Citation regression analysis of computer science publications in different ranking categories and subfields

A number of bibliometric studies point out that the role of conference publications in computer science differs from that in other traditional fields. Thus, it is interesting to identify the relative status of journal and conference publications in different subfields of computer science based on the citation rates categorised by the China Computer Federation (CCF) classifications and venue types. In this research, we construct a dataset containing over 100,000 papers recommended by the CCF catalogue and their citation information. We also investigate some other factors that often influence a paper’s citation rate. An experimental study shows that the relative status of journals and conferences varies greatly in different subfields of computer science, and the impact of different publication levels varies according to the citation rate. We also verify that the classification of a publication, number of authors, maximum h-index of all authors of a paper, and average number of papers published by a publication have different effects on the citation rate, although the citation rate may have a different degree of correlation with these factors.     

The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index

The growth rate of scientific publication has been studied from 1907 to 2007 using available data from a number of literature databases, including Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Traditional scientific publishing, that is publication in peer-reviewed journals, is still increasing although there are big differences between fields. There are no indications that the growth rate has decreased in the last 50 years. At the same time publication using new channels, for example conference proceedings, open archives and home pages, is growing fast. The growth rate for SCI up to 2007 is smaller than for comparable databases. This means that SCI was covering a decreasing part of the traditional scientific literature. There are also clear indications that the coverage by SCI is especially low in some of the scientific areas with the highest growth rate, including computer science and engineering sciences. The role of conference proceedings, open access archives and publications published on the net is increasing, especially in scientific fields with high growth rates, but this has only partially been reflected in the databases. The new publication channels challenge the use of the big databases in measurements of scientific productivity or output and of the growth rate of science. Because of the declining coverage and this challenge it is problematic that SCI has been used and is used as the dominant source for science indicators based on publication and citation numbers. The limited data available for social sciences show that the growth rate in SSCI was remarkably low and indicate that the coverage by SSCI was declining over time. National Science Indicators from Thomson Reuters is based solely on SCI, SSCI and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Therefore the declining coverage of the citation databases problematizes the use of this source.     

Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis

Summary Scientific meetings have become increasingly important channels for scholarly communi-cation. In several fields of applied and engineering sciences they are - according to the statements of scientists active in those fields - even more important than publishing in periodicals. One objective of this study is to analyse the weight of proceedings literature in all fields of the sciences, social sciences and humanities as well as the use of the ISI Proceedings database as additional data source for bibliometric studies. The second objective is exploring the use of a further important feature of this database, namely, of information about conference location for the analysis of bibliometrically relevant aspects of information flow such as the relative attractivity, the extent of mobility and unidirectional or mutual affinity of countries.     

Conference proceedings as a matter of bibliometric studies: the Academy of International Business 2006–2008

This study does a bibliometric analysis based on keywords of conference proceedings. Scientometric investigations of conference proceedings are a new and innovative, not very common approach. The studies and papers presented may be interpreted as early indicators of scientific development. The Academy of International Business (AIB) was chosen for being the leading organization for studies in international business with contributions covering a 3-year period (2006–2008). The study presents the general structure of current scholarly interest in international business studies, clusters the keywords and reflects details on the focused research areas of the papers analyzed. The bibliometric analysis indicates three clusters: the core, the semi-periphery and the periphery. The five most occurring keywords were found to be multinational enterprise, emerging markets, foreign direct investment, internationalization and knowledge management in descending order. The analyses focus on concepts building the core (in total ten keywords), the semi-periphery which is coined by performance and related topics (60 keywords) and the periphery of the studies with governance and specific facets of it (199 keywords).     

Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors

It has been widely discussed how individuals change the way they act and react in studies just because they are under observation. In this paper, we try to analyse how this so-called Hawthorne effect applies to researchers that are the subject of bibliometric investigations. This encompasses individual assessments as well as international performance comparisons. We test various bibliometric indicators for notable changes in the last decade from a world-wide perspective and deduce explanations for changes from the observations. We then concentrate on the behaviour of German authors in particular, to show national trends. The German publication behaviour is evaluated in regard to citation rates and collaborations in publications and size, publisher country and impact of the journals chosen for publication. We can conclude that authors adapt their publication behaviour to aim for journals that are more internationally known and have a US publisher. Also, a trend from more specialized journals to journals with a broader scope can be observed that raises the question whether the implicit penalization of specialized fields in the bibliometrics leads to undesired shifts in conducted research.     

Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities

The prospects of altmetrics are especially encouraging for research fields in the humanities that currently are difficult to study using established bibliometric methods. Yet, little is known about the altmetric impact of research fields in the humanities. Consequently, this paper analyses the altmetric coverage and impact of humanities-oriented articles and books published by Swedish universities during 2012. Some of the most common altmetric sources are examined using a sample of 310 journal articles and 54 books. Mendeley has the highest coverage of journal articles (61 %) followed by Twitter (21 %) while very few of the publications are mentioned in blogs or on Facebook. Books, on the other hand, are quite often tweeted while both Mendeley’s and the novel data source Library Thing’s coverage is low. Many of the problems of applying bibliometrics to the humanities are also relevant for altmetric approaches; the importance of non-journal publications, the reliance on print as well the limited coverage of non-English language publications. However, the continuing development and diversification of methods suggests that altmetrics could evolve into a valuable tool for assessing research in the humanities.     

The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects

Bibliometric analysis has been used increasingly as a tool within the scientific community. Interplay is vital between those involved in refining bibliometric methods and the recipients of this type of analysis. Production as well as citations patterns reflect working methodologies in different disciplines within the specialized Library and Information Science (LIS) field, as well as in the non-specialist (non-LIS) professional field. We extract the literature on bibliometric analyses from Web of Science in all fields of science and analyze clustering of co-occurring keywords at an aggregate level. It reveals areas of interconnected literature with different impact on the LIS and the non-LIS community.We classify and categorize bibliometric articles that obtain the most citations in accordance with a modified version of Derrick’s, Jonker’s and Lewison’s method (Derrick et al. in Proceedings, 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. STI, Montreal, 2012). The data demonstrates that cross-referencing between the LIS and the non-LIS field is modest in publications outside their main categories of interest, i.e. discussions of various bibliometric issues or strict analyses of various topics. We identify some fields as less well-covered bibliometrically.     

Intellectual activities and influences of Belver C. Griffith: A citation perspective

Based on an analysis of the 377 documents that cited Griffith's publications in the ISI citation databases, it has been found that Griffith made pioneer and significant contributions with his collaborators to the fields of bibliometrics and scholarly communication among scientists. His research work has also greatly influenced people from all over the world conducting research in psychology, bibliometric information science, and social studies of science in the past several decades. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field

Collaboration between researchers and between research organizations is generally considered a desirable course of action, in particular by some funding bodies. However, collaboration within a multidisciplinary community, such as the Computer–Human Interaction (CHI) community, can be challenging. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the CHI conference proceedings to determine if papers that have authors from different organization or countries receive more citations than papers that are authored by members of the same organization. There was no significant difference between these three groups, indicating that there is no advantage for collaboration in terms of citation frequency. Furthermore, we tested if papers written by authors from different organizations or countries receive more best paper awards or at least award nominations. Papers from only one organization received significantly fewer nominations than collaborative papers.     

Bibliometrics of a controversial scientific literature: Polywater research, 1962-1974

Summary This study examines the bibliometrics of the controversial scientific literature of Polywater research, focusing on publication types (books, journal publications, conference proceedings, and technical reports). Publication (P) frequency is used to measure publication “shape' or pattern and output, citations per publication (CPP) for impact, author self-citations (SC) and uncited publications (UP) for their effect on P and CPP. Findings show an epidemic publication pattern, journal publications with the highest P, books with the highest CPP, and insignificant SC and UP. Comparisons to several non-controversial scientific literatures suggest that these findings may be common to other controversial scientific literatures.     

Artificial intelligence adoption in the physical sciences,natural sciences,life sciences,social sciences and the arts and humanities: A bibliometric analysis of research publications from 1960-2021

Analysing historical patterns of artificial intelligence (AI) adoption can inform decisions about AI capability uplift, but research to date has provided a limited view of AI adoption across different fields of research. In this study we examine worldwide adoption of AI technology within 333 fields of research during 1960–2021. We do this by using bibliometric analysis with 137 million peer-reviewed publications captured in The Lens database. We define AI using a list of 214 phrases developed by expert working groups at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). We found that 3.1 million of the 137 million peer-reviewed research publications during the entire period were AI-related, with a surge in AI adoption across practically all research fields (physical science, natural science, life science, social science and the arts and humanities) in recent years. The diffusion of AI beyond computer science was early, rapid and widespread. In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI (many in computer science), but this increased to cover over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times. We note AI has experienced boom-bust cycles historically; the AI “springs” and “winters”. We conclude that the context of the current surge appears different, and that interdisciplinary AI application is likely to be sustained.     

Is scientists' publishing behaviour rewardseeking?

The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation makes many hidden assumptions about scientists' publishing habits. This paper tests an assumption that scientists are reward oriented and attempt to publish in as prestigious channels as possible, seeking an optimal level in the hierarchy of publications. The data are based on interviews with teaching and research personnel in four university departments in the fields of zoology, biomedicine, and automation and control technology. The author concludes that in all studied fields scientists placed equal emphasis on the reward and communication functions of publishing. The actual publishing behaviour of biomedical scientists, nevertheless, accorded best with the assumption of seeking an optimal level of publishing in terms of prestige. By contrast, in zoology and technical fields, local and field-related publishing habits appeared strong.     

Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection,monitoring and development

In the last two decades, pressure from various stakeholders has forced many companies to establish environmental and social improvements both in their company and their supply chains. The growing number of journal publications and conference proceedings confirms this change also in academia. The aim of this paper is to analyse and review scientific literature on sustainable supplier management (SSM) with a focus on formal models supporting decision-making in sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. For this purpose, a framework on SSM is proposed and a comprehensive content analysis including a criteria analysis is carried out. Beyond this, in total 143 peer-reviewed publications between 1997 and 2014 have been analysed to identify both established and overlooked research fields. Major findings are the rapidly growing interest of this topic in academia in recent years, the predominance of Analytic Hierarchy Process, Analytic Network Process and fuzzy-based approaches, the focus on the final evaluation and selection process step and the rare investigation of social and quantitative metrics. This review may be useful for practitioners and scientists as it outlines major characteristics in this field, which can serve as a basis for further research.     

Learning about learning: patterns of sharing of research knowledge among Education,Border, and Cognitive Science fields

This study explores the patterns of exchange of research knowledge among Education Research, Cognitive Science, and what we call “Border Fields.” We analyze a set of 32,121 articles from 177 selected journals, drawn from five sample years between 1994 and 2014. We profile the references that those articles cite, and the papers that cite them. We characterize connections among the fields in sources indexed by Web of Science (WoS) (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles and proceedings), and connections in sources that are not (e.g., conference talks, chapters, books, and reports). We note five findings—first, over time the percentage of Education Research papers that extensively cite Cognitive Science has increased, but the reverse is not true. Second, a high percentage of Border Field papers extensively cite and are cited by the other fields. Border Field authors’ most cited papers overlap those most cited by Education Research and Cognitive Science. There are fewer commonalities between Educational research and Cognitive Science most cited papers. This is consistent with Border Fields being a bridge between fields. Third, over time the Border Fields have moved closer to Education Research than to Cognitive Science, and their publications increasingly cite, and are cited by, other Border Field publications. Fourth, Education Research is especially strongly represented in the literature published outside those WoS-indexed publications. Fifth, the rough patterns observed among these three fields when using a more restricted dataset drawn from the WoS are similar to those observed with the dataset lying outside the WoS, but Education Research shows a far heavier influence than would be indicated by looking at WoS records alone.

     

Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison

Different scientific fields have different citation practices. Citation-based bibliometric indicators need to normalize for such differences between fields in order to allow for meaningful between-field comparisons of citation impact. Traditionally, normalization for field differences has usually been done based on a field classification system. In this approach, each publication belongs to one or more fields and the citation impact of a publication is calculated relative to the other publications in the same field. Recently, the idea of source normalization was introduced, which offers an alternative approach to normalize for field differences. In this approach, normalization is done by looking at the referencing behavior of citing publications or citing journals. In this paper, we provide an overview of a number of source normalization approaches and we empirically compare these approaches with a traditional normalization approach based on a field classification system. We also pay attention to the issue of the selection of the journals to be included in a normalization for field differences. Our analysis indicates a number of problems of the traditional classification-system-based normalization approach, suggesting that source normalization approaches may yield more accurate results.     

Global competition and technological transition in electrical,electronic, information and communication engineering: quantitative analysis of periodicals and conference proceedings of the IEEE

This study analysed the technical and publication activities of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE), the most influential academic publisher in engineering. We first constructed an original comprehensive database of periodicals (journal and magazine) and conference proceedings published by the IEEE between 1980 and 2008, which comprised approximately 0.36 million periodical articles and 1.14 million conference articles. We analysed the transitions in technical innovations from two perspectives: trends within (1) individual countries and (2) specialized fields represented in IEEE societies. The number of published periodical articles increased fourfold between 1980 and 2008, while that of published conference articles increased nearly 20-fold in the same period. In particular, the number of conference articles published by China increased dramatically from 2002, exceeding even the number published by the US in 2008. The IEEE has increasingly shifted away from its US-centred origins to literally becoming the ‘electrical and electronics association of the world’. The proportion of articles published by authors in North America, Europe and East Asia has increasingly balanced, thus leading to the formation of a tri-polar structure of IEEE technological activities. This comprehensive analysis of IEEE publications over a period of almost 30 years revealed that with the emergence of more active international competition, ‘glocalisation’ is occurring among publications and research activities of the IEEE. Consequently, quantitative analysis revealed structural changes in global competition and technological transition characterized by five phases.     

Influence of proceedings papers on citation impact in seven sub-fields of sustainable energy research 2005–2011

This paper analyses the following seven sub-fields of Sustainable Energy Research with respect to the influence of proceedings papers on citation patterns across citing and cited document types, overall sub-field and document type impacts and citedness: the Wind Power, Renewable Energy, Solar and Wave Energy, Geo-thermal, Bio-fuel and Bio-mass energy sub-fields. The analyses cover peer reviewed research and review articles as well as two kinds of proceeding papers from conferences published 2005–2009 in (a) book series or volumes and (b) special journal issues excluding meeting abstracts cited 2005–2011 through Web of Science. Central findings are: The distribution across document types of cited versus citing documents is highly asymmetric. Predominantly proceedings papers from both proceeding volumes as well as published in journals cite research articles (60–76 %). Largely, journal-based proceedings papers are cited rather than papers published in book series or volumes and have field impacts corresponding to research articles. With decreasing proceedings paper dominance in research fields the ratio of proceeding paper volumes over journal-based proceedings papers decreases significantly and the percentage of proceedings papers in journals citing journal-based proceedings papers over all publications citing journal-based proceedings papers decreases significantly (from 26.3 % in Wind Power to 4 % in Bio Fuel). Further, the segment of all kinds of proceedings papers (the combined proceedings paper types) citing all proceedings papers over all publications citing all kinds of proceedings papers decreases significantly (from 36.1 % in Wind Power to 11.3 % in Bio Fuel). Simultaneously the field citedness increases across the seven research fields. The distribution of citations from review articles shows that novel knowledge essentially derives directly from research articles (53–72 %)—to a much less extent from proceedings publications published in journals (9–13 %).     

Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university

This paper examines the effects of a scholar’s position and gender on publishing productivity in several types of scientific publications: monographs, articles in journals, articles in edited books, and articles in conference proceedings. The data consist of 1,367 scholars who worked at the University of Helsinki, Finland, during the period 2002–2004. The analysis shows that professors are the most productive, PhDs publish more than non-PhDs, and men perform better than women, also when other scholarly characteristics are controlled for. These differences are greater for monographs and articles in edited books than for articles in journals. In terms of conference proceedings, no remarkable productivity differences were found.     

Universality of performance indicators based on citation and reference counts

We find evidence for the universality of two relative bibliometric indicators of the quality of individual scientific publications taken from different data sets. One of these is a new index that considers both citation and reference counts. We demonstrate this universality for relatively well cited publications from a single institute, grouped by year of publication and by faculty or by department. We show similar behaviour in publications submitted to the arXiv e-print archive, grouped by year of submission and by sub-archive. We also find that for reasonably well cited papers this distribution is well fitted by a lognormal with a variance of around ??²?=?1.3 which is consistent with the results of Radicchi et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17268?C17272, 2008). Our work demonstrates that comparisons can be made between publications from different disciplines and publication dates, regardless of their citation count and without expensive access to the whole world-wide citation graph. Further, it shows that averages of the logarithm of such relative bibliometric indices deal with the issue of long tails and avoid the need for statistics based on lengthy ranking procedures.