IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v94y2013i1d10.1007_s11192-012-0704-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Twenty-five years of Australian nursing and allied health professional journals: bibliometric analysis from 1985 through 2010

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Wiles

    (University of South Australia)

  • Timothy Olds

    (University of South Australia
    University of South Australia)

  • Marie Williams

    (University of South Australia
    University of South Australia)

Abstract

The generation of research involves producers (study authors and funders), products (studies and arising publications) and consumption (measured through readership and citation). Bibliometric analyses of research producers, products and consumption over time can be used to describe the evolution of health professions as captured in professional journal publications. Numerous bibliometric studies have been conducted however few have sampled nursing and allied health professional journals. This is despite a growing health workforce and socioeconomic pressures. The aim of this study was to use bibliometric analyses to track change in the producers, products and consumption of seven Australian nursing and allied health professional journals from 1985 through 2010. An analysis of all original research articles published in these journals was performed using a reliable bibliometric audit tool. Articles were sampled every 3 months and at 5 year intervals over a 25 year period. Information relating to authorship, the research methods used and citation patterns was collected. Data were analysed descriptively. Over the study period, all journals shifted towards publishing research that used higher study designs, reported more quantitative data, and were authored by larger research teams. The rate at which this transition occurred (greater evidence base, quantitation and collaboration) differed among the journals sampled. The changes seen in the research published in these journals are likely to be a function of the strategic purpose of each publication (to its professional readership) as well as reflect wider socioeconomic phenomena. Therefore these trends are likely to continue in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0704-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0704-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0704-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/s11192-012-0704-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. Sei‐Ching Joanna Sin, 2011. "International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(9), pages 1770-1783, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, 2011. "International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(9), pages 1770-1783, September.
    6. Jonathan Adams, 2005. "Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(3), pages 567-581, June.
    7. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    8. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    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. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    2. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    3. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predictive power of conference-related factors on citation rates of conference papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 281-304, January.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    5. Yue Guiling & Siti Aisyah Panatik & Mohammad Saipol Mohd Sukor & Noraini Rusbadrol & Li Cunlin, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Organizational Citizenship Behavior From 2000 to 2019," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, February.
    6. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2017. "Do types of collaboration change citation? A scientometric analysis of social science publications in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 379-400, April.
    7. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.
    8. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    9. Lawson, Cornelia & Soós,Sándor, 2014. "A Thematic Mobility Measure for Econometric Analysis," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201408, University of Turin.
    10. Tian Yu & Guang Yu & Peng-Yu Li & Liang Wang, 2014. "Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1233-1252, November.
    11. Shiji Chen & Yanhui Song & Fei Shu & Vincent Larivière, 2022. "Interdisciplinarity and impact: the effects of the citation time window," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2621-2642, May.
    12. A. Velez-Estevez & P. García-Sánchez & J. A. Moral-Munoz & M. J. Cobo, 2022. "Why do papers from international collaborations get more citations? A bibliometric analysis of Library and Information Science papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7517-7555, December.
    13. Chakresh Kumar Singh & Demival Vasques Filho & Shivakumar Jolad & Dion R. J. O’Neale, 2020. "Evolution of interdependent co-authorship and citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 385-404, October.
    14. João Paulo Coelho Ribeiro & Fábio Duarte & Ana Paula Matias Gama, 2022. "Does microfinance foster the development of its clients? A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-35, December.
    15. Guillaume Cabanac, 2012. "Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(5), pages 977-996, May.
    16. Guillaume Cabanac, 2012. "Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(5), pages 977-996, May.
    17. Lyu, Haihua & Bu, Yi & Zhao, Zhenyue & Zhang, Jiarong & Li, Jiang, 2022. "Citation bias in measuring knowledge flow: Evidence from the web of science at the discipline level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    18. Martorell Cunil, Onofre & Otero González, Luis & Durán Santomil, Pablo & Mulet Forteza, Carlos, 2023. "How to accomplish a highly cited paper in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    19. Maksym Polyakov & Serhiy Polyakov & Md Sayed Iftekhar, 2017. "Does academic collaboration equally benefit impact of research across topics? The case of agricultural, resource, environmental and ecological economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1385-1405, December.
    20. 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.

    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:94:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0704-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.