IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v107y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-016-1864-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the bibliometric coordinates of four different research fields in Geography

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Gorraiz

    (University of Vienna)

  • Christian Gumpenberger

    (University of Vienna)

  • Thomas Glade

    (University of Vienna)

Abstract

This study is a bibliometric analysis of the highly complex research discipline Geography. In order to identify the most popular and most cited publication channels, to reveal publication strategies, and to analyse the discipline’s coverage within publications, the three main data sources for citation analyses, namely Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, have been utilized. This study is based on publication data collected for four individual evaluation exercises performed at the University of Vienna and related to four different subfields: Geoecology, Social and Economic Geography, Demography and Population Geography, and Economic Geography. The results show very heterogeneous and individual publication strategies, even in the same research fields. Monographs, journal articles and book chapters are the most cited document types. Differences between research fields more related to the natural sciences than to the social sciences are clearly visible, but less considerable when taking into account the higher number of co-authors. General publication strategies seem to be established for both natural science and social sciences, however, with significant differences. While in natural science mainly publications in international peer-reviewed scientific journals matter, the focus in social sciences is rather on book chapters, reports and monographs. Although an “iceberg citation model” is suggested, citation analyses for monographs, book chapters and reports should be conducted separately and should include complementary data sources, such as Google Scholar, in order to enhance the coverage and to improve the quality of the visibility and impact analyses. This is particularly important for social sciences related research within Geography.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Thomas Glade, 2016. "On the bibliometric coordinates of four different research fields in Geography," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 873-897, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:107:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1864-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1864-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-1864-y
    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/s11192-016-1864-y?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. Emilio Delgado López-Cózar & Nicolás Robinson-García & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2014. "The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(3), pages 446-454, March.
    2. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    3. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    4. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2009. "Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1537-1549, August.
    5. Truyken L. B. Ossenblok & Tim C. E. Engels & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2012. "The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science--a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005--9)," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 280-290, September.
    6. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    7. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.
    8. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Christian Schlögl, 2014. "Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1077-1095, November.
    9. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    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. Csomós, György, 2020. "Introducing recalibrated academic performance indicators in the evaluation of individuals’ research performance: A case study from Eastern Europe," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    2. Miguel Atienza & Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo & Nicholas Phelps, 2019. "Bridges over troubled water? Journals, geographers and economists in the field of economy and space 1980–2017," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 51(8), pages 1800-1823, November.
    3. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    4. Martin Wieland & Juan Gorraiz, 2020. "The rivalry between Bernini and Borromini from a scientometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1643-1663, November.
    5. Lourdes Diaz Olvera & Didier Plat & Pascal Pochet, 2020. "Looking for the obvious: motorcycle taxi services in Sub-Saharan African cities," Post-Print halshs-02182855, HAL.
    6. Camil Demetrescu & Irene Finocchi & Andrea Ribichini & Marco Schaerf, 2020. "On bibliometrics in academic promotions: a case study in computer science and engineering in Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2207-2228, September.
    7. Diaz Olvera, Lourdes & Plat, Didier & Pochet, Pascal, 2020. "Looking for the obvious: Motorcycle taxi services in Sub-Saharan African cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    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. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    3. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    4. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    5. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    6. Mingkun Wei & Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, 2020. "Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2401-2420, December.
    7. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    8. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2014. "No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 276-283.
    9. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan & Silvio Peroni & Chao Che, 2020. "Nine million book items and eleven million citations: a study of book-based scholarly communication using OpenCitations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1097-1112, February.
    10. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    11. Pei-Shan Chi, 2014. "Which role do non-source items play in the social sciences? A case study in political science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1195-1213, November.
    12. Milojević, Staša & Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Larivière, Vincent & Thelwall, Mike & Ding, Ying, 2014. "The role of handbooks in knowledge creation and diffusion: A case of science and technology studies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 693-709.
    13. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    14. Truyken L. B. Ossenblok & Tim C. E. Engels, 2015. "Edited books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and collaboration analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 219-237, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Anabel Fernández-Mesa & Nicolás Robinson-García, 2020. "‘Getting out of the closet’: scientific authorship of literary fiction and knowledge transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 56-85, February.
    17. Frederik T. Verleysen & Truyken L. B. Ossenblok, 2017. "Profiles of monograph authors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of productivity, career stage, co-authorship, disciplinary affiliation and gender, based on a regional bibliographic da," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1673-1686, June.
    18. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike & Rezaie, Somayeh, 2010. "Using the Web for research evaluation: The Integrated Online Impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 124-135.
    19. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    20. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Peter Ingwersen & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Frederik T. Verleysen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2016. "Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 685-699, May.

    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:107:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1864-y. 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.