The growth of biophysical literature

The enormous growth of biophysical literature has created great difficulties in tracking out the significant literature of the subject. To cope with this unprecedented growth of literature, a new bibliometric technique has been applied to rank periodicals in the field based on 4228 citation data collected from the bibliographic data base published in the source journal namely,Annual Review of Biophysics. This list is expected to reflect the impact of literature on the advancement of knowledge in the field of biophysics. A striking feature of the ranking list is the high positions occupied by multidisciplinary science journals and biochemical journals as compared to journals exclusively and specifically devoted to biophysics or any particular aspects of it. Other remarkable findings are the wide scatter of biophysics literature; dominance of the USA journals and status attained by English as the preferred medium of communications of the working biophysicists. The data are also analysed according to subject categorization of the ranked periodicals. The results of the present study have been discussed in relation to Bradford's Law of Scattering and validity of the extension of the law, suggested earlier, has been well established. It is expected that the present ranking list will enable the working biophysicists to select journals from the viewpoint of their significance to the active areas of present-day biophysical research.     

Citedness and uncitedness of cancer articles

There is a rapid growth of cancer literature. Thousands of papers are being regularly published every year not only in speciality journals, but also in journals of other disciplines. Citation studies are nowadays considered a major basis of science indicators for ascertaining the importance of a scientific journal and that of the published articles on a particular subject. In oncological research the journalCancer is considered as one of the top most journals and is universally well known for its high standard and excellence. In this paper an attempt has been made to find out the importance of all the articles published in it for a particular year. Side by side bibliometric analysis was made to ascertain various other aspects like time lag between publication and first citation of articles, average citation time, subject scattering and identification of most important journals in the field etc. It is believed that this study would be of help to the working oncologists, librarians and information scientists to assess the importance of articles published in a top ranking journal of cancer and also that of different journals publishing oncological research results.     

A weightage formula to rerank periodicals in the field of microbiology

Ranking lists of periodicals in different scientific disciplines are generally based on the total number of citations derived from a group of source journals with equal weightage given to all citations irrespective of chronology. As a result, in all these ranking lists, the position occupied by the post-war journals, may not be an accurate index of their demand or usefulness to research workers in the concerned field. This may happen because the quantum of published literature in the new journals is limited by the period for which they have been in existence, which is in many cases less than 20 years. Moreover, many of the post-war journals appearing in all these recent ranking lists have started publication even after 1960s, and their enumerated citations cover in fact a variable period of less than 20 years unlike in the case of pre-war journals. To avoid such discriminating against new journals which necessarily have fewer citation credits Sengupta suggested earlier an off-setting weightage formula which has been applied in this paper to rerank microbiology periodicals. A revised ranking list in the field of microbiology has been recommended in preference to the earlier one compiled by Sengupta. Results and findings, after application of the weightage formula, have been presented and discussed in this paper.     

触觉设计的研究热点与发展趋势

目的 使用文献计量学对2001年至2023年触觉设计领域的研究进行可视化研究,剖析当前的研究现状,旨在探索该领域的研究热点与未来发展趋势。方法 选取WoS核心合集为数据源平台,采用文献计量分析法,结合使用Bibliometrix和VOSviewer对该领域发文量、期刊、研究力量和共被引文献进行定量分析并绘制知识图谱,运用Bibliometrix与CiteSpace生成关键词聚类网络和主题地图,综合分析该领域的热门主题及发展趋势。结果 触觉设计领域的论文产出保持持续增长的态势,所涉及到的学科有计算机科学、材料科学、生物医学、心理学、食品科学等,美国、中国、日本处于该领域的前列,且三个国家之间均有合作关系。关键词聚类和突显词图谱显示触觉设计的研究分为三个阶段,即初始认知阶段、神经基础和交互感知阶段、触觉研究的应用阶段。结论 得出触觉设计领域的线性设计模型,即从个体的神经科学角度出发,基于感知维度对材料属性进行触觉体验以得出触觉偏好并应用到实际的产品设计中。未来还应对触觉设计领域进行不断挖掘与探索,将触觉技术应用到实际的产品中,帮助感官障碍人士拓展社会活动能力,赋予消费者以实质性的感知情感体验,提升产品的情感价值。     

An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis

A serious shortcoming of bibliometric studies based on the(Social) Science (s) Citation Index is the lack of an universally applicable subject classification scheme as individual papers are concerned. Subject classification of papers on the basis of assigning journals to subject categories (like those found in the various supplements of ISI databases) works well in case of highly specialised journals, but fails for multidisciplinary journals such asNature, Science andPNAS—and so far as subfields are taken into consideration-also for “general” journals (e.g.JACS orAngewandte Chemie). This study presents the results of a pilot project attempting to overcome this shortcoming by delimiting the subject of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals by an item-by-item subject classification scheme, where assignment is based on the analysis of the subject classification of reference literature. The results clearly confirmed the conclusions of earlier studies by the authors in the field of reference analysis. For the really important journals (sufficiently high number of annual publications and high impact with respect to the field), the share of classifiable papers was surprisingly high, and the assignment proved reliable as well. Since papers in the leading general and multidisciplinary journals are frequently citing general and multidisciplinary journals, an iterated application of the procedure is expected to increase the number of classifiable publications. The results of the new methodology may improve the validity of bibliometric studies for research evaluation purposes.     

Reconsidering the gold open access citation advantage postulate in a multidisciplinary context: an analysis of the subject categories in the Web of Science database 2009–2014

Since Lawrence in 2001 proposed the open access (OA) citation advantage, the potential benefit of OA in relation to citation impact has been discussed in depth. The methodology to test this postulate ranges from comparing the impact factors of OA journals versus traditional ones, to comparing citations of OA versus non-OA articles published in the same non-OA journals. However, conclusions are not entirely consistent among fields, and two possible explications have been suggested in those fields where a citation advantage has been observed for OA: the early view and the selection bias postulates. In this study, a longitudinal and multidisciplinary analysis of gold OA citation advantage is developed. All research articles in all journals for all subject categories in the multidisciplinary database Web of Science are considered. A total of 1,138,392 articles—60,566 (5.3%) OA articles and 1,077,826 (94.7%) non-OA articles—published in 2009 are analysed. The citation window considered goes from 2009 to 2014, and data are aggregated for the 249 disciplines (subject categories). At journal level, we also study the evolution of journal impact factors for OA and non-OA journals in those disciplines whose OA prevalence is higher (top 36 subject categories). As the main conclusion, there is no generalizable gold OA citation advantage, neither at article nor at journal level.     

A bibliometric study of psychological research on tourism

The psychology of tourism is a new, multidisciplinary research field. However, no systematic analyses of the scientific production in this field have been carried out to date. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of the area of psychology of tourism between 1990 and 2005. The evolution of scientific production during this period, Price’s, Lotka’s and Bradford’s laws and citation patterns were studied. The results show a significant growth in the literature on the subject, as well as an increase in coauthorship and institutional collaboration. Bibliometric laws and empiric regularities observed in other disciplines are also present in this new research field.     

Correction to: Indicator system for managing science,technology and innovation in universities

This study investigated the external contributors of library and information science (LIS) knowledge who were unaffiliated with LIS-related institutions but published their research results in LIS journals. Differences between the contributors to library science (LS) and contributors to information science (IS) were considered. Articles published in 39 strongly LIS-oriented journals indexed in the Web of Science database between 2005 and 2014 were analyzed. The results demonstrated that 46.5% of the LIS articles were written by at least one non-LIS author; authors’ backgrounds ranged across 29 disciplines. An increasing trend was observed in degrees of interdisciplinarity of LS and IS. An increase in proportion of articles by LIS and non-LIS authors was identified in LS and IS as well. Those with medical backgrounds were the primary non-LIS authors contributing to the LS field and collaborated the most frequently with LIS authors. Those with computer science backgrounds were the most prevalent non-LIS contributors to the IS field and preferred to publish individually. A critical difference was also identified in research topics between LS and IS. The foundations of LIS and scientometrics were the largest research topics in LS and IS, respectively.     

Econometric analysis of biomedical research publishing patterns

An econometric-type model was developed that describes the relationship between federal biomedical funding and the number, subject area and research level (clinical to basic) of published papers in biomedical journals. The study covered federal biomedical funding over the period 1962–1979 and biomedical literature counts over the period 1965–1979. A unique feature of the model was the explicit incorporation of the citation-based interrelationships among the various subfields and research levels of biomedicine.Publication counts in a particular subject area were modeled as a function of federal funding to the area and publication activity in related subject areas. In general, publication activity in related subject areas was found to be a significant explanatory variable over and above funding alone. Moreover, clinically oriented subject areas most often had publication counts in related basic research areas as explanatory variables.     

The Literature of Bibliometrics,Scientometrics, and Informetrics

Since Vassily V. Nalimov coined the term ‘scientometrics’ in the 1960s, this term has grown in popularity and is used to describe the study of science: growth, structure, interrelationships and productivity. Scientometrics is related to and has overlapping interests with bibliometrics and informetrics. The terms bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics refer to component fields related to the study of the dynamics of disciplines as reflected in the production of their literature. Areas of study range from charting changes in the output of a scholarly field through time and across countries, to the library collection problem of maintaining control of the output, and to the low publication productivity of most researchers. These terms are used to describe similar and overlapping methodologies. The origins and historical survey of the development of each of these terms are presented. Profiles of the usage of each of these terms over time are presented, using an appropriate subject category of databases on the DIALOG information service. Various definitions of each of the terms are provided from an examination of the literature. The size of the overall literature of these fields is determined and the growth and stabilisation of both the dissertation and non-dissertation literature are shown. A listing of the top journals in the three fields are given, as well as a list of the major reviews and bibliographies that have been published over the years. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Global knowledge management research: A bibliometric analysis

The present study characterizes the dynamic publication activity of global knowledge management (KM) by data collected through a search restricted to articles in ISI Web of Science.A total of 2727 unique authors had contributed 1407 publications since 1975. The overwhelming majority (2349 or 86%) of them wrote one publication. The productive authors, their contribution and authorship position are listed to indicate their productivity and degree of involvement in their research publications. The sum of research output of the first or responsible authors from USA, UK and Germany reaches 57% of the total productivity. The distribution of articles is rather widespread - they published in 462 titles of serials, spanning 110 Journal Citation Reports subject categories. The higher quality journals make publication of findings more visible. A Pearson's correlation coefficient is statistically found to be significant between citation frequency of article and impact factor of journal, instead of authorship pattern. The results also indicate that R&D expenditures were actually not proportional to research productivity or citation counts. As the subject highly interacts with other disciplines, the field of KM has not yet developed its own body of literature. KM might have been evolving an interdisciplinary theory that is developing at the boundaries of scientific disciplines. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A bibliometric analysis and comparison on three information science journals: JASIST,IPM, JOD, 1998–2008

Employing a citation analysis, this study explored and compared the bibliometric characteristics and the subject relationship with other disciplines of and among the three leading information science journals, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), Information Processing and Management and Journal of Documentation. The citation data were drawn from references of each article of the three journals during 1998 and 2008. The Ulrich’s Periodical Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat, and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Quantitative results on the number of JASIST, IPM and JOD literature references, average number of references cited per paper, document type of cited literature and the journal self-citation rate are reported. Moreover, the highly cited journals and books, the main classes and subclasses of cited journals and books in papers of the three journals, the highly cited subjects in journals and books of library and information science were identified and analyzed. Comparison on the characteristics of cited journals and books confirmed that all the three journals under study are information science oriented, except JOD which is library science orientation. JASIST and IPM are very much in common and diffuse to other disciplines more deeply than JOD.     

Understanding scientific communities: a social network approach to collaborations in Talent Management research

Synthetic biology is an emerging domain that combines biological and engineering concepts and which has seen rapid growth in research, innovation, and policy interest in recent years. This paper contributes to efforts to delineate this emerging domain by presenting a newly constructed bibliometric definition of synthetic biology. Our approach is dimensioned from a core set of papers in synthetic biology, using procedures to obtain benchmark synthetic biology publication records, extract keywords from these benchmark records, and refine the keywords, supplemented with articles published in dedicated synthetic biology journals. We compare our search strategy with other recent bibliometric approaches to define synthetic biology, using a common source of publication data for the period from 2000 to 2015. The paper details the rapid growth and international spread of research in synthetic biology in recent years, demonstrates that diverse research disciplines are contributing to the multidisciplinary development of synthetic biology research, and visualizes this by profiling synthetic biology research on the map of science. We further show the roles of a relatively concentrated set of research sponsors in funding the growth and trajectories of synthetic biology. In addition to discussing these analyses, the paper notes limitations and suggests lines for further work.     

Measuring multidisciplinary health research at South African universities: a comparative analysis based on co-authorships and journal subject categories

This study developed a comparative bibliometric profile of multidisciplinary health research at South African universities over a 30-year period (1984–2013), based on two measures of multidisciplinarity. The first measure used article co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration between authors with health and non-health addresses, and the second measure focussed on articles published in journals with both health and non-health subject categories. The article overlap between the two measures was 25%, meaning that one measure would exclude 75% of articles identified by the other. Both showed an increase in the percentage contribution of multidisciplinary health research to health research over time, and both generated similar profiles of the national institutions that contribute to multidisciplinary health research. Both measures also provided evidence of a sustained increase in the percentage international co-authorship in health research although the second measure gave a markedly lower estimate of the percentage international co-authorship. These preliminary results would need to be followed up with more advanced bibliometric approaches, and possibly qualitative analyses to investigate the degree of integration between disciplines, pointing to interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary health research.     

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

Two fundamentally different perspectives on knowledge diffusion dominate debates about academic disciplines. On the one hand, critics of disciplinary research and education have argued that disciplines are isolated silos, within which specialists pursue inward-looking and increasingly narrow research agendas. On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries. These perspectives have different implications for how knowledge diffuses, how intellectuals gain and lose status within their disciplines, and how intellectual reputations evolve within and across disciplines. We argue that highly general claims about the nature of disciplinary boundaries are counterproductive, and that research on the nature of specific disciplinary boundaries is more useful. To that end, this paper uses a novel publication and citation network dataset and statistical models of citation networks to test hypotheses about the boundaries between philosophy of science and 11 disciplinary clusters. Specifically, we test hypotheses about whether engaging with and being cited by scientific communities outside philosophy of science has an impact on one’s position within philosophy of science. Our results suggest that philosophers of science produce interdisciplinary scholarship, but they tend not to cite work by other philosophers when it is published in journals outside of their discipline. Furthermore, net of other factors, receiving citations from other disciplines has no meaningful impact—positive or negative—on citations within philosophy of science. We conclude by considering this evidence for simultaneous interdisciplinarity and insularity in terms of scientific trading theory and other work on disciplinary boundaries and communication.     

Predicting the degree of interdisciplinarity in academic fields: the case of nanotechnology

With today’s technological advances and uncertainty, interdisciplinary research (IDR) is recognized as the core element for an advancement not only in academic realms but also in non-academic worlds. Conventionally, the concept of interdisciplinarity has been measured indirectly through using historical data and estimating how frequently the knowledge is exchanged among various disciplinary fields. However, they were incapable of determining whether a certain discipline may turn out to be a successful interdisciplinary research field in the future. This paper, in response, highlights the significance of data points appearing in the future for predicting the degree of interdisciplinarity in academic fields. To this mean, the future data points are predicted through a stochastic basis, and they are further used to predict the future degree of disciplinary convergence. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, we have selected the case of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary academic field where diverse scientific and engineering disciplines merge with one another and contributes to various scientific development and social problem solving. In details, citation data of nanotechnology journals are gathered to estimate the expected citation frequency through a stochastic model, called Glänzel–Schubert–Schoepflin model, and its future potential of IDR is predicted through a diversity index. The result of the analysis predicted that the IDR of nanotechnology will be actively occurred with other disciplines such as chemistry, material science and energy in the future, and it also holds higher probability of being more frequently conducted compared to other field of studies.     

Spanish scientific and technical journals. State of the art

This article analyses the current situation in the field of scientific and technical journals published in Spain, by determining the following scientific indicators for each: I: Specifications. II: Scientific production covered. III: Visibility and accessibility. The first section provides a qualitative and quantitative study of the journals, asking what subjects they cover, who publishes them, how often they are published, how up to data they are and whether the way they are presented meets international publishing standards. The second section analyses scientific production by research sectors and the percentage of articles collected in the ICYT database compared with the total number of papers published in the journals studied. It also studies the reference habits of the authors published therein to identify whether the literature referred to is of local origin or international. Finally, the third section deduces these journals' degree of visibility by analysing how they are distributed amongst the usual media, i.e. international periodicals directories and databases, and how efficiently they work as vehicles for the diffusion of research by foreign authors. The study covers 10 years (1980–1989), thus enabling to recognise past and current trends in Spanish scientific literature.     

A new approach to defining a multidisciplinary field of science: The case of cardiovascular biology

This paper describes a new and objective method for tackling the problem of defining a multidisciplinary research area for bibliometric analysis. The test field was cardiovascular biology. A three stage process was adopted in setting a boundary around this research field:

1. Appropriate sections of a hierarchical subject classification scheme, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), were developed into a “MeSH filter” through which papers indexed in MEDLINE were screened.
2. A panel of cardiovascular experts reviewed the core set of classification terms, identifying irrelevant and missing areas, facilitating the development of a more sophisticated “filter”.
3. The definition was validated using publication lists from research departments with a known interest in cardiovascular research.

This iterative process resulted in a definition of the field which captured basic and clinical research papers from the international biomedical research community and which was recognisable to experts in the field of cardiovascular research. Importantly, the field boundary also excluded publications which were not relevant to cardiovascular research. The process of involving experts in shaping the field definition also yielded two intangible, but key benefits: (a) it lent credibility to subsequent analyses, the results of which were to be presented to policy-makers in cardiovascular biology, and (b) it served to shape consensus among the cardiovascular experts on the full range of scientific disciplines that are relevant to their field. Analysis of international publishing in cardiovascular research revealed that whilst the UK and US dominate in total numbers of papers, the relative emphasis on cardiovascular research in these countries (as a proportion ofall biomedical publishing) is actually quite low, and declining. Japan and Germany in contrast appear to give greater emphasis to cardiovascular research in their national portfolios of biomedical science, and between 1988–1991 Japan established a marked increase in activity.     

A diachronic comparative study of research article titles in linguistics and literature journals

By investigating a total number of 1364 article titles extracted from seven SSCI-indexed linguistics journals and seven A&HCI-indexed literature journals between 1980 and 2018, this study attempts to present the prominent form features and content attributes of the titles and their diachronic variations, as well as the similarities or differences between the two disciplines regarding title features. Results show that article titles in both subject domains demonstrate consistency in the long-range trend of title length and informativity, enjoying a steady and linear growth in length and an increase with fluctuations in informativity. Nominal and compound structures are both frequently adopted in linguistics and literature journals, but the proportion of compound constructions has always been higher than that of nominal ones in literature journals over the past 39 years. Titles containing topical information enjoy the highest percentage from the 1980s to the 2010s in both linguistics and literature journals. However, in the recent decade, content information provided by linguistic article titles tends to be more diversified, presenting not only research topics, but also results, dataset and methods of the study. No significant variations between the two disciplines have been found in lexical diversity, both of which experienced an overall downward trend.

     

Contribution of Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine to the world's biomedical literature (1988-1997)

The contribution of Turkish researchers to sciences is increasing. Turkish scientists published more than 6.000 articles in 1999 in scientific journals indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information"s Science Citation Index, which puts Turkey to the 25^th place in the world rankings in terms of total contribution to science. The number of biomedical publications authored by Turkish scientists is increasing faster than that of engineering and other non-medical sciences, which might be one of the main causes of the steep rise in Turkey"s rankings that we have been witnessing in recent years. More specifically, researchers affiliated with Hacettepe University produce almost a quarter of all the biomedical publications of Turkey that appear in international biomedical literature. In this paper, we report the findings of the bibliometric characteristics (authors and affiliations, medical journals and their impact factors, among others) of a total of 1.434 articles published between 1988 and 1997 by scientists affiliated with Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine and indexed in MEDLINE, a well-known biomedical bibliographic database. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.