IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v5y2017i4p23-d113639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computer Science Papers in Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dalibor Fiala

    (Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen 301 00, Czech Republic)

  • Gabriel Tutoky

    (Department of Cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence, Technical University of Košice, Košice 040 01, Slovakia)

Abstract

In this article we present a bibliometric study of 1.9 million computer science papers published from 1945 to 2014 and indexed in Web of Science. We analyze both the quantity and the impact of these publications according to document types, languages, disciplines, countries, institutions, and publication sources. The most frequent author keywords, cited references, and cited papers as well as the distribution of the number of references and citations per paper and of the age of cited references are also explored. Since conference proceedings play a tremendous role in this scientific field, we investigate the time and place of computer science conferences in terms of the most prolific months and locations. And, last but not least, the production of journal articles and conference papers over the whole time period and the level of collaboration in different computer science disciplines are inspected. One of the main results is the finding that “Artificial Intelligence” is the most productive subfield of computer science, but “Interdisciplinary Applications” has the highest relative impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Dalibor Fiala & Gabriel Tutoky, 2017. "Computer Science Papers in Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:5:y:2017:i:4:p:23-:d:113639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/4/23/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/4/23/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beril T. Arik & Engin Arik, 2017. "“Second Language Writing” Publications in Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2010. "Web of Science with the Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes: the case of computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 809-824, June.
    3. Lovro Šubelj & Dalibor Fiala, 2017. "Publication boost in web of science journals and its effect on citation distributions," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 1018-1023, April.
    4. Jacques Wainer & Eduardo C. Xavier & Fabio Bezerra, 2009. "Scientific production in Computer Science: A comparative study of Brazil and other countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 535-547, November.
    5. George Vrettas & Mark Sanderson, 2015. "Conferences versus journals in computer science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2674-2684, December.
    6. B. M. Gupta & Avinash Kshitij & Charu Verma, 2011. "Mapping of Indian computer science research output, 1999–2008," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 261-283, February.
    7. João M. Fernandes & Miguel P. Monteiro, 2017. "Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 529-539, February.
    8. Ruimin Ma & Chaoqun Ni & Junping Qiu, 2008. "Scientific research competitiveness of world universities in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(2), pages 245-260, August.
    9. Suresh Kumar & K. C. Garg, 2005. "Scientometrics of computer science research in India and China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(2), pages 121-132, August.
    10. Jiancheng Guan & Nan Ma, 2004. "A comparative study of research performance in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 339-359, November.
    11. Tsai, Chih-Fong, 2014. "Citation impact analysis of top ranked computer science journals and their rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 318-328.
    12. Denis Arruda & Fábio Bezerra & Vânia Almeida Neris & Patricia Rocha De Toro & Jacques Wainera, 2009. "Brazilian computer science research: Gender and regional distributions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 651-665, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Steffen Wendzel & Cédric Lévy-Bencheton & Luca Caviglione, 2020. "Not all areas are equal: analysis of citations in information security research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 267-286, January.
    2. Gu, Jiangwei & Pan, Xuelian & Zhang, Shuxin & Chen, Jiaoyu, 2024. "International mobility matters: Research collaboration and scientific productivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    3. Prem Kumar Singh, 2022. "t-index: entropy based random document and citation analysis using average h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 637-660, January.
    4. Manvendra Janmaijaya & Amit K. Shukla & Ajith Abraham & Pranab K. Muhuri, 2018. "A Scientometric Study of Neurocomputing Publications (1992–2018): An Aerial Overview of Intrinsic Structure," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-22, July.
    5. Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Rosa Lidia Vega-Almeida & José Luis Jiménez-Andrade & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2022. "Evolutionary stages and multidisciplinary nature of artificial intelligence research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5139-5158, September.
    6. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao, 2022. "Movers’ advantages: The effect of mobility on scientists’ productivity and collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    7. Farshad Amiraslani & Deirdre Dragovich, 2022. "A Review of Documentation: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective," World, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-20, February.

    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. B. M. Gupta & Avinash Kshitij & Charu Verma, 2011. "Mapping of Indian computer science research output, 1999–2008," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 261-283, February.
    2. Vivek Kumar Singh & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Khushboo Singhal & Ashraf Uddin, 2015. "Scientometric mapping of research on ‘Big Data’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 727-741, November.
    3. Ashraf Uddin & Vivek Kumar Singh & David Pinto & Ivan Olmos, 2015. "Scientometric mapping of computer science research in Mexico," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 97-114, October.
    4. Vivek Kumar Singh & Ashraf Uddin & David Pinto, 2015. "Computer science research: the top 100 institutions in India and in the world," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 529-553, August.
    5. Xiancheng Li & Wenge Rong & Haoran Shi & Jie Tang & Zhang Xiong, 2018. "The impact of conference ranking systems in computer science: a comparative regression analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 879-907, August.
    6. Camil Demetrescu & Irene Finocchi & Andrea Ribichini & Marco Schaerf, 2022. "On computer science research and its temporal evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4913-4938, August.
    7. Thiago H. P. Silva & Alberto H. F. Laender & Clodoveu A. Davis & Ana Paula Couto Silva & Mirella M. Moro, 2017. "A profile analysis of the top Brazilian Computer Science graduate programs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 237-255, October.
    8. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Conference presentations and academic publishing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 228-254.
    9. Wieslawa Gryncewicz & Monika Sitarska-Buba, 2021. "Leading Research by Institutions and Authors: A Modern Research Analysis," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3B), pages 1012-1026.
    10. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    11. Tehmina Amjad & Nafeesa Shahid & Ali Daud & Asma Khatoon, 2022. "Citation burst prediction in a bibliometric network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2773-2790, May.
    12. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    13. Ponomariov, Branco & Toivanen, Hannes, 2014. "Knowledge flows and bases in emerging economy innovation systems: Brazilian research 2005–2009," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 588-596.
    14. Tamara Krajna & Jelka Petrak, 2019. "Croatian Highly Cited Papers," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 17(3-B), pages 684-696.
    15. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    16. González-Albo, Borja & Bordons, María, 2011. "Articles vs. proceedings papers: Do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the Library and Information Science field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 369-381.
    17. Josh Yamamoto & Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Yalcin, Haydar & Daim, Tugrul & Moughari, Mahdieh Mokhtari & Mermoud, Alain, 2024. "Supercomputers and quantum computing on the axis of cyber security," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    19. Nobuko Miyairi & Han-Wen Chang, 2012. "Bibliometric characteristics of highly cited papers from Taiwan, 2000–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 197-205, July.
    20. Bambang Winarko & A. Abrizah & Muzammil Tahira, 2016. "An assessment of quality, trustworthiness and usability of Indonesian agricultural science journals: stated preference versus revealed preference study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 289-304, July.

    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:jpubli:v:5:y:2017:i:4:p:23-:d:113639. 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.