Search

The paper presents an analysis of 2735 global publications in RFID(Radio Frequency Identification), indexed in Web of science database during 2014-2018. The collected records were analyzed with the help of ‘Histcite tool’.The present study attempted to reveal the year, country and institution, formwise distribution, authorship pattern, degree of collaboration, relative growth rate and doubling time of publications. The findings of this showed that degree of Collaboration was high at 2017 (0.96).The relative growth rates (RGR) has increased and the doubling time (DT) has rapidly decreased while calculated year wise i.e.2014 to 2018.

The article covers 3092 publications on myopia research in global level from the period of 2016-2018.Web of science database has been used to retrieve the scientometric records for the study period.The trends within the most influential publications and authors were analyzed. The aim of this study was to analyze the year wise distribution of articles & citations, authorship pattern of articles, most productive countries and institutions and type of document published. From the analysis, it has been observed that in the year 2016, the highest number of 1085(35.1%) articles were published out of 3092 articles in three years. Multiple author contributions were more dominant with 2879(93.11%) articles. In geographical distribution articles, United States of America have contributed the highest number of 769 articles with 24.9%.The study discloses that the Degree of Collaboration was low at 2017 (0.91), regarding collaborators contribution. The study analyzes the Relative Growth Rate (RGR) has increased from 2016 to 2018 in the span of three years. Doubling time (DT) has rapidly decreased when calculated year wise, i.e.2016 to 2018.

Citation distributions vary across the board among academic disciplines, which is the reason why field-oriented normalisation is necessary to compensate for this. In this vein, the aim of this study is three-fold. Firstly, to find out which document type is cited the most in translation studies (TS). Secondly, to determine the time distribution for citations and aging patterns in TS scientific literature. Thirdly, to define a discipline-weighted citation window or cited half-life, in order to establish the optimal citation window to be used in TS. Data enabling the present research will be retrieved from BITRA, which includes over 70,000 items covering the diversity of document types and languages used in TS research for all times and the citing information of over 10% of its entries. This database will thus allow us to carry out a study on citation and aging patterns in TS academic literature covering the 1960-2015 period. Both, global results, as well as a more detailed analysis focusing on different document types, will be provided. This bibliometric study aims to offer a discipline-focused approach in order to develop specific and realistic impact criteria for our discipline, while taking into account its actual research and communication practices.

In 2008, the type of document “proceedings paper” (PP) was assigned in the WoS database to journal articles which were initially presented at a conference and later adapted for publication in a journal. Since the use of two different labels (“article” and “proceedings paper”) might lead to infer differences in their relevance and/or quality, this paper presents a comparative study of standard journal articles and PP in journals to explore potential differences between them. The study focuses on the Library and Information Science field in the Web of Science database and covers the 1990-2008 period. PP approximately account for 9% of the total number of articles in this field, two-thirds of which are published in monographic issues devoted to conferences, which tend to be concentrated in specific journals. Proceedings papers emerge as an heterogeneous set comprising PP in ordinary issues, similar to standard articles in structure and impact of research; and PP in monographic issues, which seem to be less comprehensive and tend to receive less citations. Faster publication of PP in monographic than in ordinary issues may conceal differences in the review process undergone by either type of paper. The main implications of these results for authors, bibliometricians, journal editors and research evaluators are pointed out.