Search results

1 – 10 of over 3000
Article
Publication date: 2 December 2019

György Csomós

Spatial bibliometrics and scientometrics have traditionally focused on examining both country and regional levels; however, in recent years, numerous spatial analyses on…

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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”.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

Aslib Journal of Information Management, vol. 72 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2050-3806

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 9 September 2013

Alexander Serenko

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

2151

Abstract

Purpose

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

Design/methodology/approach

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

Findings

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.

Practical implications

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.

Originality/value

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

Details

Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 17 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1367-3270

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 8 February 2021

Alexander Serenko

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.

1014

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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

Findings

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.

Practical implications

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.

Originality/value

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

Details

Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 25 no. 8
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1367-3270

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 23 May 2022

Nedra Ibrahim, Anja Habacha Chaibi and Henda Ben Ghézala

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…

Abstract

Purpose

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?

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2059-5891

Keywords

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

Article
Publication date: 2 August 2022

Yanhui Song, Lixin Lei, Lijuan Wu and Shiji Chen

This paper focuses on the differences in domain intellectual structure discovery between author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA) and author co-citation analysis…

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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.

Peer review

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

Details

Online Information Review, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 23 February 2010

Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis, Lorne Booker, Khaled Sadeddin and Timothy Hardie

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

5175

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical implications

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.

Originality/value

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

Details

Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 14 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1367-3270

Keywords

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

Article
Publication date: 5 September 2016

Imran Khan

This paper aims to perform a scientometric analysis of DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology (DJLIT) to find out the quality, popularity and impact of the…

827

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to perform a scientometric analysis of DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology (DJLIT) to find out the quality, popularity and impact of the international journal published by DESIDOC.

Design/methodology/approach

Scientometric analysis of five volumes (from Volume No. 30 to 34) from the year 2010 to 2014 of DJLIT covering 30 issues containing 307 contributions was performed. All the bibliographic details were noted and recorded in tabular form for the purpose of in-depth analysis. Based on the analysis of the recorded data, findings have been presented.

Findings

The study shows a trend of gradual growth in contributions published during the period of study, with an average number of 61 contributions per volume of the journal. Maximum number of contributions/research papers (70) were found to be published in the year 2012, whereas the minimum (50) in the year 2010. The study reveals that DJLIT gives maximum importance to the original research papers for the purpose of publishing, which attained top position of publications with a total of 277 (90.23 per cent). A maximum number of contributions during the period of study are from joint authors, with a total of 188 (61.24 per cent). Maximum number of contributions are from India, with a total of 273 (88.93 per cent). New Delhi, Maharashtra and Karnataka were found to be the biggest domestic contributors during the period of study, with 68 (24.91 per cent), 39 (14.29 per cent) and 30 (10.99 per cent) contributions, respectively. It appears that the coverage of DJLIT, even being an international journal in the field of library and information science (LIS), is not very broad and its scope is broadly confined to India only. Majority of the authors preferred journals as their major source of information, providing the highest number of citations totaling 2,447 (51.89 per cent), while websites attained the second position with 1,015 (21.52 per cent) citations, followed by books with 613 (13 per cent) citations. The study further reveals that maximum number of citations totaling 1,109 (23.52 per cent) out of 4,716 were received in the year 2013, while least citations totaling 700 (14.84 per cent) were recorded in the year 2010. One of the most important quality of DJLIT is that it has great concern for emerging and new tools, techniques and technologies in the LIS profession and their impact and application in the field. The journal regularly publishes special issues in every volume on such themes that have great impact on the LIS profession, and it has published 16 special issues on various important themes during the period of study. DJLIT, having free online access through the internet, is the highly preferred journal for communication, knowledge acquisition and reference by the LIS professionals. The journal has great potential of attaining new heights of popularity and impact all over the world in the LIS profession. It is suggested that the journal should try to get high-quality papers from foreign authors too, which may be useful in enhancing its global impact and reputation.

Research limitations/implications

The present study is confined to the data collected from 30 issues of the five volumes of the DJLIT from the year 2010 to 2014, while the journal is continuously being published since the year 1981. Hence, the results may vary if the studies of different blocks of the years of publication of the journal are performed. The present study may not be fully representative in all the results, but it gives a trend regarding publication of the DJLIT.

Originality/value

Scientometric analysis of journals has been attempted in very few numbers. Hence, the present study will be a source of idea to other researchers.

Details

Library Hi Tech News, vol. 33 no. 7
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0741-9058

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 10 August 2015

Gustavo da Silva Motta, Rogério Hermida Quintella and Pauli Adriano de Almada Garcia

This paper aims to assess a method that applies scientometric and patentometric indicators in the selection process of projects by seed capital funds. There is increasing…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to assess a method that applies scientometric and patentometric indicators in the selection process of projects by seed capital funds. There is increasing interest in technology-based enterprises, for their capacity to contribute to economic and social development. Nevertheless, in practice, there is some difficulty in assessing non-financial criteria associated with technology for the purposes of choosing investment opportunities.

Design/methodology/approach

The literature has presented various methods to instrumentalize the process of evaluation and selection of investment projects. This study focuses on an enterprise that received an investment by the largest seed capital fund in Brazil, to assess to what extent scientific and technological indicators can contribute to understanding the market potential of the firm’s technology.

Findings

The results show that the use of scientometric and patentometric indicators favors the process of judging non-financial criteria, in particular those related to technology, market, divestment and team.

Originality/value

The originality of this paper is in the evaluation of a patento-scientometric approach for the selection process of projects by seed capital funds.

Details

VINE, vol. 45 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0305-5728

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 3000