Research impact of general and funded papers

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng-Che Shen ◽  
Ya-Han Hu ◽  
Wei-Chao Lin ◽  
Chih-Fong Tsai ◽  
Shih-Wen Ke
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Highly Cited

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on examining the research impact of papers written with and without funding. Specifically, the citation analysis method is used to compare the general and funded papers published in two leading international conferences, which are ACM SIGIR and ACM SIGKDD. Design/methodology/approach – The authors investigate the number of general and funded papers to see whether the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. In addition, the total citations and the number of highly cited papers with and without funding are also compared. Findings – The analysis results of ACM SIGIR papers show that in most cases the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. Moreover, the total captions, the average number of citations per paper, and the number of highly cited papers all reveal the superiority of funded papers over general papers. However, the findings are somewhat different for the ACM SIGKDD papers. This may be because ACM SIGIR began much earlier than ACM SIGKDD, which relates to the maturity of the research problems addressed in these two conferences. Originality/value – The value of this paper is the first attempt at examining the research impact of general and funded research papers by the citation analysis method. The research impact of other research areas can be further investigated by other analysis methods.

Citation impact analysis of research papers that appear in oral and poster sessions

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 738-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Wen Ke ◽  
Wei-Chao Lin ◽  
Chih-Fong Tsai ◽  
Ya-Han Hu
Keyword(s):  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Poster Sessions ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Highly Cited

Purpose – Conference publications are an important aspect of research activities. There are generally both oral presentations and poster sessions at large international conferences. One can hypothesise that, for the same conferences, the papers presented in oral sessions should have a higher research impact than the papers presented in poster sessions. However, there has been no related study examining the validity of this hypothesis. In other words, the difference of research impact between papers presented orally or during poster sessions has not been discussed in literature. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to conduct a citation analysis to compare the research impact of papers presented in oral and poster sessions. Design/methodology/approach – In this paper, data from three leading conferences in the field of computer vision are examined, namely CVPR (2011 and 2012), ICCV (2011) and ECCV (2012). Several types of citation-related statistics are collected, including the number of highly cited papers (i.e. high number of citations) presented in oral and poster sessions, the total citations of both types of papers, the average citations of oral and poster papers, and the average citations of each frequently cited paper of both types. Findings – There are three main findings. First, a larger proportion of highly cited papers are from oral sessions than poster sessions. Second, the average number of citations per paper is larger for those presented in oral sessions than poster sessions. Third, the average number of citations for highly cited papers presented in oral sessions is not necessarily greater than for the ones presented in poster sessions. Originality/value – The originality of this paper is that it is the first attempt to examine the differences of citation impacts of conference papers presented in oral and poster sessions. The findings of this study will allow future bibliometrics research to further explore this related issue for longer periods and different fields.

scholarly journals A citation analysis of the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre

2001 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Redman ◽  
Peter Willett ◽  
Frank H. Allen ◽  
Robin Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Crystallographic Data ◽  
Cambridge Structural Database ◽  
Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Data Centre ◽  
Structural Database ◽  
Highly Cited

Citation analysis has been widely used to quantify the influence of research articles on the development of science. This paper reports a citation analysis of ten highly cited papers associated with the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC), covering the variation of citation with time, the journals in which citations occur, and the types of organization and the geographic regions that use the Cambridge Structural Database. The ten most highly cited papers, comprising four database descriptions (CSD), two geometrical tabulations (TAB) and four basic research papers (RES), received a total of 8494 citations over the period 1981–1998, with more than half of these citations occurring in the literature published from 1995 onwards. The high citation rates of the database descriptions (3573 of 8494) indicate the value of crystallographic data. However, the large number of citations of the geometrical tables (3172) and the research papers (1767) indicate that this value resides not just in the raw data held in the Cambridge Structural Database, but also in the structural knowledge that can be derived from it. In the most recent years covered by the analysis (1995–1998), these ten CCDC publications have received more than 1000 citations per annum (CSD 507, TAB 398 and RES 153 citations per annum) and the detailed analysis shows that these papers, and the data that they discuss, are used not only by crystallographers but also by researchers across the entire range of the chemical sciences.

A bibliometric analysis of mobile learning in the education sector

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farheen Mujeeb Khan ◽  
Yuvika Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Mobile Learning ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Model Learning ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Effective Learning ◽  
The Past ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Learning Research ◽  
Number Of Citations

Purpose This study aims to contribute to literature on mobile learning (m-learning) by proposing four research clusters whereby scholars can expand m-learning research to facilitate effective learning experiences for students. Design/methodology/approach This study reviews student-centric literature on m-learning since 2010 and presents insights on m-learning while applying well-established bibliometric techniques. Consequently, 722 articles published in the past decade were evaluated by identifying key research areas, most influential authors, countries, journals and organisations. Most influential studies based on number of citations were also examined. Findings Through article co-citation analysis, four clusters representing m-learning literature were identified: concept of m-learning, application of m-learning in education, designing framework for model learning/acceptance and emerging technologies. Originality/value As mobile learning (m-learning) has undergone an evolution from being an emerging field to a significant teaching and research tool, it is pertinent to explore and identify the trends of m-learning research.

scholarly journals Energy Storage Ceramics: A Bibliometric Review of Literature

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (13) ◽  
pp. 3605
Author(s):  
Haiyan Hu ◽  
Aiping Liu ◽  
Yuehua Wan ◽  
Yuan Jing
Keyword(s):  
Energy Storage ◽  
Materials Science ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Productive Author ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Bibliometric Review ◽  
Leading Position ◽  
Highly Cited

Energy storage ceramics is among the most discussed topics in the field of energy research. A bibliometric analysis was carried out to evaluate energy storage ceramic publications between 2000 and 2020, based on the Web of Science (WOS) databases. This paper presents a detailed overview of energy storage ceramics research from aspects of document types, paper citations, h-indices, publish time, publications, institutions, countries/regions, research areas, highly cited papers, and keywords. A total of 3177 publications were identified after retrieval in WOS. The results show that China takes the leading position in this research field, followed by the USA and India. Xi An Jiao Tong Univ has the most publications, with the highest h-index. J.W. Zhai is the most productive author in energy storage ceramics research. Ceramics International, Journal of Materials Science-Materials in Electronics, and the Journal of Alloys and Compounds are the most productive journals in this field, and materials science—multidisciplinary is the most frequently used subject category. Keywords, highly cited papers, and the analysis of popular papers indicate that, in recent years, lead-free ceramics are prevalent, and researchers focus on fields such as the microstructure, thin films, and phase transition of ceramics.

Bibliometric Study on the Highly Cited Papers and Correlation Between Citation Frequency and Download Frequency in Chinese Medicine Journals

2021 ◽  
pp. 2153004
Author(s):  
Qinghui Qu ◽  
Xinyang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Academic Quality ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Natural Medicine ◽  
Citation Frequency ◽  
Highly Cited

The purpose of this paper is to retrieve and study the highly cited papers as well as the correlation between the citation frequency and the download frequency of the 20 traditional Chinese medicine journals in China, in order to provide the guidance for improving the influence and academic quality of these journals. Bibliometric analyses were conducted on 1103 papers of 20 traditional Chinese medicine journals from 2011 to 2020 by retrieving for the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (CAJD) in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). SPSS 17.0 software was used to analyze the correlation between the citation frequency and the download frequency via conducting regression fitting and establishing the mathematical models. The results showed that the total citations of the 1103 papers were 93051 times and the average citations were 84.36 times per paper. The total downloads of the 1103 papers were 2058442 times, and the average downloads were 1866.22 times per paper. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica ranked first according to the number of papers, total citations and total downloads. The citations of Journal of Chinese Medicinal Materials ranked first based on the number of citations per paper. One of Li’s paper had been cited the most (983 times). There were 629 (57.03%) papers whose first author was from universities. The scopes of the first authors were distributed in 29 regions and 2 special administrative regions (Macao, Hong Kong) in China. The authors from Beijing published 283 (25.66%) papers, ranking number one. The number of papers supported by funds was 882 (79.96%). The research results of correlation showed that the citation frequency and the download frequency of the highly cited papers had a highly positive correlation from both journal and paper level for whether the sample data of journals was normally distributed or nonnormally distributed. The correlation coefficients of the 20 journals at journal level and that at paper level were 0.9765 and 0.6677, respectively. The correlation was better at journal level than that at paper level, while the optimal regression fitting was all cubic polynomial. Among the 1103 papers, there were 684 (62.01%) research papers and 419 (37.99%) review papers. The main citation period of the top 15 papers was from the 2nd year to the 6th year after publication, accounting for 78.39%. Papers on clinical therapeutics research, papers on the pharmacological effects and its mechanism of traditional Chinese medicine, and papers on traditional Chinese medicine and natural medicine were the main source of the highly cited papers of the traditional Chinese medicine journals. Editors of the journals should focus on the above-mentioned research areas to select manuscripts for exploiting the excellent sources extensively, while paying attention to review papers, focusing on national major or key projects, paying attention to network spreading, stabilizing authors with quality services, in order to improve the influence and the academic quality of journals.

The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations)

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 674-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Luis Ortega
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Twitter Account ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Plum Analytics

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student’s t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Citations, Open Access and University Rankings

2017 ◽  
pp. 129-139
Author(s):  
Clive Baldock
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Highly Cited

The citation impact of research articles contributes to the assessment of the research performance of universities in some international university ranking systems either as the number of citations per paper, number of citations per faculty, total number of citations, number of highly cited papers or percentage of highly cited papers. Publishing research articles in Open Access (OA) journals has the potential for increasing the citation impact of research articles and in so doing improve an institutions position in university rankings. This chapter reviews the evidence for an increase in citations through publishing in Open Access publications.

An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1039-1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Chapman ◽  
Alexander E. Ellinger
Keyword(s):  
Operations Management ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
English Language Journal ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Number Of Citations

Purpose Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from. Design/methodology/approach In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies. Findings The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed. Practical implications The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued. Originality/value Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.

Liquidity of financial markets: a review

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhinava Tripathi ◽  
Alok Dixit ◽  
Vipul Vipul
Keyword(s):  
Emerging Markets ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Return Predictability ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Comprehensive Collection ◽  
Depth Analysis

Purpose The purpose of this study is to systematically review and analyze the literature in the area of liquidity of financial markets. The study summarizes the key findings and approaches and highlights the research gaps in the extant literature. Design/methodology/approach A variety of reputed databases are utilized to select 100 research papers, from a large pool of nearly 3,000 research papers spanning between 1972 and 2018 using systematic literature review methodology. The selected research papers are organized to provide an in-depth analysis and an account of the ongoing research in the area of liquidity. The study uses bibliometric network visualization and word-cloud analyses to compile and analyze the literature. Findings The study summarizes the recent approaches in the liquidity research on aspects such as methodologies followed, variables applied, sub-areas covered, and the types of economies and markets covered. The article shows that the literature on liquidity in the emerging markets (e.g. China and India) is deficient. Overall, the following research areas related to liquidity need further exploration in the context of emerging markets: liquidity beyond the best bid-ask quotes, intraday return predictability using microstructure variables (e.g. order imbalances), impact of algorithmic-trading and volatility of liquidity. Originality/value To the best of authors’ knowledge, in the recent past, a detailed account of the literature on liquidity has not been published. It provides a comprehensive collection and classification of the literature on the liquidity of financial markets. This would be helpful to the future researchers, academics and practitioners in the area of financial markets.

scholarly journals 2251 Assessing research impact: It takes a team

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Ashley Dunn ◽  
Michelle B. Bass
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluations

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Dissemination of research findings through the published literature is a complex but critical part of the scholarly communication process. Additionally, this time point on the translational spectrum is a key objective of the National Clinical Association for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). Tracking the dissemination of research outputs can be difficult to identify and evaluate. The purpose of this case study was 2-fold: (1) identify tools and resources available freely to the public and through university subscriptions used to assess research output; and (2) compare the effectiveness of these tools oat tracking output at different levels of granularity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The authors, Spectrum staff (D.A.) and School of Medicine librarian (M.B.), attended webinars hosted by other Academic Medical Center libraries conducting work on impact tracking and learned from vendor product managers about available tools and resources during on-site campus visits. Publications from Stanford’s Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) were used to track the diffusion of research outputs (e.g., number of citations, document types, research areas, relative citation ratio, CTSAs collaboration) via library subscription services (e.g., Web of Science and Scopus) and freely available tools (e.g., iCite and PubMed). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The authors found certain tools were more inclusive in retrieving grant funded research outputs. For example, in the case of UL1 grant (UL1TR001085, UL1TR000093, UL1RR025744), on a grant-level output, there were discrepancies in the number of publications retrieved: (1) PubMed found 644 outputs; (2) Web of Science found 497 outputs; and (3) Scopus found 190 outputs. After de-duplication, the search across Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and PubMed yielded 899 publications. In total, 389 outputs were unique to PubMed; 165 were unique to WoS; and 90 were unique to Scopus. Future analysis will be conducted to identify the source of unique outputs from each database (e.g., conference proceeding, specific journals). Additional analysis based on other units of research outputs (e.g., author-level outputs and article-level outputs) are expected to yield similar discrepancies. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Citation analysis is a valuable method of assessing research output and, to a larger extent, research impact in a given field. It can help investigators illustrate qualifications for undertaking new projects, highlight collaborations across schools and departments, justify a grant renewal, and/or highlight accomplishments for promotion. However, systematic and comprehensive evaluations are needed in tandem with citation analysis/bibliometric analysis to assess the translation and uptake of research outputs and activities that result in research impact. Furthermore, both investigators and staff need adequate time and training to process research outputs/activities and to effectively organize them in easily understood visualizations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document