Abstract
Prior to the beginning of a scientific career, every new scientist is obliged to confront the critical issue of defining the subject area where his/her future research will be conducted. Regardless of the capabilities of a new scholar, an erroneous selection may condemn a dignified effort and result in wasted energy, time and resources. In this article we attempt to identify the research fields which are attractive to these individuals. To the best of our knowledge, this is a new topic that has never been discussed or addressed in the literature. Here we formally set the problem and we propose a solution combining the characteristics of the attractive research areas and the new scholars. Our approach is compared against a statistical model which reveals popular research areas. The comparison of this method to our proposed model leads to the conclusion that not all trendy research areas are suitable for new scientists. A secondary outcome reveals the existence of scientific fields which although they are not so emerging, they are promising for scientists who are starting their career.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this work we also use the term starting scientists or starters to refer to new scientists.
In this paper we use the word journal to refer to a source where an article can be published. Apart from journals, the usage of this word also implies magazines, conference proceedings, digital libraries, etc.
August 16th, 2010.
References
Banks, M. (2006). An extension of the hirsch index: Indexing scientific topics and compounds. Scientometrics, 69(1), 161–168.
Bharati, P., & Tarasewich, P. (2002). Global perceptions of journals publishing e-commerce research. Communications of the ACM, 45(5), 21–26.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65(3), 391–392.
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169–173.
Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 817–842.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.
Egghe, L. (2007). Dynamic h-index: The Hirsch index in function of time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 452–454.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.
Getoor, L. (2005). Link-based classification. In Advanced methods for knowledge discovery from complex data (pp. 189–207). London: Springer.
Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16,569.
Introducing the Impact Factor. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/academic/impact_factor/. Accessed 1 Oct 2011.
Katerattanakul, P., Han, B., & Hong, S. (2003). Objective quality ranking of computing journals. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 111–114.
Katsaros, D., Akritidis, L., & Bozanis, P. (2009). The f index: Quantifying the impact of coterminal citations on scientists’ ranking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 1051–1056.
Lee, W. (2008). How to identify emerging research fields using scientometrics: An example in the field of Information Security. Scientometrics, 76(3), 503–525.
Lowry, P., Romans, D., Curtis, A., & PricewaterhouseCoopers, L. (2004). Global journal prestige and supporting disciplines: A scientometric study of information systems journals. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), 5(2), 29–80.
Noyons, E., Moed, H., & Van Raan, A. (1999). Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics, 46(3), 591–604.
Ohniwa, R., Hibino, A., & Takeyasu, K. (2010). Trends in research foci in life science fields over the last 30 years monitored by emerging topics. Scientometrics, 85, 1–17.
Rainer, Jr., R., & Miller, M. (2005). Examining differences across journal rankings. Communications of the ACM, 48(2), 94.
Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2), 253–280.
Sidiropoulos, A., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2005a). A citation-based system to assist prize awarding. ACM SIGMOD Record, 34(4), 60.
Sidiropoulos, A., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2005b). A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries. Information Processing & Management, 41(2), 289–312.
Sidiropoulos, A., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2006). Generalized comparison of graph-based ranking algorithms for publications and authors. Journal of Systems and Software, 79(12), 1679–1700.
Small, H. (2006). Tracking and predicting growth areas in science. Scientometrics, 68(3), 595–610.
Tseng, Y., Lin, Y., Lee, Y., Hung, W., & Lee, C. (2009). A comparison of methods for detecting hot topics. Scientometrics, 81(1), 73–90.
Upham, S., & Small, H. (2010). Emerging research fronts in science and technology: Patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics, 83(1), 15–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Akritidis, L., Katsaros, D. & Bozanis, P. Identifying attractive research fields for new scientists. Scientometrics 91, 869–894 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0646-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0646-4