scholarly journals Studies on Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time of Publications Productivity of Nuclear Medicine Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 198-211
Author(s):  
N. Rathika ◽  
S. Thanuskodi
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Computational Techniques ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Authorship Pattern ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Relative Growth ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Research Collaborations

Scientometrics is a branch of the library and information science. Scientometric tools can be used to quantify and compare the scientific activities at various levels of collection including institutions, sectors, provinces, and countries. They can also be used to measure research collaborations, map scientific networks, and monitor the evolution of scientific fields. Scientometric indicators give policy-makers objective, reproducible, and therefore verifiable information that goes away from the unreliable. Scientometrics is anxious about the quantitative features and characteristics of science and scientific research. Scientometrics is a restraint, which uses statistical and computational techniques to realize the structure and changing aspects of science. The study shows that the Authorship Pattern in Nuclear Medicine literature fluctuates from single-authored publications to 78 authored publications during the study period 1991-2020. As per the analysis of the table, the highest number of research output by single-authored was 14.06% with 1776 contributions followed by double authored contributions was 13.07% (1651) and three authored contributions were 12.59% (1590).

Comparing Research Output in Library & Information Science: A Bibliometric Study of Panjab University and Guru Nanak Dev University

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rupak Chakravarty ◽  
Jyoti Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Doubling Time ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Authorship Pattern ◽  
Document Type ◽  
Relative Growth ◽  
Curriculum Vitae ◽  
Personal Visit

The present study focuses on analysis of research output in the discipline of Library and Information Science at Panjab University, Chandigarh and Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar till 31 December 2014. The curriculum vitae (CV) and publication details of faculty members of Department of Library and Information Science were obtained by personal visit to universities and bibliographic information on their papers were recorded. The study deals with 152 publications of Panjab University, Chandigarh and 111 publications of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, in the field of Library and Information Science. It examines the Library and Information Science output by different ways like document type, authorship pattern, and degree of collaboration. The study also examines the relative growth rate of publications and doubling time for publications.

What is the impact of library and information science on knowledge management research?

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Anwarul Islam ◽  
Naresh Kumar Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Authorship Pattern ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Codified Knowledge ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Access To Knowledge ◽  
Low Coverage ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the place of library and information Science (LIS) research within leading knowledge management (KM) journals and conferences. Design/methodology/approach Authors examined articles published from 2000-2018 in top-20 KM publications identified by Google Scholar to look for relationship with LIS. Authors analyzed the identified LIS-related articles to determine the publication trends based on LIS terms used, populations, authorship pattern, country, information setting type and top-cited articles. Findings Authors found that the coverage of LIS-related articles within leading KM publications was very low. From the more than 10,000 KM research articles, less than 1 per cent were LIS-related. Research limitations/implications This study would help LIS researchers measure the space they have created for their field within leading KM research. By showing the relatively low coverage of LIS within KM research, the study demonstrates that LIS researchers/practitioners need to do more for LIS to be recognized as an important area within KM. KM publications can also enable greater synergies with LIS for mutual benefit. Originality/value LIS researchers have increasingly called for KM implementation within libraries. The KM field has a long history in library practice in the context of managing and organizing codified knowledge. Both KM and LIS share the common goals of providing access to knowledge for sharing, transfer and use. However, hardly any studies have looked at the amount of synergy or overlap between these two different but related areas, and whether LIS matters to KM, even though LIS practitioners have been highlighting that KM matters to LIS.

Research productivity of library scholars

2015 ◽  
Vol 116 (7/8) ◽  
pp. 433-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Munazza Jabeen ◽  
Liu Yun ◽  
Muhammad Rafiq ◽  
Misbah Jabeen
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Average Rate ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Mapping Software ◽  
Library Professionals

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore, by a quantitative analysis, growth rates of, and trends in, global publications in the field of library and information science (LIS) produced by library science professionals. Design/methodology/approach – A survey approach was used in this paper. Journal Citation Reports 2010 was the major source for selecting 40 LIS core journals. A bibliometric analysis was conducted. Visualization and mapping software was utilized to present a picture of the growth in and trends relating to LIS publications. Findings – A total of 18,371 research articles were published from 2003 to 2012. A significant growth rate (11.37 per cent) was found in 2009. Self-citation tendencies have been increasing, with an average rate of 38.56 per cent. Of all publication types, “article” was the most popular among LIS researchers. China has contributed remarkably in terms of collaborative publications. Practical implications – The present study could be helpful for library professionals, subject specialists and policy makers. These findings may encourage library professionals to integrate and monitor library functions through bibliometric analysis. Originality/value – This paper identifies growth and trends in publications by LIS researchers through use of bibliometrics.

Publication trends in library and information science

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.P. Singh ◽  
Harish Chander
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Publication Trends ◽  
Citation Pattern ◽  
Authorship Pattern ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Library Management

Purpose – The purpose of the study is to explore the publication trends of the scholarly journal Library Management, and highlight its various important aspects. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents results of bibliometric analysis of 336 articles which were published during the period 2006-2012, in the Library Management journal of Emerald. Findings – The results indicate that the majority of the contributions by single authors and most cited documents are journal articles. The study highlights the chronological distribution of articles, authorship pattern, geographical distribution of authors, institutions wise distribution, citation pattern and length of articles. Originality/value – As yet there have been no such studies conducted that investigate the various aspects of Library Management journal. It evaluates the publication trends of the journal and has important implications for scholars and researchers.

Library and information science research in BRICS countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 119 (3/4) ◽  
pp. 183-202
Author(s):  
Manorama Tripathi ◽  
V.K.J. Jeevan ◽  
Parveen Babbar ◽  
Lohrii Kaini Mahemei
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
Brics Countries

Purpose This paper aims to highlight the research output of library and information science of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) nations during the ten year period, i.e. 2005-2014, as reflected through the Web of Science database. Design/methodology/approach This study used Social Science Index (SSCI) of Web of Science (WoS) citation database to collect data for the ten year period. All records indexed in SSCI were refined by subject area of “Information Science and Library Science” and selected countries. The downloaded results were analyzed by using specific parameters. Findings WoS indexes different kinds of documents, such as articles, conference proceedings, biographical items, book reviews, corrections, editorial material, letters, reprints and reviews. Out of the BRICS output, almost 90 per cent of papers were articles. Other types of documents included conference papers, review papers and book reviews. China contributed nearly half of the documents followed by Brazil, South Africa, India and Russia. On an average, a document had cited 34 references. More than one-third of records did not receive any citations. It has been observed that the titles that had 11-16 words attracted the most number of citations. The top ten publishers in whose journals the researchers published included Emerald, Elsevier and Springer. The primary subject areas were information science and library science, information systems, interdisciplinary applications and management. About 85 per cent of the documents were published in English. Around 93 per cent of the non-English research publications were in Portuguese, the official language of Brazil. Originality/value There are not many studies on BRICS countries and that too about Library and Information Science (LIS) research output. This study may reveal insights into how LIS researchers interact with local and global issues in a specific spectrum of the world community.

Research growth in LIS during last decade: a study

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (8/9) ◽  
pp. 514-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Pandita ◽  
Shivendra Singh
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Data Retrieval ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Global Level ◽  
H Index ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Data Source ◽  
The Uk

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the research growth in the field of library and information science (LIS) at a global level for the period 2004-2013. The key areas analyzed in the study include research growth in LIS at a continental level, world’s ten leading LIS research countries, citation analysis Hirsch Index (h-index), etc. Design/methodology/approach – The study is supported with empirical findings, for which data were retrieved from the SCImago Journal and Country Ranking, based on SCOPUS data source. The study is not exhaustive in nature, as it covers only those articles published in LIS journals indexed with this particular data source. The study simply reflects a trend and not the exhaustive figures. Findings – A total of 75,887 research articles were retrieved on the date of data retrieval and put to analysis. The USA is emerging as a leading LIS research country with 29,349 articles, constituting 38.54 per cent of the total global LIS research output, followed by the UK and China. Spain is the fastest-growing LIS research country in the world, with an average annual research growth of 28.70 per cent, which is closely followed by Australia and China. The average annual corresponding research growth of LIS publications at the global level remained 10.46 per cent. Out of 194 nation countries, 162 (82.50 per cent) have contributed to the LIS research during the period. North America, Europe and Asia are the three leading LIS research continents. Originality/value – The scope of the present study is global in nature and lasts for the period 2004-2013.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document