The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects
Bibliometric analysis has been used increasingly as a tool within the scientific community. Interplay is vital between those involved in refining bibliometric methods and the recipients of this type of analysis. Production as well as citations patterns reflect working methodologies in different disciplines within the specialized Library and Information Science (LIS) field, as well as in the non-specialist (non-LIS) professional field. We extract the literature on bibliometric analyses from Web of Science in all fields of science and analyze clustering of co-occurring keywords at an aggregate level. It reveals areas of interconnected literature with different impact on the LIS and the non-LIS community.We classify and categorize bibliometric articles that obtain the most citations in accordance with a modified version of Derrick’s, Jonker’s and Lewison’s method (Derrick et al. in Proceedings, 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. STI, Montreal, 2012). The data demonstrates that cross-referencing between the LIS and the non-LIS field is modest in publications outside their main categories of interest, i.e. discussions of various bibliometric issues or strict analyses of various topics. We identify some fields as less well-covered bibliometrically.
KeywordsBibliometric analysis Policy implications Publication analysis Citation analysis
The author wishes to thank Ph.D. Mette Bruus and anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions for improvement of the article.
- Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., Maher, B., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2010). Do metrics matter? Many researchers believe that quantitative metrics determine who gets hired and who gets promoted at their institutions. With an exclusive poll and interviews, nature probes to what extent metrics are really used that way. Nature, 465(7300), 860–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? Comparison of WoS. Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.Google Scholar
- Bonnell, A. G. (2016). Tide or tsunami? The impact of metrics on scholarly research. Australian Universities’ Review, The, 58(1), 54.Google Scholar
- Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Braun, T., Bergstrom, C. T., Frey, B. S., Osterloh, M., West, J. D., Pendlebury, D., et al. (2010). How to improve the use of metrics. Nature, 465(17), 870–872.Google Scholar
- Derrick, G., Jonkers, K., & Lewison, G. (2012) Characteristics of bibliometrics articles in library and information sciences (LIS) and other journals. In Proceedings, 17th international conference on science and technology indicators, (pp. 449–551). STI: Montreal.Google Scholar
- Garfield, E. (1977). Restating fundamental assumptions of citation analysis. Current Contents, 39, 5–6.Google Scholar
- Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Routledge: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Jonkers, K., & Derrick, G. (2012). The bibliometric bandwagon: Characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), 829–836.Google Scholar
- Larivière, V., Archambault, E., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 987–1004.Google Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2016). The operationalization of “fields” as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics: The cases of “library and information science” and “science & technology studies”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 707–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McKechnie, L., & Pettigrew, K. E. (2002). Surveying the use of theory in library and information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library trends, 50(3), 406.Google Scholar
- Weller, K. (2015). Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 261–276). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S. & Johnson, B. (2015). Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.4929.1363.
- Wouters, P. et al. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature review (supplementary report I to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management). HEFCE. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.5066.3520.