IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i9p940-d541949.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visualization Method for Decision-Making: A Case Study in Bibliometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Roozbeh Haghnazar Koochaksaraei

    (Department of Computer Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA)

  • Frederico Gadelha Guimarães

    (Department of Electrical Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais 31270-901, Brazil)

  • Babak Hamidzadeh

    (Libraries, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA)

  • Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani

    (School of Engineering, Catholic University of the North, Larrondo 1281, Coquimbo 1240000, Chile)

Abstract

Data and information visualization have drawn an increasingly wide range of interest from several academic fields and industries. Concurrently, exploring a huge set of data to support feasible decisions needs an organized method of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). The dramatic increasing of data producing during the past decade makes visualization necessary as a presentation layer on the top of MCDM process. This study aims to propose an integrated strategy to rank the alternatives in the dataset, by combining data, MCDM methods, and visualization layers. In fact, the well designed combination of Information Visualization and MCDM provides a more user-friendly approach than the traditional methods. We investigate a case study in bibliometric analyses, which have become an important dimension and tool for evaluating the impact and performance of researchers, departments, and universities. Hence, finding the best and most reliable papers, authors, and publishers considering diverse criteria is one of the important challenges in science world. Therefore, this text is presenting a new strategy on the bibliometric dataset as a case study and it demonstrates that this strategy can be more meaningful for the end users than the current tools. Finally, the presented simulations illustrate the performance and utilization of this combination. In other words, the researchers of this study could design and implement a tool that overcomes the biggest challenges of data analyzing and ranking via a combination of MCDM and visualization methodologies that can provide a tremendous amount of insight and information from a massive dataset in an efficient way.

Suggested Citation

  • Roozbeh Haghnazar Koochaksaraei & Frederico Gadelha Guimarães & Babak Hamidzadeh & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani, 2021. "Visualization Method for Decision-Making: A Case Study in Bibliometric Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-27, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:9:p:940-:d:541949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/9/940/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/9/940/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dahui Dong & Meng-Lin Chen, 2015. "Publication trends and co-citation mapping of translation studies between 2000 and 2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1111-1128, November.
    2. Ping Xie, 2015. "Study of international anticancer research trends via co-word and document co-citation visualization analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 611-622, October.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Zhigao Liu & Yimei Yin & Weidong Liu & Michael Dunford, 2015. "Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 135-158, April.
    5. Meen Chul Kim & Yongjun Zhu & Chaomei Chen, 2016. "How are they different? A quantitative domain comparison of information visualization and data visualization (2000–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 123-165, April.
    6. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    7. Howard D. White, 2015. "Co-cited author retrieval and relevance theory: examples from the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2275-2299, March.
    8. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    9. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    10. Michael Hall, C., 2011. "Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 16-27.
    11. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Raimundas Kirvaitis & Eleonora Dagienė, 2011. "Scientific publications released in the Baltic States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 179-190, 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. El Gibari, Samira & Gómez, Trinidad & Ruiz, Francisco, 2018. "Evaluating university performance using reference point based composite indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1235-1250.
    2. Khatab Alqararah, 2023. "Assessing the robustness of composite indicators: the case of the Global Innovation Index," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    4. Zofio, Jose Luis & Aparicio, Juan & Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel, 2023. "The influence of bottlenecks on innovation systems performance: Put the slowest climber first," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Carayannis, Elias G. & Grigoroudis, Evangelos & Wurth, Bernd, 2022. "OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 791-808.
    6. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    7. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    8. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Mónica D., 2012. "A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty evaluation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 424-436.
    9. Massucci, Francesco Alessandro & Docampo, Domingo, 2019. "Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRank," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 185-201.
    10. Juntao Zheng & Niancai Liu, 2015. "Mapping of important international academic awards," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 763-791, September.
    11. Elio Atenógenes Villaseñor & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2017. "Multiparametric characterization of scientometric performance profiles assisted by neural networks: a study of Mexican higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 77-104, January.
    12. Brandão, Luana Carneiro & Soares de Mello, João Carlos Correia Baptista, 2019. "A multi-criteria approach to the h-index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 357-363.
    13. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    14. Telcs, András & Kosztyán, Zsolt Tibor & Banász, Zsuzsanna & Csányi, Vivien Valéria, 2019. "Felsőoktatási ligák, parciális rangsorok képzése biklaszterezési eljárásokkal [How to rate higher education systems partial rankings using bi-clustering methods]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 905-931.
    15. Leo Freyer, 2014. "Robust rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 391-406, August.
    16. Giovanni Abramo & Corrado Costa & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2015. "A multivariate stochastic model to assess research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1755-1772, February.
    17. Calabrese, Armando & Capece, Guendalina & Costa, Roberta & Di Pillo, Francesca & Giuffrida, Stefania, 2018. "A ‘power law’ based method to reduce size-related bias in indicators of knowledge performance: An application to university research assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1263-1281.
    18. Henk F. Moed & Gali Halevi, 2015. "Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 1988-2002, October.
    19. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    20. Milica Jovanovic & Veljko Jeremic & Gordana Savic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic, 2012. "How does the normalization of data affect the ARWU ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 319-327, November.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:9:p:940-:d:541949. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.