IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v71y2007i2d10.1007_s11192-007-1667-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Categorization and trend of materials science research from Science Citation Index (SCI) database: A case study of ceramics, metallurgy, and polymer subfields

Author

Listed:
  • N. Sombatsompop

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • T. Markpin

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • T. Buranathiti

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • P. Ratchatahirun

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • T. Metheenukul

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • N. Premkamolnetr

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

  • W. Yochai

    (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT))

Abstract

This article offers information on the characteristics and number of materials research articles indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) database in the year of 2004. 22,843 articles in full-text forms from 169 journals from the materials field (which included ceramics, metallurgy, and polymer journals) were retrieved from the SCI database and exported to EndNote software. The retrieved articles were carefully analyzed by eight scientists and experts in those subfields and categorized using SPSS into eight different categories, being (1) New materials, (2) Materials characterizations, (3) Materials improvement, (4) New process and/or process improvement, (5) Mathematical and theoretical models and/or computer simulations, (6) Novel and comprehensive explanations, (7) Testing conditions, and (8) Comparative studies, whose definitions were clearly indicated. The results were then considered in terms of the percentage of the number of articles in each materials subfield, country of corresponding author, and number of authors. The overall results suggested that, most materials articles published in 2004 were focused on new process and process improvement (27%), while materials characterizations (23%) and testing conditions (12%) took the 2nd and 3rd places, especially for the ceramics and polymer articles. The highest numbers of articles in the ceramics and polymer subfields were focused on new processes and/or process improvement, and those for the metallurgy subfield were on materials characterization. In the SCI database, the largest number of materials articles was authored from Asian scientists although the majority of the materials journals were run by editors from Europe in North America/Canada continents. There was no coherent relationship between the authors’ and editors’ affiliations. China, Japan and the United States of America (USA) were shown to be the top three countries which had the highest publication numbers in the materials field. Japan had the highest publication numbers in the ceramics subfield while China possessed most publications in polymer and metallurgy subfields. However, when considering the journal impact factors, the leading positions of the countries changed. The results from this work could assist materials scientists to select suitable international journals in relevant association with the contents of their to-publish works. Finally, it was noted that most material research articles were written by 3–4 authorships.

Suggested Citation

  • N. Sombatsompop & T. Markpin & T. Buranathiti & P. Ratchatahirun & T. Metheenukul & N. Premkamolnetr & W. Yochai, 2007. "Categorization and trend of materials science research from Science Citation Index (SCI) database: A case study of ceramics, metallurgy, and polymer subfields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(2), pages 283-302, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:71:y:2007:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1667-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1667-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-007-1667-2
    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/s11192-007-1667-2?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. N. Sombatsompop & T. Markpin & W. Yochai & M. Saechiew, 2005. "An evaluation of research performance for different subject categories using Impact Factor Point Average (IFPA) index: Thailand case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(3), pages 293-305, December.
    2. Narongrit Sombatsompop & Apisit Kositchaiyong & Teerasak Markpin & Sekson Inrit, 2006. "Scientific evaluations of citation quality of international research articles in the SCI database: Thailand case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(3), pages 521-535, March.
    3. Narongrit Sombatsompop & Teerasak Markpin, 2005. "Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(7), pages 676-683, May.
    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. Kostoff, Ronald N., 2008. "Comparison of China/USA science and technology performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 354-363.
    2. T. Buranathiti & N. Premkamolnetr & T. Markpin & P. Ratchatahirun & W. Yochai & N. Sombatsompop, 2009. "Redistributed random sampling method for categorizing materials research publications from SCI database: Metallurgy and polymer subfields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 13-21, January.

    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. Teresa H. Jones & Claire Donovan & Steve Hanney, 2012. "Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: a literature search to develop a novel citation categorisation technique," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 125-134, October.
    2. Yutao Sun & Seamus Grimes, 2016. "The emerging dynamic structure of national innovation studies: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 17-40, January.
    3. Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2010. "The iceberg hypothesis revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 443-461, November.
    4. Anthipi Pouris & Anastassios Pouris, 2011. "Scientometrics of a pandemic: HIV/AIDS research in South Africa and the World," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 541-552, February.
    5. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    6. Jing Li & Qiushuang Long & Xiaoli Lu & Dengsheng Wu, 2023. "Citation beneficiaries of discipline-specific mega-journals: who and how much," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Mingyang Wang & Jiaqi Zhang & Shijia Jiao & Xiangrong Zhang & Na Zhu & Guangsheng Chen, 2020. "Important citation identification by exploiting the syntactic and contextual information of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2109-2129, December.
    8. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2014. "The effect of citations on the significance of decimal places in the computation of journal impact factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 289-298, May.
    9. Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    10. Tingcan Ma & Gui-Fang Wang & Ke Dong & Mukun Cao, 2012. "The Journal’s Integrated Impact Index: a new indicator for journal evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 649-658, February.
    11. Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Felipe Zapico-Alonso & María Eugenia Espinosa-Calvo & Rocío Gómez-Crisóstomo & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2007. "Import-export of knowledge between scientific subject categories: The iceberg hypothesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(3), pages 423-441, June.
    12. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    13. Gohar Feroz Khan & Junghoon Moon & Han Woo Park & Bobby Swar & Jae Jeung Rho, 2011. "A socio-technical perspective on e-government issues in developing countries: a scientometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 267-286, May.
    14. Ling Zhang & Huan Zhao & Qiushi Li & Juan Wang & Xin Tan, 2010. "Establishment of paper assessment system based on academic disciplinary benchmarks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 421-429, August.
    15. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    16. P. Dorta-González & M. I. Dorta-González, 2013. "Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 645-672, May.
    17. Tolga Yuret, 2018. "Author-weighted impact factor and reference return ratio: can we attain more equality among fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2097-2111, September.
    18. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    19. Anastassios Pouris, 2007. "Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 541-553, March.
    20. Chen, Kuan-Ming & Jen, Tsung-Hau & Wu, Margaret, 2014. "Estimating the accuracies of journal impact factor through bootstrap," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 181-196.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:71:y:2007:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-007-1667-2. 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.