scholarly journals Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis of “BACA: Jurnal Dokumentasi dan Informasi” Published During 2015-2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-160
Author(s):  
Dwi Ridho Aulianto ◽  
◽  
Wahid Nashihuddin
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
H Index ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Index 2 ◽  
Bibliometric Research ◽  
Number Of Authors

This study aims to know deeply about BACA: Documentation and Information Journal published during 2015-2019. The aspects of the study are the distribution of articles, number of pages, authorship patterns, citation numbers, and form of visualization. This bibliometric research obtained data in http://jurnalbaca.pdii.lipi.go.id, which was then processed and analyzed using Ms. Excel, Publish or Perish (PoP) and VOSviewer application. The study showed that this journal has a frequency of publication 2 times a year (June and December) and has published 71 articles during 2015-2019, with 30 single authors (42.25%) and 41 collaborative authors (57.75). The number of writers who contributed during the period was 146 people both single and collaborative, and in 2019 there were 20 article titles with the largest number of authors 46 people (31.51%). Distribution of articles based on publication numbers during the period, namely issue 1 (June) published as many as 34 articles (47.89%) and issue 2 (December) published as many as 37 articles (52.11%) with a total of 975 pages with an average of 11-15 pages. This journal has 30 citations, an annual citation 6.00, a written citation 0.42, h-index 2, g-index 2, hI, norm 2, and hla 0.40. The strength of the network between the authors and the frequency of collaboration can be seen in VosViewer’s visualization.

A review on h-index and its alternative indices

2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110144
Author(s):  
Anand Bihari ◽  
Sudhakar Tripathi ◽  
Akshay Deepak
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Total Publication ◽  
Index 2 ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Excess Citation ◽  
Number Of Authors

In recent years, several scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators were proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of individuals, institutions, colleges, universities and research teams. The h-index gives a breakthrough in the research community for assessing the scientific impact of an individual. It got a lot of attention due to its simplicity, and several other indicators were proposed to extend the properties of the h-index and to overcome its shortcomings. In this literature review, we have discussed the advantages and limitations of almost all scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators, which have been categorised into seven categories based on their properties: (1) complement of h-index, (2) based on total number of authors, (3) based on publication age, (4) combination of two indices, (5) based on excess citation count, (6) based on total publication count and (7) based on other variants. The primary objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.

The unknown acquaintance, or the impact factor and others

2007 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 165-171
Author(s):  
Anna Berhidi ◽  
Edit Csajbók ◽  
Lívia Vasas
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Index Number ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
H Index ◽  
Master List ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Impact

Nobody doubts the importance of the scientific performance’s evaluation. At the same time its way divides the group of experts. The present study mostly deals with the models of citation-analysis based evaluation. The aim of the authors is to present the background of the best known tool – Impact factor – since, according to the authors’ experience, to the many people use without knowing it well. In addition to the „nonofficial impact factor” and Euro-factor, the most promising index-number, h-index is presented. Finally new initiation – Index Copernicus Master List – is delineated, which is suitable to rank journals. Studying different indexes the authors make a proposal and complete the method of long standing for the evaluation of scientific performance.

scholarly journals Self-Citation Analysis on Google Scholar Dataset for H-Index Corrections

IEEE Access ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 126025-126036
Author(s):  
Fiaz Majeed ◽  
Muhammad Shafiq ◽  
Amjad Ali ◽  
Muhammad Awais Hassan ◽  
Syed Ali Abbas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
H Index

Assessment of research impact through citation analysis: a new approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prem Vrat
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
H Index ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
P Index

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal the limitations of h-index in assessing research performance through citation analysis and suggest two new indexes called prime index (P-index) and value added index (V-index), which are simpler to compute than g-index and more informative. For more serious research performance evaluation, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology is proposed. Design/methodology/approach The methodology adopted is to compare existing indexes for citation-based research assessment and identify their limitations, particularly the h-index, which is most commonly employed. It gives advantages of g-index over h-index and then proposes P-index which is simpler to compute than g-index but is more powerful in information content than g-index. Another V-index is proposed on a similar philosophy as P-index by considering total number of citations/author. For serious evaluation of finite candidates for awards/recognitions, a seven-criteria-based AHP is proposed. All new approaches have been illustrated by drawing raw data from Google scholar-powered website H-POP. Findings This paper demonstrates over-hype about use of h-index over g-index. However, it shows that newly proposed P-index is much simpler in computation than g but better than g-index. V-index is a quick way to ascertain the value added by a research scientist in multiple-authored research papers. P-index gives a value 3–4 percent higher than g and it is holistic index as it uses complete data of citations. AHP is a very powerful multi-criteria approach and it also shows g-index to be a more important factor, whereas h-index is the least important but frequently used approach. It is hoped that the findings of this paper will help in rectifying the misplaced emphasis on h-index alone. Research limitations/implications The research focus has been to suggest new faster, better methods of research assessment. However, a detailed comparison of all existing approaches with the new approaches will call for testing these over a large number of data sets. Its limitation is that it has tested the approaches on 5 academics for illustrating AHP and 20 researchers for comparing new indexes with some of the existing indexes. All existing indexes are also not covered. Practical implications The outcomes of this research may have major practical applications for research assessment of academics/researchers and rectify the imbalance in assessment by reducing over-hype on h-index. For more serious evaluation of research performance of academics, the seven-criteria AHP approach will be more comprehensive and holistic in comparison with a single criterion citation metric. One hopes that the findings of this paper will receive much attention/debate. Social implications Research assessment based on proposed approaches is likely to lead to greater satisfaction among those evaluated and higher confidence in the evaluation criteria. Originality/value P- and V-indexes are original. Application of AHP for multi-criteria assessment of research through citation analysis is also a new idea.

Psychology of the Scientist: LXX. Increase in the Number of Authors per Article in Leading Management Journals: 1967–1992

1995 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 755-760
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Sauers ◽  
Kenneth E. Bass
Keyword(s):  
Reward System ◽  
Harvard Business Review ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Management Journal ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
The Past ◽  
Number Of Authors

The present analysis is of the average number of authors per article in eight leading management journals over the past 25 years. Data were obtained from the journals in 5-yr. increments, beginning in 1967 and ending in 1992. For the selected years the number of authors per article in each issue of the journals was recorded. A significant increase in authors per article was found, with the average number of authors per article increasing by 39.5% from 1.33 in 1967 to 1.86 in 1992. Increases occurred in all journals sampled, but the increase varied by journal. The Harvard Business Review had the smallest increase of 12.3% while the Academy of Management Journal had the largest increase of 70.4%. Possible reasons for the increase in number of authors per article, e.g., pressure to “publish or perish,” relaxed standards of authorship, and greater complexity of research in management, their implications for the academic reward system, and directions for future research are discussed.

scholarly journals fCite: a fractional citation tool to quantify an individual’s scientific research output

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukasz Pawel Kozlowski
Keyword(s):  
Research Output ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
User Profiles ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scientific Research Output ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Multiple Metrics ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Number Of Authors

ABSTRACTHere, I present the fCite web service (fcite.org) a tool for the in-depth analysis of an individual’s scientific research output. While multiple existing tools (e.g., Google Scholar, iCite, Microsoft Academic) focus on the total number of citations and the H-index, I propose the analysis of the research output by considering multiple metrics to provide greater insight into a scientist’s multifaceted profile. The most distinguishing feature of fCite is its ability to calculate fractional scores for most of the metrics currently in use. Thanks to the division of citations (and RCR scores) by the number of authors, the tool provides a more detailed analysis of a scholar’s portfolio. fCite is based on PUBMED data (~18 million publications), and the statistics are calculated with respect to ORCID data (~600,000 user profiles).

scholarly journals Authorship characteristics of retracted COVID-19 articles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafaela Carolina da Silva ◽  
Hadiseh Heidari ◽  
Amanda Mendes da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Past History ◽  
H Index ◽  
History Of ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Number Of Authors

Following the explosion of publications about COVID-19, some of these articles were retracted. These articles are potentially dangerous to public health as they can mislead about the nature of the virus. The growth and sensitive nature of retracted papers led to bibliometrics studies on them, although few, which focused more on the level of documents. This study, instead, examines the characteristics of the authors of these articles. 54 retracted COVID-19 articles that fit our study’s criteria were identified. The results revealed that 32% of these authors were MD, and about one-fifth of them had a past history of publishing retracted articles. The average number of authors per article was 6. Also, according to their profile in the Scopus, the mean number of documents, citations and their H-index were 61, 3159 and 12, respectively. Women also appeared in one-third of the articles as first and last authors. Continued research about retracted COVID-19 articles can continue to help prevent the further dissemination of questionable research findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document