IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v85y2010i1d10.1007_s11192-010-0163-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence base, quantitation and collaboration: three novel indices for bibliometric content analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Wiles

    (University of South Australia)

  • Timothy Olds

    (University of South Australia)

  • Marie Williams

    (University of South Australia)

Abstract

Bibliometric measurements, though controversial, are useful in providing measures of research performance in a climate of research competition and marketisation. Numerous bibliometric studies have been performed which rely on traditional indices (such as the journal impact factor and citation index) and provide little descriptive data regarding the actual characteristics of research. The purpose of this study was two-fold, to develop three novel bibliometric indices, designed to describe the characteristics of research (relating to evidence base, quantitation and collaboration), and to apply them in a cross-sectional audit of original research articles published in Australian professional association journals across medicine, nursing and allied health in 2007. Results revealed considerable variation in bibliometric indices across these journals. There were emerging clusters of journals that published collaborative research using higher levels of evidence and reported quantitative data, with others featuring articles using lower levels of evidence, fewer quantitative data and less collaboration among authors.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Wiles & Timothy Olds & Marie Williams, 2010. "Evidence base, quantitation and collaboration: three novel indices for bibliometric content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 317-328, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:85:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0163-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0163-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0163-2
    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/s11192-010-0163-2?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. Rafael Ball & Bernhard Mittermaier & Dirk Tunger, 2009. "Creation of journal-based publication profiles of scientific institutions — A methodology for the interdisciplinary comparison of scientific research based on the J-factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 381-392, November.
    2. José María Gómez-Sancho & María Jesús Mancebón-Torrubia, 2009. "The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 435-458, November.
    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. Gohar Feroz Khan & Junghoon Moon & Han Woo Park, 2011. "Network of the core: mapping and visualizing the core of scientific domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 759-779, December.
    2. Louise Wiles & Timothy Olds & Marie Williams, 2013. "Twenty-five years of Australian nursing and allied health professional journals: bibliometric analysis from 1985 through 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 359-378, January.
    3. Derek R. Smith, 2012. "Impact factors, scientometrics and the history of citation-based research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 419-427, August.

    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. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2011. "Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 189-204, April.
    2. Maarten Wesel & Sally Wyatt & Jeroen Haaf, 2014. "What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1601-1615, March.
    3. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2011. "Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 360-368.
    4. Marcel Clermont & Alexander Dirksen & Barbara Scheidt & Dirk Tunger, 2017. "Citation metrics as an additional indicator for evaluating research performance? An analysis of their correlations and validity," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 10(2), pages 249-279, October.
    5. Marcel Clermont & Julia Schaefer, 2019. "Identification of Outliers in Data Envelopment Analysis," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 71(4), pages 475-496, October.
    6. Vladimir Pislyakov & Ekaterina Dyachenko, 2010. "Citation expectations: are they realized? Study of the Matthew index for Russian papers published abroad," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 739-749, June.
    7. Marcel Clermont & Johanna Krolak & Dirk Tunger, 2021. "Does the citation period have any effect on the informative value of selected citation indicators in research evaluations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1019-1047, February.
    8. Hyeonchae Yang & Woo-Sung Jung, 2015. "A strategic management approach for Korean public research institutes based on bibliometric investigation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1437-1464, July.
    9. Colliander, Cristian & Ahlgren, Per, 2011. "The effects and their stability of field normalization baseline on relative performance with respect to citation impact: A case study of 20 natural science departments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 101-113.
    10. David Gunnarsson Lorentzen, 2014. "Webometrics benefitting from web mining? An investigation of methods and applications of two research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 409-445, May.
    11. Heinz Ahn & Marcel Clermont & Julia Langner, 2022. "The impact of selected input and output factors on measuring research efficiency of university research fields: insights from a purpose-, field-, and method-specific perspective," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(8), pages 1303-1335, 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:85:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0163-2. 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.