IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v105y2015i3d10.1007_s11192-015-1645-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?

Author

Listed:
  • Ole Ellegaard

    (University of Southern Denmark)

  • Johan A. Wallin

    (University of Southern Denmark)

Abstract

Bibliometric methods or “analysis” are now firmly established as scientific specialties and are an integral part of research evaluation methodology especially within the scientific and applied fields. The methods are used increasingly when studying various aspects of science and also in the way institutions and universities are ranked worldwide. A sufficient number of studies have been completed, and with the resulting literature, it is now possible to analyse the bibliometric method by using its own methodology. The bibliometric literature in this study, which was extracted from Web of Science, is divided into two parts using a method comparable to the method of Jonkers et al. (Characteristics of bibliometrics articles in library and information sciences (LIS) and other journals, pp. 449–551, 2012: The publications either lie within the Information and Library Science (ILS) category or within the non-ILS category which includes more applied, “subject” based studies. The impact in the different groupings is judged by means of citation analysis using normalized data and an almost linear increase can be observed from 1994 onwards in the non-ILS category. The implication for the dissemination and use of the bibliometric methods in the different contexts is discussed. A keyword analysis identifies the most popular subjects covered by bibliometric analysis, and multidisciplinary articles are shown to have the highest impact. A noticeable shift is observed in those countries which contribute to the pool of bibliometric analysis, as well as a self-perpetuating effect in giving and taking references.

Suggested Citation

  • Ole Ellegaard & Johan A. Wallin, 2015. "The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1809-1831, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:105:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1645-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2010. "Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 495-506, March.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    3. Garfield, Eugene, 2009. "From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 173-179.
    4. Kaur, Jasleen & Radicchi, Filippo & Menczer, Filippo, 2013. "Universality of scholarly impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 924-932.
    5. Martin Barth & Stefanie Haustein & Barbara Scheidt, 2014. "The life sciences in German–Chinese cooperation: an institutional-level co-publication analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 99-117, January.
    6. Jordi Ardanuy, 2013. "Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951–2010)," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(8), pages 1751-1755, August.
    7. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    8. Jordi Ardanuy, 2013. "Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951–2010)," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(8), pages 1751-1755, August.
    9. Michel Zitt & Suzy Ramanana-Rahary & Elise Bassecoulard, 2003. "Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(2), pages 259-282, February.
    10. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman & Rommert Dekker & Jan van den Berg, 2010. "A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2405-2416, December.
    11. Xingjian Liu & F. Benjamin Zhan & Song Hong & Beibei Niu & Yaolin Liu, 2012. "A bibliometric study of earthquake research: 1900–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 747-765, September.
    12. Yanhua Zhuang & Xingjian Liu & Thuminh Nguyen & Qingqing He & Song Hong, 2013. "Global remote sensing research trends during 1991–2010: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 203-219, July.
    13. Peter Weingart, 2005. "Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 117-131, January.
    14. Robert Dalpé, 2002. "Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(2), pages 189-213, August.
    15. K. Jonkers & G.E. Derrick, 2012. "The bibliometric bandwagon: Characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(4), pages 829-836, April.
    16. Tove Faber Frandsen & Ronald Rousseau, 2005. "Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(1), pages 58-62, January.
    17. Tang, Li, 2013. "Does “birds of a feather flock together” matter—Evidence from a longitudinal study on US–China scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 330-344.
    18. Wen-Yau Cathy Lin, 2012. "Research status and characteristics of library and information science in Taiwan: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 7-21, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    3. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    4. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    5. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    6. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Judit Bar-Ilan: information scientist, computer scientist, scientometrician," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1235-1244, December.
    7. Qing Ji & Xiaoping Pang & Xi Zhao, 2014. "A bibliometric analysis of research on Antarctica during 1993–2012," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1925-1939, December.
    8. Paúl Carrión-Mero & Néstor Montalván-Burbano & Fernando Morante-Carballo & Adolfo Quesada-Román & Boris Apolo-Masache, 2021. "Worldwide Research Trends in Landslide Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-24, September.
    9. Konstantin Fursov & Yana Roschina & Oksana Balmush, 2016. "Determinants of Research Productivity: An Individual-level Lens," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 44-56.
    10. van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2014. "CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 802-823.
    11. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2011. "Bibliometric rankings of journals based on Impact Factors: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 75-86.
    12. Peter Wittek & Sándor Darányi & Gustaf Nelhans, 2017. "Ruling out static latent homophily in citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 765-777, February.
    13. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2017. "Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 739-764, February.
    14. Qing Cheng & Xin Lu & Zhong Liu & Jincai Huang, 2015. "Mining research trends with anomaly detection models: the case of social computing research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 453-469, May.
    15. Gisleine Carmo & Luiz Flávio Felizardo & Valderí Castro Alcântara & Cristiane Aparecida Silva & José Willer Prado, 2023. "The impact of Jürgen Habermas’s scientific production: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1853-1875, March.
    16. Pin-Hua Lin & Jong-Rong Chen & Chih-Hai Yang, 2014. "Academic research resources and academic quality: a cross-country analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 109-123, October.
    17. Lili Yuan & Yanni Hao & Minglu Li & Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "Who are the international research collaboration partners for China? A novel data perspective based on NSFC grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 401-422, July.
    18. Ming Hu & Mitchell Pavao-Zuckerman, 2019. "Literature Review of Net Zero and Resilience Research of the Urban Environment: A Citation Analysis Using Big Data," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Holman Ospina-Mateus & Leonardo Augusto Quintana Jiménez & Francisco J. Lopez-Valdes & Katherinne Salas-Navarro, 2019. "Bibliometric analysis in motorcycle accident research: a global overview," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 793-815, November.
    20. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:105:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1645-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.