Search

This study used bibliometrics to analyze the characteristics of funded papers in the social sciences in Taiwan from 2015 to 2019, including the number of funded papers, funded paper ratio, document types, fields, type of publishing organizations, journal impact, and paper citation impact. The results indicate that the number of funded papers and the funded paper ratio of SSCI papers from Taiwan have both increased. In addition to articles and reviews, conference papers are a major type of funded paper for local SSCI papers. In terms of fields, the nontraditional social sciences, such as environmental sciences, psychiatry, and public/environmental & occupational health, have a particularly high funded paper ratio. However, the number of funded papers and funded paper ratio is the highest in the field of education & educational research. The fields of economics, management, and business have a large number of funded papers but a low funded paper ratio. Universities are the main funded institutions, but hospitals have the highest funded paper ratio. Funded papers tend to have higher paper citation impacts. Therefore, funding positively affects the productivity and impact of SSCI papers from Taiwan. (Article content in Chinese with English extended abstract)

IntroductionStudies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.MethodsIn this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.Results11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3–17) vs. 14 (8–31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19–0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45–1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48–70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53–88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90–3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09–4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153–4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889–9.651, p < 0.001].ConclusionAnalysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers’ citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

INTRODUCTION: The are many published papers on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia recently. However, there isn’t any study that indicates what kind of issues countries and journals are focusing on this particular subject. The aim of this paper is to determine the countries and journals that contribute the most to the literature on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia and also to examine the features that make the difference in the total cited count numbers of related papers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search engine of the Web of Science was used for the selection of papers. The search yielded 359 published materials in total. However, 78 (61 Articles, 17 Reviews) of them did not have keywords. Therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. The remaining 196 articles plus 84 reviews, in total 280 papers were examined. In order to examine the differences between published materials in terms of total cited count numbers, independent samples t-tests and one-way Anova test were performed with SPSS. In order to explore the topical differences, the keywords according to country of the first author, and the journal were mapped. KNIME and FactoMiner software were used for the analysis. RESULTS: Results indicated that international papers were cited more compared to domestic papers; multi-centered national papers were cited more compared to single-centered national papers. The largest percentage (34.64%) of the overall publications originated from Anglo-American countries (USA=13.93%; England=12.14%; Canada=6.07%; Australia=2.50%). The keyword mapping showed that COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Pandemic, Anesthesia, Airway, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Critical Care, Intensive Care, Personal Protective Equipment, Infection, Mortality, and Mechanical Ventilation were the main keywords of these published materials. CONCLUSIONS:This paper not only showed the features of papers that are cited more but also showed the ranking of countries that contribute the most to the literature and reflected the hot topics about COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia. Extensive studies about COVID-19 have already begun, and the number of studies keep increasing. Therefore, this study could provide hints for authors who would like their papers to be cited more as well as useful information for further research.

• Observing the revision process of scientific writing based on preprint versions. • Quantitatively analyzing the characteristics of the time and location of paper revisions. • Quantitatively investigating the correlation between the extent of revisions and the paper's citation impact. Scientific papers are the essential carrier for disseminating knowledge in the scientific communication system. It is believed that in addition to deepening the scientific attainments in one's research field, the writing and revision of the manuscripts are also very important. This paper tries to quantitatively describe the revision process and the relationship between revision and academic impact. We acquire the different manuscript versions of the published scientific papers from bioRxiv platform, analyze the characteristics of the time (away from publication) and location (sections) of paper revisions, and explore the correlation between revision and impact using multiple linear regression. We find that 75 % or more of revisions occur within one year before publication, and 40 % or more of revisions take place in the last 3 months, which illustrates to a certain extent the importance of expert review in revising (and improving) research papers. Further, we find that the revision degree of papers has a significant correlation with academic impact, and elaborate revision of introduction plays a major role in acquiring academic impact for a research paper. We believe our results can provide a basis for guiding authors to enhance the academic impact of papers through scientific writing, and provide clues for the development of journal publishers and preprint platforms from the perspective of paper quality control and influence improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study used bibliometrics to analyze the characteristics of funded papers in the social sciences in Taiwan from 2015 to 2019, including the number of funded papers, funded paper ratio, document types, fields, type of publishing organizations, journal impact, and paper citation impact. The results indicate that the number of funded papers and the funded paper ratio of SSCI papers from Taiwan have both increased. In addition to articles and reviews, conference papers are a major type of funded paper for local SSCI papers. In terms of fields, the nontraditional social sciences, such as environmental sciences, psychiatry, and public/environmental & occupational health, have a particularly high funded paper ratio. However, the number of funded papers and funded paper ratio is the highest in the field of education & educational research. The fields of economics, management, and business have a large number of funded papers but a low funded paper ratio. Universities are the main funded institutions, but hospitals have the highest funded paper ratio. Funded papers tend to have higher paper citation impacts. Therefore, funding positively affects the productivity and impact of SSCI papers from Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes 5677 research publications that Haryana had contributed in the area of engineering science during the last ten years (2005-14). The publications data was sourced from Scopus International database. The findings reveal that Haryana achieved significantly faster growth rate in engineering science (22.59% CAGR) but witnessed low level citation impact of 4.40 citations per paper, contributed merely 20 highly cited papers, and accounted for very low share (9.79%) of international collaborative papers in its total output during 2005-14. Engineering field with 52.37% share dominated Haryana's publications output in engineering science whereas the other sub-fields (materials science, computer science, chemical engineering and energy) were distant cousins in engineering science. The top 20 most productive organizations output in Haryana had average productivity of 205.1, averaged 4.91 citations per paper, averaged h-index of 12.5, and averaged 8.68% share of international collaborative publications. The top 20 most productive authors with affiliations to Haryana had average productivity of 49.9, averaged 6.68 citations per paper, averaged h-index of 6.61, and averaged 6.51% share of international collaborative publications during 2005-14. The research papers contributed by Haryana are scattered thinly across journals given the fact that top 25 journals had accounted for as low share of 16.29%.of total output (5677) by the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This study explores the impact of different collaboration modes on the cited frequency of publications. • Compared with the existing works, our PSM-based method is more innovative since we investigate the impact of author's collaboration mode from a casual view. • Our method reduces the selection bias of samples and makes the variables more balanced. • Research collaboration, especially international collaboration, plays a significant role in promoting the impact of research results in three subfields of computer science. This study explores the impact of different collaboration modes on the cited frequency of publications. Though several studies have obtained some research results, most of them exploit association or regression-based methods, which may not lead to causal conclusions. To overcome the above challenges, we use the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method to analyze and compare the citation frequencies resulting from four groups of collaboration models: international versus domestic, international multilateral versus international bilateral, domestic inter-organizational versus domestic intra-organizational, and domestic multi-author versus domestic single-author. More specifically, we conduct this analysis by exploring the publications with three computer science subfields from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The experimental results show that international collaboration, especially international multilateral collaboration, has a significant role in increasing the frequency of citations to scientific publications, showing that internationalization and collaboration are critical factors in the growth of the impact of the papers. Among national co-publications, collaborative publications within national organizations receive a higher citation impact. Multi-author collaborations significantly increase citation frequency compared to single-author publications. Our heterogeneity analysis across the different subfields of the computer science domain finds that the treatment effects for the three subfields differ modestly and mostly significant from the whole sample. Moreover, besides the implications for developing research policy and scientist collaboration, our study can capture the causal effect between author collaboration patterns and citation frequency to reveal their causal effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Influential scientific papers tend to be primarily based on combinations of prior works. However, assessing the potential impact of a new scientific paper remains a challenging task. In this article, we introduce an innovative framework to investigate the relationship between the embedding of citation networks and a paper’s future citation counts, based on the graph representation learning approach. First, we employ three Nobel Prize-winning topic papers from the Web of Science as our data source. Through data preprocessing and direct citation network modelling, we train the struc2vec model to obtain embeddings of papers’ citation network structure. Then, we perform visualisation and analysis on two types of networks. One is the direct-citation network, in which we identify four patterns of linkage between newly published papers and existing knowledge, and the other is the co-citation network, where we measure three structural variation indicators of new papers based on existing research findings. Finally, a statistical test is used to examine the predictive potentials of network embeddings. The results demonstrate that the structural features captured by the graph representation learning model can be used to predict a paper’s citation counts and impact. This article innovatively combines cluster analysis, visual analysis and statistical analysis to gain insights into the relationship between the hard-to-explain structural embeddings of newly published papers in a citation network and their future citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: The are many published papers on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia recently. However, there isn't any study that indicates what kind of issues countries and journals are focusing on this particular subject. The aim of this paper is to determine the countries and journals that contribute the most to the literature on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia and also to examine the features that make the difference in the total cited count numbers of related papers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search engine of the Web of Science was used for the selection of papers. The search yielded 359 published materials in total. However, 78 (61 Articles, 17 Reviews) of them did not have keywords. Therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. The remaining 196 articles plus 84 reviews, in total 280 papers were examined. In order to examine the differences between published materials in terms of total cited count numbers, independent samples t-tests and one-way Anova test were performed with SPSS. In order to explore the topical differences, the keywords according to country of the first author, and the journal were mapped. KNIME and FactoMiner software were used for the analysis. RESULTS: Results indicated that international papers were cited more compared to domestic papers; multi-centered national papers were cited more compared to single-centered national papers. The largest percentage (34.64%) of the overall publications originated from Anglo-American countries (USA=13.93%; England=12.14%; Canada=6.07%; Australia=2.50%). The keyword mapping showed that COVID-19, Sars-cov-2, Pandemic, Anesthesia, Airway, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Critical Care, Intensive Care, Personal Protective Equipment, Infection, Mortality, and Mechanical Ventilation were the main keywords of these published materials. CONCLUSIONS: This paper not only showed the features of papers that are cited more but also showed the ranking of countries that contribute the most to the literature and reflected the hot topics about COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia. Extensive studies about COVID-19 have already begun, and the number of studies keep increasing. Therefore, this study could provide hints for authors who would like their papers to be cited more as well as useful information for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present study is to analyse the highly cited papers from India. The Science Citation Index Expanded database was used to retrieve the related bibliographic records. Grouping and reclassification of institutions with misspellings and variants have been done. The most productive institutions, collaborating partners and Y-index of the contributing authors were examined. Results revealed that all the highly cited papers from India did not receive citations in the early years after publication. Co-authored (or international collaboration) papers received more citation impact than single-authored ones. USA was the preferred collaborative partner for international collaboration. The Indian Institutes of Technology, CSIR organizations, and Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru were the leading Indian institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to gain a deeper understanding of how research performance and collaboration patterns of institutions affect productivity trends and citations, this paper classifies institutions into two types: main and normal institutions, and then divides the dataset into six types: M and N as intra-institution collaboration types, and M&M, M&N, N&M, N&N as inter-institution types (M: main institutions, N: normal institutions). After analysing the productivity trends and citation impact at the research units' level, the main results are shown as following: through a large-scale and long-span data, M papers account for the highest percentage, and play an important leading role in the beginning, and the average citation value of M&M papers is significantly higher than other types; although the number of papers with multi-authors is increasing over time, the impact of the number of authors on citations may vary from discipline to discipline, and there is a slightly negative relationship between them in artificial intelligence field in our data; despite the number of institutions and countries has a positive impact on citations in whole dataset, it differs when considering different institutional collaboration patterns and the first author's country; no matter what institutional collaboration pattern is, the papers with USA as first author's country always have a significant greater impact than China as first author's country. After analysing two negative binomial regression models, some results support the above conclusions. Moreover, we find that the number of M institutions has a significant greatest impact on citations, while M institution as first author's affiliation only has a slightly influence; China as first author's country has a negative impact, while USA as first author's country has a moderately positive impact, and slightly lower than that of the number of countries, moderately higher than that of the number of institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While bibliometric analysis is normally able to rely on complete publication sets this is not universally the case. For example, Australia (in ERA) and the UK (in the RAE/REF) use institutional research assessment that may rely on small or fractional parts of researcher output. Using the Category Normalised Citation Impact (CNCI) for the publications of ten universities with similar output (21,000–28,000 articles and reviews) indexed in the Web of Science for 2014–2018, we explore the extent to which a 'sample' of institutional data can accurately represent the averages and/or the correct relative status of the population CNCIs. Starting with full institutional data, we find a high variance in average CNCI across 10,000 institutional samples of fewer than 200 papers, which we suggest may be an analytical minimum although smaller samples may be acceptable for qualitative review. When considering the 'top' CNCI paper in researcher sets represented by DAIS-ID clusters, we find that samples of 1000 papers provide a good guide to relative (but not absolute) institutional citation performance, which is driven by the abundance of high performing individuals. However, such samples may be perturbed by scarce 'highly cited' papers in smaller or less research-intensive units. We draw attention to the significance of this for assessment processes and the further evidence that university rankings are innately unstable and generally unreliable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monetary rewards granted on a per-publication basis to individual authors are an important policy instrument to stimulate scientific research. An inconsistent feature of many article reward schemes is that they use journal-level citation metrics. In this paper we assess the actual article-level citation impact of about 10,000 articles whose authors received financial rewards within the Romanian Program for Rewarding Research Results (PR3), an exemplary money-per-publication program that uses journal metrics to allocate rewards. We present PR3, offer a comprehensive empirical analysis of its results and a scientometric critique of its methodology. We first use a reference dataset of 1.9 million articles to compare the impact of each rewarded article from five consecutive PR3 editions to the impact of all the other articles published in the same journal and year. To determine the wider global impact of PR3 papers we then further benchmark their citation performance against the worldwide field baselines and percentile rank classes from the Clarivate Analytics Essential Science Indicators. We find that within their journals PR3 articles span the full range of citation impact almost uniformly. In the larger context of global broad fields of science almost two thirds of the rewarded papers are below the world average in their field and more than a third lie below the world median. Although desired by policymakers to exemplify excellence many PR3 articles are characterized by a rather commonplace individual citation performance and have not achieved the impact presumed and rewarded after publication based on journal metrics. Furthermore, identical rewards have been offered to articles with markedly different impact. Direct monetary incentives for articles may support productivity but they cannot guarantee impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes 230 research publications of the Panjab University in mathematics during ten years (2005-14), as covered in Scopus International database. The study quantifies publication data in various aspects of performance, such as the publication growth, research impact and quality, national and international collaboration, contribution and impact of authors, major areas of research, preferred channels of research communications and characteristics of higher cited papers. The findings reveal that Panjab University total publications in mathematics has increased at an annual average growth rate of 17.15% and registered an average citation impact per paper of 2.92 and impact factor per paper of 0.89 during 2005-14. Of its total publications (230), 43.91% publications of Panjab University did not get any citations as against 56.09% getting 1 or more citations. 35.96% and 13.91% of the Panjab University publications in mathematics were involved in national and international collaboration during 2005-14. Among its performance in top 15 Indian universities, Panjab University registered 6th rank in share of national collaborative papers, 10th rank in publication output and 12th rank in average citation per paper, h-index, share of international collaborative papers and share of high cited papers during 2005-14. The major areas of research by Panjab University were algebra (with 28.7% publication share), followed by numerical analysis (20.9%), statistics & probability (19.1%), application of mathematics in different subjects (14.3%), number theory (7.39%), operations research (1.74%) and others (7.83%) during 2005-14. The top 20 authors of Panjab University in mathematics together contributed 95.65% and 96.72% share to the total publications and citations during 2005-14. Of the 87 journals contributing to Panjab University mathematics research output, the top 25 journals together accounted for 61.74% share of the Panjab University output in mathematics during 2005-14.The top 15 comparatively higher cited papers received (11 and 29 citations) and together got 275 citations, with average citation per paper of 18.33. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes 362 research publications of the Panjab University in social sciences during ten years (2006-15), as covered in Scopus International database. The study quantifies publication data in various aspects of publication performance, such as the publication growth, research impact and quality, national and international collaboration, contribution and impact of authors, major areas of research and preferred channels of research communications. The findings reveal that Panjab University total publications in social sciences had increased at an annual average growth rate of 30.84% and registered an average citation impact per paper of 2.38 during 2006-15. Of its total publications by Panjab University in social sciences 58.01% publications did not get any citations as against 41.99% getting 1 or more citations. The 20.99% and 9.12% of the Panjab University publications in social sciences were involved in national and international collaboration during 2006-15. In terms of performance of Panjab University among the 20 most productive Indian universities in th th social sciences, Panjab University stood at 6 rank in terms of publications output, 9 rank in h-index th and 11 rank in average citation per paper during 2006-15. Of the 279 authors of Panjab University involved in 362 papers, the top 30 most productive authors in social sciences together contributed 60.5% and 73.26% share of total publications and citations of Panjab University in social sciences during 2006-15. Of the 140 journals contributing to Punjab University in social science research output, the top 29 journals together accounted for 48.07% share of the Panjab University output in social sciences during 2006-15. It is suggested that university should make concentrated efforts to improve research environment and take concrete steps to improve research output and quality and increase national and international collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study analyzed 72940 papers indexed by Scopus and published by six Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT Delhi, IIT Kharagpur, IIT Madras, IIT Bombay, IIT Kanpur and IIT Roorkee) during the period 2006-2015, which indicates that 72940 papers received 572583 citations in all during the period 2006-2015 in an average rate of citation per paper for six IITs is 7.85. Highest 4 authors are from IITKGP, followed by 3 authors each from IITR, IITD and IITB are highly cited by others. It evident that the output of six IITs is well connected with prime channel science as more than four fifth of the published papers were appeared in standard, high and very high impact factor journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are patterns of gender and authorship in urban land science? Our bibliometric analysis shows that the proportion of women shrinks among highly productive, impactful, and senior authors, akin to a pyramid shape. First, women are only one in ten researchers with an h-index above the 95th percentile. Second, women are first authors on 20% of all influential papers cited more than one hundred times. Third, women publish less frequently (1.6 papers/year) than men (2.2). Fourth, women have shorter career lengths (9.4 years) than men (11.8). Since the 2000s, citation rates for women and men have converged. For the generation starting careers since 2016, the proportion of women with an h-index above the 90th percentile increased to 25%. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a 51% increase in productivity for women. Despite these changes, gender disparities in urban land science are most pronounced among the most productive and impactful authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various authors have recently argued that certain parts of academic philosophy are highly isolated from other fields of academic research. The central aim of this paper is to go beyond philosophical arguments, and empirically test whether this is indeed the case. More specifically, we investigate whether LEMM (Philosophy of Language, Epistemology, Mind and Metaphysics) is more isolated than Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Value Theory. To do this, we collected 2369 Web of Science indexed papers divided into 17 PhilPapers topics from these three subfields of philosophy, and used 10 indicators to measure their isolation. The results showed that the topics from LEMM were more isolated from other fields of science than the topics from Value Theory and Philosophy of Science. Within philosophy, however, the topics from LEMM generally seemed as well-connected as Philosophy of Science and Value Theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes 2542 research publications of the five Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) published during the last Five years (2010-14), as covered in SCOPUS International database. The study analyses characteristics of these publications such as the publication growth, research impact, national and international collaboration share, contribution and impact of authors and organizations, major areas of research, and preferred channels of research communications and characteristics of higher cited papers. The findings reveal that IISERs publications have witnessed an annual average growth rate of 34.92% and registered an average citation impact per paper of 9.90. About 33.39% and 30.80% of the IISERs publications were involved in national and international collaboration during 2010-14. The major areas of research of IISERs were chemistry, physics & astronomy, materials science and biochemistry, genetics & molecular biology with institutional share of 43.94%, 34.19%, 24.86% and 19.71% during 2010-14. About 153 significant authors of five IISERs individually published 10-60 publications and together they contributed 2446 publications, accounting for 96.22% share in the total output of IISERs during 2010-14. The IISERs published 1102 papers (with 43.35% share in total output) during 2010-14 in top 40 most productive journals with high impact factor varying from 0.72 to 11.36. About 50 high cited papers were published by these five IISERs, which have received 50 and above citations, Among these 50 papers, 41 papers received 50 to 100 citations, 7 papers 101-200 citations, 1 paper 401-500 citations and 1 paper 1001-1100 citations. These 50 papers together received 5212 citations, registering an average citation per paper of 104.24. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For a recent commentary in Nature, Ioannidis et al. (Nature 561(7722):167-169, 2018) searched the Scopus database and identified those "hyperprolific" authors who have published more than one paper every 5 days. The 265 authors who belong to this very productive class contribute disproportionately to the archive. We show the relationship between paper productivity (annual number of papers) and usefulness of research (annual number of papers which belong to the 1% most frequently cited in the corresponding subject categories and publication years) for 160,108 researchers. Based on our results, we suggest that the identification of "hyperprolific" authors should consider not only quantity, but also the usefulness of research activities (measured in terms of citations). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes 833 research publications of the Panjab University in chemistry during eight years (2008-15), as covered in Scopus International database. The study quantifies publication data in various aspects of performance, such as the publication growth, research impact and quality, national and international collaboration, contribution and impact of authors, major areas of research and preferred channels of research communications and characteristics of higher cited papers. The findings reveal that Panjab University total publications in chemistry has increased at an annual average growth rate of 17.04% and registered an average citation impact per paper of 6.38 during 2008-15. Of its total publications (833), 22.33% publications of Panjab University did not get any citations as against 77.67% getting 1 or more citations. The 28.69% and 25.81% of the Panjab University publications in chemistry were involved in national and international collaboration during 2008-15. th Among its performance in top 20 most productive Indian universities, Punjab University stood at 16 th rank in terms of publications output (833) and h-index (27), 13 rank in average citation per paper th (6.38) and share of high cited papers (0.12%) and 8 rank in terms of international collaborative papers (25.81%) during 2008-15. Of the 1140 authors involved in 833 papers, the top 15 most productive authors of Punjab University in chemistry together contributed 70.83% and 70.65% share of total publications and citations of Panjab University in chemistry during 2008-15. Of the 221 journals contributing to Panjab University in chemistry research output, the top 30 journals together accounted for 48.37% share of the Panjab University output in chemistry during 2008-15.The top 22 comparatively higher cited papers individually received 31 to 123 citations and together got 12198 citations, with average citation per paper of 55.41. Among 22 higher cited papers, 9 had the participation of single institution (zero collaboration), 9 involve national collaboration and 4 involve international collaboration. These 22 higher cited papers involve 88 authors and 45 organizations and were published in 18 journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent paper (10.1007/s11192-020-03386-9) we proposed a model to estimate the citations of an article in a database (Scopus/Web of Science) in which it is not indexed using the percentile rank of the database (Web of Science/Scopus) in which it is indexed. In this study we supplement the previous work with three advances: (1) by using 15 different research fields, corresponding to over 1 million papers, since we previously used only four fields; (2) by measuring the agreement between the percentile ranks in both databases using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, since this coefficient has not been used previously to measure this agreement, but as a test with a sample of 15,400 papers to compare the actual and estimated number of citations; and (3) by using a robust data cleaning procedure. The results revealed a substantial concordance between percentile ranks of papers indexed in these two databases in all the research fields studied, and that this concordance is even stronger for high percentile values. This level of concordance suggests that we can consider the percentile of a paper in a database in which it is not indexed as being equal to the percentile of this paper in a database in which it is indexed. In other words, we increased the reliability of our previous conclusions that the percentile rank can be used as a citation database-normalization. The results of this study contribute to improve the use of citation counts in bibliometric studies, and to calculate research indicators when we need to use both bibliographic databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines 5407 Indian publications in catalysis research, as covered in Scopus database during 2006-15, using a series of bibliometric indicators. Catalysis research in the world is dominated mainly by 10 main countries including China, USA, Japan, India, Germany, France, South Korea, Iran, Spain and U.K. which together accounted for as much as 82.45% of the global publication share in catalysis research output during 2006-15. China is the world leader in catalysis research (28.12% global share) followed far behind by USA (14.93% global share). India is ranked 4th top country in the world in catalysis research for its global share of 5.94% in 10 years during 2006-15. India's collaboration on catalysis research was the largest with the USA accounting for 22.54% ICP share, followed by Japan (17.01%), South Korea (13.22%), and 12 other countries during 2006-15. India registered faster annual growth in catalysis research (10.8%) compared to 5.78% by the total world countries. India's citation impact in catalysis research in 10 years averaged to 24.30 citations per paper. India contributed only 50 cited papers which registered 100 or more citations per paper, averaging citation impact to 141.56 citations per paper. The leading Indian organizations in highly cited papers are: IICT-Hyderabad (11 papers), NCL-Pune and University of Delhi (4 papers each), IISC-Bangalore, IIT-New Delhi and NIPERMohali (3 papers each), etc. Catalysis research in India mainly chemistry oriented which contributed the largest share (68.24%) during 2006-15. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies have shown that the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases differs substantially. Consequently, the citation counts of a paper are different depending on the database used, making it difficult to apply both together. To address this problem, this paper aims to examine whether the percentile- and stochastic-based approach is effective for converting citation counts between two databases while guaranteeing its time-normalization. For this analysis, we collected a dataset of 326,345 papers, published in 1987–2017 in the top 10% source titles of the following fields: Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Aquatic Science, Social Psychology and Archaeology. First, we applied the linear regression model to the citation percentiles of indexed papers in both databases. Secondly, we used the predicted results of this linear dependence, combined with the Monte Carlo simulations, to obtain the probability density function of a percentile from papers in the database in which they are missing. The results indicate that, with the method proposed in this paper, it is possible to convert the citation counts of articles between Scopus and WoS. In addition, it also predicts the citation impact of a missing paper on one of those databases, based on the citation impact on the other database. Tests on subsamples, using Lin's concordance coefficient, suggest substantial agreement between estimated and real citation values. This allows the combined use of the citation counts of two databases, improving the coverage and accuracy of both bibliometric studies and bibliometric indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study looks at 912 publications from India on supply chain management as covered in Scopus database during 2006-15. The study reported an annual average growth rate of 11.74% for publications and citation impact of 9.34 citations per paper. The global publications on supply change management came from several countries, of which the top 10 accounted for 80.28% of global publication share during 2006-15. A total of 225 organizations and 304 authors participated in Indian research on supply chain management during 2006-15. The top 25 organizations contributed 53.62% publications share and accounted for 56.75% citations share. The top 25 authors contributed 36.69% publications share and accounted for 74.13% citation share. China is the world leader in research output on supply chain management, followed by USA, etc. The top 20 journals accounted for 52.98% share of the journal output. The top 20 highly cited papers varied from 61 to 829 citations per paper, and together these papers accounted for 3058 citations, resulting in the average at 278 citations per paper. Based on existing studies, the authors recommend accelerating the pace of research on this subject. The results of this scientometric analysis has facilitated in identification of the research direction of supply chain management research in India and has thus presented a valuable tool for researchers to access the literature in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines 34641 global publications output on mobile computing research, as covered in Scopus database during 2007-16. The study finds that mobile computing research is growing at 9.35% rate per annum and its citation impact averaged to 3.39 citations per paper. The global share of top 10 most productive countries ranged from 3.29% to 31.06%, with largest global publication share coming from China (31.06%), followed by USA (15.35%), etc. Together, the top 10 most productive countries accounted for 81.24% global publication share during 2007-16. Seven of top 10 countries achieved relative citation index above world average of 1: USA (2.37), U.K. (1.78), Italy (1.72), Canada (1.64), etc. International collaborative publications share of top 10 most productive countries in mobile computing research during 2007-16 varied from 11.55% to 48.16%. Computer Science, among subjects, accounted for the largest publication share (89.55%), followed by engineering (33.58%), social sciences (18.67%), mathematics (8.74%), etc. during 2007-16. The top 20 most productive organizations and authors contributed 14.79% and 1.76% global publication share respectively and accounted for 9.5% and 5.11% global citation share respectively during 2007-16. The top 20 journals accounted for 24.11% share of total journals output of 5673 papers during 2007-16. The top 50 highly cited publications registered citations in the range from 164 to 1235 citations per paper and together these top 50 papers cumulated 16822 citations, with an average of 336.4 citations per paper. These 50 highly cited papers resulted from participation of 184 authors and 103 organizations, and were published in 31 journals, including 4 in IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2 papers each in Decision Support System, IEEE Communication Magazine, IEEE Pervasive Computing and IEEE Communication Surveys & Tutorials and 1 paper each in other 26 journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper intends to illuminate the relationship between science funding and citation impact in seven STEMM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine). Using a regression model with Heckman bias correction, we find that funding has a positive, significant association with a paper’s citations in STEMM fields. Further analyses show that this association is magnified by the factors of multiple authorship and multiple institutions. For funded papers in STEM, multi-author and multi-institution papers tend to receive even more citations than single-authored and single-institution papers; however, funded papers in Medicine received less gain in citation impact when either factor is considered. Based on the finding that funding support has a stronger association with citation impact when it is treated as a binary variable than as a count variable, this paper recommends the allocation of funding to researchers without active funding support, instead of giving awards to those with multiple funding supports at hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study the correlation between citation-based and expert-based assessments of journals and series, which we collectively refer to as sources. The source normalized impact per paper (SNIP), the Scimago Journal Rank 2 (SJR2) and the raw impact per paper (RIP) indicators are used to assess sources based on their citations, while the Norwegian model is used to obtain expert-based source assessments. We first analyze – within different subject area categories and across such categories – the degree to which RIP, SNIP and SJR2 values correlate with the quality levels in the Norwegian model. We find that sources at higher quality levels on average have substantially higher RIP, SNIP, and SJR2 values. Regarding subject area categories, SNIP seems to perform substantially better than SJR2 from the field normalization point of view. We then compare the ability of RIP, SNIP and SJR2 to predict whether a source is classified at the highest quality level in the Norwegian model or not. SNIP and SJR2 turn out to give more accurate predictions than RIP, which provides evidence that normalizing for differences in citation practices between scientific fields indeed improves the accuracy of citation indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important requirements of building applicable models and meaningful indicators for the use of scientometrics at the micro and meso level is the correct identification and disambiguation of authors and institutes. Platforms like ResearcherID or ORCID with author registration providing high reliability but lower coverage now provide appropriate data sets for the development and testing of stochastic models describing the publication activity and citation impact of individual authors. This paper proposes a triangular model incorporating papers, citations and authors analogously to the dichotomous model used at higher levels of aggregation like countries or fields. This model is applied to a set of authors in any field of science identified by their ResearcherID. However, the main advantage of classical citation indicators to study citation impact under conditional productivity turned out to be the main problem in this triangle: the possible heterogeneity of the collaborating authors results in low robustness. A mere technical solution to this problem would be fractional counting at three levels but the conceptual issue, the different roles of co-authors causing this heterogeneity will never be solved by any algorithm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines 12024 global publications on mobile learning research, as covered in Scopus database during 2007-16. The global mobile research witnessed 11.76%annual growth and citation impact of 4.08 citations per paper. The global publication and global citation share of top 10 most productive countries in mobile learning research were64.76% and 82.16% respectively. The top 10 most productive countries individually contributed global share from 3.12% to 16.45% with largest global publication share coming from USA (16.45%). The national share of top 10 countries accounting for international collaborative publications in mobile learning research varied from 13.24% to 46.68% during 2007-16. Of the total output on mobile learning,Computer Science, among subjects, contributed the largest publication share (73.99%), followed by social sciences (30.32%), engineering (29.33%), mathematics (10.65%), etc. The top 20 most productive organizations and authors together contributed 10.80% and 5.43% global publication share and 24.32% and 17.71% global citation share respectively. Among the total output of 3903 papers in journal, the top 20 journals contributed 24.60% share during 2007-16. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Industrial and research activities in the space sector involve a heterogeneous group of actors such as private and public firms, universities, research institutes and space agencies, collaborating to different stages of missions' realization. Such collaborations are associated to the creation of spillover effects, proxied in different ways, such as the number of patents recorded, post‐graduate students involved, spin‐off activities and co‐authored papers. The aim of this paper is to investigate the impact of the collaboration between universities /research institutes and the Italian Space Agency (ASI). To this aim, we focus on papers where the authors acknowledge grants received by ASI. We use data on publications and citations to capture the association between ASI funding of a large number of scientific articles published in the period 1989–2017 and the quality of research, proxied by the number of citations received. By performing parametric estimates with multiple levels of fixed effects (year, author and coauthors fixed effects), we find that articles mentioning ASI in the funding information are associated to a higher citation impact with respect to articles not financially supported by ASI. Such result suggests a positive impact on the scientific community of public funds granted to universities and research institutes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examines 1383 Indian publications on "Hernia" as covered in Scopus database during 2006-15, experiencing an annual average growth rate of 6.75% and citation impact per paper of 3.12. The global publications on "Hernia" came from more than 100 countries, of which the top 10 accounted for 67.57% share of the global publication output. 214 organizations and 329 authors participated in Indian research on "Hernia" during 2006-15, of which the top 20 organizations and 20 authors contributed 38.97% and 19.45% publications share and 3.57% and 55.43%citation share respectively of the Indian output and citations. Medicine among subjects, contributed the largest publications share of 93.56%, followed biochemistry, genetics & molecular biology (7.66%), neurosciences (4.92%), pharmacology, toxicology & pharmaceutics (4.63%) and veterinary science (3.330%) during 2006-15. Of the total global publications, 1378 appeared in 233 journals, of which the top 15 journals contributed 38.03% of the journal output. The top 11 highly cited papers registered 40 to 210 citations, and together contributed 917 citations, leading to the average citation per paper of 83.36. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation metrics are frequently used to assess research and rank journals and researchers. Nevertheless, this is still a process with asymmetric information. Tourism research has matured within a small community and through a multidisciplinary scientific paradigm. This paper aims to understand the determinants of tourism research citation patterns. To this end, 101,968 papers within fifteen years (2004-2018) are analysed. Our empirical results suggest that authors' prestige, the multidisciplinary nature of research, and the impact factor of journals and bibliometric articles will likely increase an article's citations. This paper represents a step forward in understanding the citation formation process in tourism research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The academic research performance is often quantitatively measured by means of using citation frequency. The citation frequency-based indicators, such as h-index and impact factor, are commonly used reflecting the citation quality to some extent. However, these frequency-based indicators are usually carried out based on the assumption that all citations are equal. This may lead to biased evaluations in that, the attributes of the citing objects and cited objects are significant. A high-accuracy evaluation method is needed. In this paper, we review various citation quality-based evaluation indicators, and categorize them considering the algorithms being applied. We discuss the pros and cons of these indicators, and compare them from four dimensions. The outcomes will be useful for our further research on distinguishing citation quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded ( SCIE) of Thomson Reuters, we explored China-Germany collaboration in physics from perspectives including publication profiles, collaboration effect, as well as active institutions and active fields. We found that German researchers are more capable of publishing higher-quality papers than Chinese counterparts. Both China and Germany get benefit from collaboration in raising publication productivity. The collaboration helps improve Chinese researchers' citation impact and capability of publishing in higher-quality journals. Research capacities of German institutions are more evenly distributed than Chinese counterparts. Chinese institutions that are most active in collaborating with German counterparts are mainly those in leading positions in China, whereas those in disadvantageous situation are still isolated from the international community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this research letter, we build upon recent studies about the sleeping beauties awakened by the COVID-19 pandemic. We prove that a peak of citations for sleeping beauties is associated with a sharp increase in the number of citations received by their references. This demonstrates the existence of a cascading activation of citation-based sleeping beauties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) contribute to a better understanding of the place of women in Economics and Management disciplines by characterizing the difference in levels of scientific collaboration between men and women at the specialties' level; and (2) investigate the relationship between gender diversity and citation impact in Economics and Management. Our data, extracted from the Web of Science database, cover global production as indexed in 302 journals in Economics and 370 journals in Management, with, respectively, 153,667 and 163,567 articles published between 2008 and 2018. Results show that collaborative practices between men and women are quite different in Economics and Management. We also find that there is a modest positive and significant effect of gender diversity on the citation impact of publications. Mixed‐gender publications (coauthored by men and women) receive more citations than nonmixed papers (written by same‐gender author teams) or single‐author publications. The regression analysis also indicates that there is, for Economics, a small negative effect on citations received if the corresponding author is a woman. Finally, the country (affiliation) of the corresponding author affects the citations received in the two disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper undertakes comparative assessment of India and the world literature in social science covering the period 1996-2014 on a series of bibliometric indicators. The data for the study was sourced from SCImago Journals and Country Rank database. The study reveals that status of India in social science research in comparison to the world is not encouraging. In terms of quality and quantity of publications, India stands low on comparative indicators such as global citations share (0.41%), relative citation index (0.44), global publication share (1.41%), and international collaborative publications share (18.14%). India's annual growth rate in social science research (12.66%) has however been faster relative to the world (6.80%). India's international collaborative research share was largest in social science - general (7.8%) and the least in psychology (1.58%). In the remaining three subdisciplines covering social science, the country's share of International collaborative papers was modest (varying 2.5% to 3.6% of the total output in social science). India and the world selectively differ in the ranking order of their research priorities in social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Introduction: Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated disease that negatively impacts patients' quality of life and predisposes them to cardiovascular or metabolic diseases. This paper aims to summarize the knowledge structure and future directions in psoriasis research by means of bibliometrics. (2) Material and methods: The Thomson Reuters Web of Science database was interrogated using preestablished keywords. A list of the top 100 most cited articles focusing solely on psoriasis was compiled and analyzed. VOSviewer software was used to assess and visualize collaboration networks, citation, co-citation and co-wording analysis, and bibliographic coupling. (3) Results: The articles were written by 902 authors from 20 countries and were published in 31 journals. The United States was at the forefront of this field. Griffiths, CEM had the most citations, while the most prolific institution was Rockefeller University, New York City. Pathogenesis, especially key-pathogenic factors, immune pathways, and epidemiology were the most discussed topics. Work published in the last decade focused on the use of biologics. Keywords such as "quality of life", "efficacy", and "necrosis-factor alpha" have been widely used. (4) Conclusion: Research interest regarding psoriasis is high, leading to the rapid development of this field. Treatment modalities, especially novel-targeted therapies, immune pathways, and an integrative approach to such cases are receiving great interest and represent research hotspots in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]