KTH RAE 2008 BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY (original) (raw)
Related papers
Citation Counts as a Measure for Scientific Impact
2019
This thesis presents a look into citation counts as a measure for scientific impact which in turn is used to determine the replication value (RV). first, by comparing citation sources (WoS, Crossref, Scopus and Scite) from which citation counts can be retrieved. Secondly, by removing contradicting citations from the citation count, and comparing this new citation count without contradicting citations with the original total citation count. In both cases, based on the citation count, rank order lists are formed which are compared with the use of two tests. First, Kendalls tau is calculated to see how well the compared pairs of lists correlate. Second, the rank biased overlap (RBO) is calculated to see how well pairs of lists overlap. The RBO is different than Kendalls tau because it is able to give more weight to citation counts at the top of the list emphasizing the importance of high ranked articles as opposed to low ranked articles. Both measures indicate a significant correlation and overlap between ranked lists originating from Scopus and Crossref and WoS, and a lower correlation and overlap between Scite and all other sources. Based on the difference between Scite and all other sources, Scite is not yet the best choice as a citation source for determining scientific impact. Both measures also indicate a strong correlation and overlap between the ranked list formed from the total citation counts and the ranked list formed from the total citation count minus the contradicting citations. Based on this high correlation and overlap, taking out contradicting citations is not needed when determining scientific impact. All used data and scripts can be found here: https://osf.io/b87de/?view only=1ea26d1c7e6e485daf403531f812fffd Citation Counts as a Measure for Scientific Impact iii Contents Contents iv
Scientometrics, 2010
This paper focuses the attention on the ch-index, a recent bibliometric indicator similar to the Hirsch (h) index, to evaluate the published research output of a scientist (Ajiferuke and Wolfram, Proceedings of the 12th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 798–808, 2009). Ch-index is defined as the number such that, for a general group of scientific publications, ch publications are cited by at least ch different citers while the other publications are cited by no more than ch different citers. The basic difference from the classical h is that, according to ch, the diffusion of one author’s publication is evaluated on the basis of the number of different citing authors (or citers), rather than the number of received citations. The goal of this work is to discuss the pros and cons of ch and identify its connection with h. A large sample of scientists in the Quality Engineering/Management field are analyzed so as to investigate the novel indicator’s characteristics. Then, the analysis is preliminarily extended to other scientific disciplines. The most important result is that ch is almost insensitive to self-citations and/or citations made by recurrent citers, and it can be profitably used for complementing h.
Bibliometrics is an emerging thrust area of research and has become a standard tool of science policy and research management in the last decades and attracted much attention because of the substantial expansion of literature. This study aims to systematically review the worldwide productivity trends, the pattern of scientific collaboration, and research outputs of Bibliometrics research from Web of Science (WoS) web database, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E). A bibliographic database of scientific papers published by authors affiliated worldwide, and containing the keywords "Bibliometric(s)" or "Scientometric(s)" or "Informetric(s)" or "Altmetric(s)" was built. A corpus of 9,630 publications was obtained and analyzed using the Histcite, VosViewer, and Biblioshiny software to highlight the evolution of the research domain. Publication rates from 2006 to 2020, organization of the research, type of documents, language-wise distribution, publication and citations trend by year, most productive countries, organizations, and authors, preferred types of sources of researchers, citations, and use of influential research; top-ranked papers, most frequently used author keywords; co-occurrence network in Bibliometrics research, Trend Topics and Topic Dendrogram, Conceptual Structure Map of each word in Bibliometrics literature, Collaboration Network (Author, Institutions and Country) were considered and quantitatively analyzed. This study contributes to the Bibliometrics research field in several ways. First, it provides the latest research status for researchers who are interested in the field through literature analysis. Second, it helps scholars become more aware of the research subfields
Bibliometrics - Tracking Research Impact By Selecting The Appropriate Metrics
Asian Journal of Andrology, 2015
productivity of the researcher and their institution, it does not provide an indication of the quality and significance of a research publication, nor does it indicate the impact the research or the researcher has. Moreover, the reputation and standing of a researcher heavily depend on the impact the individual has had within his or her own research community or field of study. Thus, along with the growing number of publications, the question arises as to how a researcher's influence, standing and reputation, as well as research impact can be measured. A quantitative measure indicates the value of an individual's research to their institution. As a measurable index of research impact, it can then be used as a form of assessment in granting research funds, awarding academic rank and tenure, in determining salaries and projecting annual research targets, as well as staff assessment and hiring new staff, for appropriate selection of examiners for doctoral students, or as selection of plenary or keynote speakers in scientific conferences. It is also a useful method for demonstrating return on investment to funding bodies, as well as to the host institution, industry,
The -index: a new indicator for assessing scientific impact
Journal of Information Science, 2009
There are several simple and sophisticated scientometric indicators generally applied in the literature (e.g. total number of publications and citations, citations per journal paper, relative citedness indexes, Hirsch index, etc.), which may characterize the publications of scientists both qualitatively and quantitatively. The calculation methods generally use data referring to the total set of papers studied. Scientific progress, however, may be attributed primarily to information in the highly cited publications. Therefore, a new indicator (π-index) is suggested for comparative assessment of scientists active in similar subject fields. The π-index is equal to one hundredth of the number of citations obtained to the top square root of the total number of journal papers (‘elite set of papers’) ranked by the decreasing number of citations. The relation of the π-index to other indexes and its dependence on the field is studied, using data of journal papers of ‘highly cited researchers’.
The top-cited research works in the Science Citation Index Expanded
Scientometrics, 2012
This study aimed to identify and analyze the characteristics of the top-cited articles published in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1991 to 2010. Articles that have been cited more than 1,000 times since publication to 2010 were assessed regarding their distribution in indexed journals and categories of the Web of Science. Five bibliometric indicators were used to evaluate source institutions and countries. A new indicator, the Y-index, is proposed to assess publication quantity and the character of contribution to articles. We identify 3,652 top-cited articles with 71 % originating from US. The fourteen most productive institutions were all located in US. Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, and Cell hosted the most cited publications. In addition, the Y-index was successfully applied to evaluate the publication character of authors, institutions, and countries.