Search results

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.

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.

This chapter investigates whether core competence of managers and their expansive (vs. specialized) managerial style affects firms' innovative ability, capacity, and efficiency. Using exogenous CEO departures as a natural experiment, it establishes a causal link between managerial capability and innovation. Importantly, it reveals that firms with talented managers receive significantly more nonself citations; make significantly lower self-citations and lesser citations to the others, indicating novel and explorative innovation achievements. Also, managers with higher general (specialized) ability are cited more (less) by patents from a wider range of fields. Lastly, career concern is identified as a mechanism linking higher ability and innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze citation behaviors of students in the LIS field among a variety of local universities in Tehran.

A total of 259 MA dissertations in Library and Information Science submitted to five universities in Tehran during 2003‐2008 are examined. These universities were selected based on their location and the authors' accessibility to their university libraries. Overall, five out of nine universities in Iran which have Masters Courses in Library and Information Science were selected for this study. The data were gathered using a checklist by the author, who personally attended in university libraries and counted all dissertation references.

The study shows that students' citation behaviors are in favor of books, and Farsi e‐sources are lesser used by LIS students than English e‐sources. The total number of book citations is far more than total number of other formats. While this study could be useful in library acquisition decisions, it could also inform in areas related to issues students face in finding suitable pieces of information.

This study would be useful for educational and acquisition purposes in university libraries, since it examines citation behavior of students through a specific discipline.

The study deals with MA Library and Information Science dissertations among all universities of Tehran that teach LIS masters courses.

With the development of Web2.0 and publishing digitalization, traditional libraries and evaluation citation system can no longer indicate academic paper influence validly. Therefore, it is necessary to construct smart library and find the evaluation effect of Internet metrics-Usage.

This study puts forward four indexes of scholars’ evaluation based on Usage (total Usage (U), average Usage rate (U/N), h_u-index and p_u-index), which refer to citation indexes, takes the 35 high-output scholars in the field of library and information science in the WoS database as examples, analyzes performance of different scholars evaluation indexes based on Usage and compares the differences and correlations between “citation indicators” and “usage indicators.”

This study results show that p_u-index is the strongest index to evaluate scholars. Second, there is a high correlation and strong mechanism based on time dependence and interactions between Usage and citation. Third, compared to “citation indicators”, the “usage indicators” has a larger numerical value and wider measurement range, which can break the time limitation of citation, and scientifically evaluate young scholars and newly published paper by scholars.

This paper proposes the p_u-index – a relatively superior mathematical model for Usage and provides reference for the scholars’ evaluation policy of the smart library. This model can not only provide fair evaluation conditions for young scientists but also shorten the evaluation effect of the time lag of cited indicators. In addition, the “usage indicators” in this paper are new scientific evaluation indicators generated in the network environment. Applying it to the academic evaluation system will make the research papers widely accepted by the public and will also encourage scientists to follow the development of the Internet age and pursue research with equal emphasis on quantity and quality.

This paper analyzes citations from the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using Google Scholar in April and May, 2013.

This study assesses the success of the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using citation analysis. Four citation metrics are used. The four citation metrics are: (1) total citations since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (2) citations per author since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (3) citations per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013, and (4) citations per author per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013.

The top 20 authors for each citation metric, the top 20 faculties for each citation metric, and the top 20 doctoral programs for each citation metric are determined. Furthermore, the top 20 articles are determined using two citation metrics and the H-index for Advances in Management Accounting is computed.

Potential doctoral students, current doctoral students, “new” Ph.D.s with an interest in management accounting, current management accounting faculty, department chairs, deans, other administrators, journal editors, and journal publishers will find these results informative.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of Collection Building and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis.

This study explores the distribution of articles and subjects of references and analyses the various aspects of Collection Building from 2005‐2012. There are 179 articles in Collection Building in eight selected years. In total, 32 issues pertaining to eight volumes of Collection Building were consulted and relevant details of the citations at the end of each article were noted on an excel sheet. The recorded data were analysed, interpreted and tabulated.

The results of this study revealed that 179 articles were consulted from eight volumes (2005‐2012) which carried 2,388 citations including 85 self‐citations. The majority of articles (30.17 per cent) recorded between 10‐19 range of citations per article followed by (28.50 per cent) 1‐9 range. The majority of articles were contributed by single authors (65.92 per cent) and majority of contributors were from the USA (69.96 per cent) followed by Canada (3.95 per cent) and India (3.95 per cent) respectively. Journal articles (42.71 per cent) were the most cited source materials, followed by online and electronic sources (25.80 per cent), books including edited books (20.44 per cent), newspapers (5.23 per cent) and so on. Out of 179 articles, tje majority of articles (33.52 per cent) were Research papers followed by Case study (30.73 per cent), Literature review (12.85 per cent) and so on. The majority of articles (66.48 per cent) were recorded between 6‐10 pages, followed by 25.70 per cent articles between 1‐5 pages. Out of 1,020 journal articles, Collection Building (9.02 per cent) was the top ranked journal, followed by The Journal of Academic Librarianship (5.0 per cent) and College & Research Libraries (4.22 per cent).

Research was limited to the journal entitled Collection Building during eight years (2005‐2012). In total, 32 issues and 179 articles were covered by the study.

The outcome of the study is an original research work with citation analysis of Collection Building. It highlights the study of 179 articles of Collection Building in various ways.

This study aims to measure the global research landscape of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) of India on a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics in terms of research output toward exploring research trends and give an overview of collaborative practices by researchers of NIPERs.

The present study has selected the Scopus database as a tool to retrieve potential publications of studied NIPERs during the last 12 years (2010–2021). NIPER-Mohali, NIPER-Hyderabad, NIPER-Ahmedabad, NIPER-Guwahati and NIPER-Kolkata have been selected for the study. The study has adopted a comprehensive search strategy to extract 3,926 publications data. VOS viewer 1.6.17, BibExcel and Microsoft Excel were used for data analysis and visualization.

The global scientific research output of NIPERs accrued 3,926 publications with an average of 327 publications per year. The retrieved publications fetched a total of 67,772 citations with an average citation impact of 17.26. There observed a steady growth of publications from 168 to 509 registered with an average growth rate of 18.44%. The mean relative growth rate and doubling time of research output are 0.26 and 2.94. The authorship patterns explore collaborative trends as most of the publications were published by multiple authors (99.39%). NIPERs have expanded their outreach to collaborate with the USA, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the UK to collaborate on research and regulatory reforms exhibits in the USA as a major contributor.

The present study is the first effort to evaluate the global research productivity of NIPERs and assess the current research trends on a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics to provide some insights into the complex dynamics of research productivity. The study’s outcome may help to identify the current research progress of NIPERs at the global level.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of selected factors in journal citations. Various factors can affect citations distribution of journals. Among them, skewness of citations distribution, author self-citation, journal self-citation and recitations (RCs) have been studied.

The present study based on 16 systematically selected journals indexed in Scopus under the subject category “Library and Information Science.” The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in the selected journals in the year 2011. The temporal citation window from 2011 to 2014 was taken for analysis. Tools like, Scopus author ID, ORCID and author profiles from Google Scholar were used to minimize the error due to homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors’ names.

It is found that citations distribution in majority of the journals under the study is highly skewed and more likely to follow log-normal distribution. The nature of authorship in papers was found to have positive effect on citation counts. Self-citing data show that higher ranked journals have rather less direct impact on total citation counts than their lower counterpart. RCs are also found to be more in top-tier journals. Though the influence of self-citations and RCs were relatively less at individual level on total citations of journals but combined, they can play a dominant role and can affect total citation counts of journals at significant level.

The present study is based on Scopus database only. Therefore, citation data can be affected by the inherent limitation of Scopus. Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample and tracing citations from an array of citation indexes, such as Web of Science, Google citations, Indian Citation Index, etc.

This paper reinforces that the citations received by journals can be affected by the factors selected in this study. Therefore, the study provides better understanding of the role of these selected factors in journal citations.

The present study aims to determine the prevailing trend of self-citations across 27 major subject disciplines at global level. The study also examines the aspects like percentage of self-citations in each individual subject discipline and the average number of self-citations per publication across different subject disciplines. The study also investigates self-citation percentage of research articles published from the 20 leading research countries of the world and across the continents.

The study is supported by empirical findings undertaken on secondary data retrieved from SCImago Journal and Country Ranking, which is entirely based on the SCOPUS data source (SCImago, 2014).

In all, 76,634,557 citations were received by as many as 14,946,975 research articles published from 2008-2012 at an average of 5.12 citations per article. Of the total citations received, 26,404,609 (34.45 per cent) were self-citations, which means that of the total citations received by each research article, 1.76 are self-citations. Compared to subject disciplines falling under social and humanistic sciences, pure and applied sciences have shown a greater trend of self-citation. On average, 4.18 self-citations were observed in each research article published in multidisciplinary subject disciplines. Of the total citations received by research articles published in the discipline of Psychology, 43.69 per cent are self-citations, the highest among all the subject disciplines under study. Of the total self-citations received by all the subject disciplines under study, 18.43 per cent were received alone in medicine, highest among all, whereas Social and Humanistic sciences received less than 1.00 per cent self-citations, the lowest among all the subject disciplines.

This study is original and first of its kind covering each individual subject discipline having global scope.