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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. András Schubert, 2002. "The Web of Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(1), pages 3-20, January.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Swapan Kumar Patra & Saroj Mishra, 2006. "Bibliometric study of bioinformatics literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 477-489, June.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    5. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Rousseau, Ronald & Hu, Xiaojun, 2013. "Two time series, their meaning and some applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 603-610.
    8. 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.
    9. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    10. Carlos B. Amat & François Perruchas, 2016. "Evolving cohesion metrics of a research network on rare diseases: a longitudinal study over 14 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 41-56, July.
    11. İsmail Dönmez, 2024. "Sustainability in Educational Research: Mapping the Field with a Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-16, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Luis Miguel Pérez & Raul Oltra-Badenes & Juan Vicente Oltra Gutiérrez & Hermenegildo Gil-Gómez, 2020. "A Bibliometric Diagnosis and Analysis about Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-43, August.
    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. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2024. "Opium in science and society: numbers and other quantifications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5313-5346, September.
    19. Elaine Aparecida Regiani Campos & Regina Negri Pagani & Luis Mauricio Resende & Joseane Pontes, 2018. "Construction and qualitative assessment of a bibliographic portfolio using the methodology Methodi Ordinatio," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 815-842, August.
    20. 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).

    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.