IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v60y2009i6p1118-1131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are you an invited speaker? A bibliometric analysis of elite groups for scholarly events in bioinformatics

Author

Listed:
  • Senator Jeong
  • Sungin Lee
  • Hong‐Gee Kim

Abstract

Participating in scholarly events (e.g., conferences, workshops, etc.) as an elite‐group member such as an organizing committee chair or member, program committee chair or member, session chair, invited speaker, or award winner is beneficial to a researcher's career development. The objective of this study is to investigate whether elite‐group membership for scholarly events is representative of scholars' prominence, and which elite group is the most prestigious. We collected data about 15 global (excluding regional) bioinformatics scholarly events held in 2007. We sampled (via stratified random sampling) participants from elite groups in each event. Then, bibliometric indicators (total citations and h index) of seven elite groups and a non‐elite group, consisting of authors who submitted at least one paper to an event but were not included in any elite group, were observed using the Scopus Citation Tracker. The Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to examine the differences among the eight groups. Multiple comparison tests (Dwass, Steel, Critchlow–Fligner) were conducted as follow‐up procedures. The experimental results reveal that scholars in an elite group have better performance in bibliometric indicators than do others. Among the elite groups, the invited speaker group has statistically significantly the best performance while the other elite‐group types are not significantly distinguishable. From this analysis, we confirm that elite‐group membership in scholarly events, at least in the field of bioinformatics, can be utilized as an alternative marker for a scholar's prominence, with invited speaker being the most important prominence indicator among the elite groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Senator Jeong & Sungin Lee & Hong‐Gee Kim, 2009. "Are you an invited speaker? A bibliometric analysis of elite groups for scholarly events in bioinformatics," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(6), pages 1118-1131, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:60:y:2009:i:6:p:1118-1131
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.21056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21056
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.21056?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Senator Jeong & Hong-Gee Kim, 2010. "Intellectual structure of biomedical informatics reflected in scholarly events," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 541-551, November.
    2. Wenjia Zhu & Jiancheng Guan, 2013. "A bibliometric study of service innovation research: based on complex network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1195-1216, March.
    3. Koch, Susanne & Matviichuk, Elena, 2021. "Patterns of inequality in global forest science conferences: An analysis of actors involved in IUFRO World Congresses with a focus on gender and geography," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Min Song & Su Yeon Kim, 2013. "Detecting the knowledge structure of bioinformatics by mining full-text collections," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 183-201, July.
    5. Matthew Francisco & Staša Milojevic & Selma Šabanovic, 2011. "Conference Models to Bridge Micro and Macro Studies of Science," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13.
    6. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2015. "Research quality evaluation: comparing citation counts considering bibliometric database errors," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 155-165, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jamist:v:60:y:2009:i:6:p:1118-1131. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    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.