IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i8d10.1007_s11192-021-04061-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?

Author

Listed:
  • Gregorio González-Alcaide

    (University of Valencia)

Abstract

Bibliometrics, and more generally all metric indicators, are increasingly used as research tools as well as for managing and evaluating research activities. This study analyzes the characteristics of publications that use bibliometrics as a research method. We identified all relevant records indexed in the Web of Science-Core Collection (1965–2019), generating a coauthorship network and performing a comparative analysis of papers published in journals specializing in Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) and in other areas of knowledge. Metric studies show an “uncontainable” pattern of dynamic development, with the number of papers published in the past 15 years multiplying 12-fold and spreading to all areas of knowledge. This growth has evaded the discipline’s natural mechanisms of control, taking place outside the traditional niche of bibliometric studies as an autonomous and “uncontrollable” process that disregards the knowledge generated within the main theoretical frameworks linked to IS&LS. Different research groups are widely dispersed and atomized, and there are few collaboration and citation ties between IS&LS and non-IS&LS bibliometric research. Our results should spark reflection on the need to strengthen the teaching of bibliometrics and other metrics for use as research tools, to demand rigorous and critical review prior to the acceptance and publication of this type of study, and to foster links and cohesion of the extended research community operating in the area.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregorio González-Alcaide, 2021. "Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6837-6870, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04061-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04061-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04061-3
    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/s11192-021-04061-3?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. Gregorio González-Alcaide & Héctor Pinargote & José M. Ramos, 2020. "From cut-points to key players in co-authorship networks: a case study in ventilator-associated pneumonia research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 707-733, May.
    2. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 830-840.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2018. "The effect of multidisciplinary collaborations on research diversification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 423-433, July.
    4. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 596-596.
    5. Peng Liu & Haoxiang Xia, 2015. "Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 101-134, April.
    6. Ronald Rousseau, 2002. "Lack of standardisation in informetric research. Comments on “Power laws of research output. Evidence for journals of economics” by Matthias Sutter and Martin G. Kocher," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(2), pages 317-327, August.
    7. Sameer Kumar & Bernd Markscheffel, 2016. "Bonded-communities in HantaVirus research: a research collaboration network (RCN) analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 533-550, October.
    8. Ismael Rafols & Martin Meyer, 2010. "Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 263-287, February.
    9. William W. Hood & Concepción S. Wilson, 2001. "The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(2), pages 291-314, October.
    10. Miloš Savić & Mirjana Ivanović & Miloš Radovanović & Zoran Ognjanović & Aleksandar Pejović & Tatjana Jakšić Krüger, 2014. "The structure and evolution of scientific collaboration in Serbian mathematical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1805-1830, December.
    11. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    12. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    13. Bettencourt, Luís M.A. & Kaiser, David I. & Kaur, Jasleen, 2009. "Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 210-221.
    14. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2018. "Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 598-604.
    15. András Schubert, 2002. "The Web of Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(1), pages 3-20, January.
    16. Swapan Kumar Patra & Saroj Mishra, 2006. "Bibliometric study of bioinformatics literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 477-489, June.
    17. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2011. "National research assessment exercises: the effects of changing the rules of the game during the game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 229-238, July.
    18. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    21. 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.
    22. Mengyu Yu & Mazie Krehbiel & Samantha Thompson & Tatjana Miljkovic, 2020. "An exploration of gender gap using advanced data science tools: actuarial research community," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 767-789, May.
    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. Yves Fassin, 2024. "Research on bibliometrics and the World’s leading universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6693-6718, November.
    2. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    3. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    4. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    5. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    6. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    7. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Orduña-Malea, Enrique & Delgado-Vázquez, Ángel & Gorraiz, Juan & Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, 2024. "Foundations of Narrative Bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2019. "Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 419-459, August.
    9. Rousseau, Ronald & Hu, Xiaojun, 2013. "Two time series, their meaning and some applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 603-610.
    10. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    11. Xin Liu & Yi Bu & Ming Li & Jiang Li, 2024. "Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(1), pages 59-78, January.
    12. İsmail Dönmez, 2024. "Sustainability in Educational Research: Mapping the Field with a Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Zhichao Ba & Yujie Cao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2019. "A hierarchical approach to analyzing knowledge integration between two fields—a case study on medical informatics and computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1455-1486, June.
    14. Kameliya Deyanova & Nataliia Brehmer & Artur Lapidus & Victor Tiberius & Steve Walsh, 2022. "Hatching start-ups for sustainable growth: a bibliometric review on business incubators," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(7), pages 2083-2109, October.
    15. S. Lacárcel, Francisco Javier & González-Padilla, P. & Matos, Nelson & B. Correia, Marisol, 2024. "Bibliometric measurement of the resource curse and its implication for sustainable development," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2017. "Skewness of citation impact data and covariates of citation distributions: A large-scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 164-175.
    17. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2020. "Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    18. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    19. Thomas C. Erren & J. Valérie Groß, 2016. "Research metrics: What about weighted citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 315-316, April.
    20. Benedetto Lepori & Aldo Geuna & Antonietta Mira, 2019. "Scientific output scales with resources. A comparison of US and European universities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.

    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:126:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04061-3. 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.