities), both as implemented on the Dialog Information Services (Thomson ISI databases) and on the Web of Knowledge platform, known as Web of Science (WoS). The databases were searched to discover how many records they have for each year, how many of those have cited references for each year, and what percentage of the records have other essential or often used data elements for bibliometric/scientometric evaluation.

Findings

There is no difference between the databases in the presence of publication year data – all of them include this element for all the records. The presence of the language field is comparable between the Thomson and Scopus databases, but it should be noted that a 2 per cent difference for mega‐databases of such size is not entirely negligible. The rate of presence of the subject category field is better in Scopus, even though it has far fewer subject categories (27) than the Thomson databases (well over 200). The rate of absence of country identification is the most critical and disappointing. It is caused primarily by the fact that journals have not had consistent policies for including the country affiliation of the authors. The huge 34 percent omission rate of country identification in Scopus also hurts its impressive author identification feature. Unfortunately, the country information is not available in more than 12 million records.

Originality/value

Irrespective of the reasons for the very high rate of omission of country names or codes, it should be realised and prominently mentioned in any scientometric country reports. The author has never seen this mentioned in published papers, nor in the manuscripts that he has peer reviewed. Many can live with the low omission rates of the language, document type and subject category elements, and many can just avoid using these filters. The two factors that define the level of distortion in the assessment and ranking of the research achievements of countries are the rate of cited reference enhanced records and the rate of presence of country affiliation data.

Details

Online Information Review, vol. 33 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 11 October 2011

Nicolás Robinson‐Garcia

Abstract

Details

Library Review, vol. 60 no. 9
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0024-2535

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 13 April 2012

Péter Jacsó

Abstract

Details

Online Information Review, vol. 36 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 17 March 2020

Shima Moradi and Firoozeh Dokhani

Altmetrics is a complementary method in scientometrics for evaluating the performance of individuals, organizations, institutions and countries in social media. Due to the…

Abstract

Purpose

Altmetrics is a complementary method in scientometrics for evaluating the performance of individuals, organizations, institutions and countries in social media. Due to the large volume of data related to the interactions in science, technology and innovation, there is no choice but to develop and implement accurate models for analysis and decision making. The Quadruple Helix Model examines the scientific outcomes in four spaces of innovation, knowledge, consensus and government with a distinctive attention to the “innovation space”. In other words, it aims to find the connection between the academic space and other sectors of a society (public, media and government) to see if scientific outputs respond appropriately to their needs.

Design/methodology/approach

The present paper studied the impact of health-related researches in D8 countries) including Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Nigeria) using the Altmetrics scores of their indexed journal in the Web of Science (WOS). The results demonstrated distribution of interactions of the mentioned four spaces in health science researches in terms of social media, geographical distribution and theme for D8 countries. This was conducted using content analysis, scientometric and altmetric indicators in the WOS and Altmetrics.com databases.

Findings

In D8 countries, more interaction has taken place in the knowledge and innovation spaces; however, there exist Quadruple imbalances in these countries. Moreover, some interactions have been observed in all social networks, displaying that users consider health topics in D8 countries, and clinical sciences has gotten more interaction in all the four spaces.

Originality/value

The application of this model using altmetrics data with current approach has been conducted for the first time.

Details

Library Hi Tech, vol. 38 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0737-8831

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 7 September 2010

Mohammad Reza Davarpanah

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

Abstract

Purpose

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

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Library Review, vol. 59 no. 8
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0024-2535

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 15 June 2012

Péter Jacsó

Google Scholar has been increasingly used in the past six to seven years as a highly efficient information source and service by librarians and other information…

Abstract

Purpose

Google Scholar has been increasingly used in the past six to seven years as a highly efficient information source and service by librarians and other information professionals. The problem is when Google Scholar is touted and used as a bibliometric/scientometric tool and resource in the assessment of the quantity (productivity) and quality (impact) of research publications, in formal and informal ways, for decisions related to tenure, promotion and grant applications of individual researchers and research groups, as well as in journal subscriptions and cancellations. This paper aims to examine this issue.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper discusses the use of Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h‐index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia. It focuses on the issues of access and excess in Google Scholar: the innate limits of Google Scholar and those imposed by its developers on the users.

Findings

The paper reveals that issues of access and excess in Google Scholar prevent the researchers from doing appropriate content analysis that the best librarians and other information professionals do systematically to discover the pros and cons of databases. The excess content grossly dilutes the originally worthy collection of scholarly publications. The accuracy, reliability and reproducibility are essential for realistic research assessment through the prism of the quantity (publication counts) and quality (citation counts) of scholarly works. Unfortunately the metadata created by Google Scholar is substandard, neither reliable nor reproducible and it distorts the metric indicators at the individual, corporate and journal levels.

Originality/value

The paper provides useful information on the use of Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h‐index in academic publishing.

Details

Online Information Review, vol. 36 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 15 July 2021

Kalervo Järvelin and Pertti Vakkari

This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015.

Design/methodology/approach

The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology.

Findings

The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed.

Originality/value

Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 1000