, Volume 96, Issue 1, pp 259–276 | Cite as

Comparison of independent research of China’s top universities using bibliometric indicators



The institutionally independent publications of Tsinghua University and Peking University were compared by two main indicators namely peak-year citations per publication and h-index, based on the data extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded, Web of Science from 1974 to 2011. Analyzed aspects covered total publication outputs, annual production, impact, authorships, Web of Science categories, journals, and most cited articles. Results shows that the two universities were in the same scale based on the peak-year citations per publication, the h-index, and top cited articles with no less than 100 citations. Publication of the top three most productive Web of Science categories differed between these two universities. Tsinghua University published more articles in applied science and engineering fields, while Peking University had more basic science articles. In addition, article life was applied to compare the impact of the most cited articles and single author articles of the two universities.


Scientometrics Peak-year citations per publication h-Index Science indicators Web of science 


  1. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., Narin, F., & Mcallister, P. (1978). Publication ratings versus peer ratings of universities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(2), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annibaldi, A., Truzzi, C., Illuminati, S., & Scarponi, G. (2010). Scientometric analysis of national university research performance in analytical chemistry on the basis of academic publications: Italy as case study. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 398(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avramescu, A. (1979). Actuality and obsolescence of scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30(5), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiu, W. T., & Ho, Y. S. (2005). Bibliometric analysis of homeopathy research during the period of 1991 to 2003. Scientometrics, 63(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuang, K. Y., Huang, Y. L., & Ho, Y. S. (2007). A bibliometric and citation analysis of stroke-related research in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 72(2), 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chuang, K. Y., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2011). High-impact papers presented in the subject category of water resources in the Essential Science Indicators database of the institute for scientific information. Scientometrics, 87(3), 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chuang, K.Y., Tunbosun, O., & Ho, Y.S. (2012). A bibliometric analysis of the Polish Journal of Environmental Studies (2000–2011). Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 21(5), 1175–1183.Google Scholar
  10. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel, H. D., & Fisch, R. (1990). Research performance evaluation in the German university sector. Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, G., & Royle, P. (1996). A comparison of Australian university output using journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 35(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fakhree, M. A. A., & Jouyban, A. (2011). Scientometric analysis of the major Iranian medical universities. Scientometrics, 87(1), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farber, M. (2005). Single-authored publications in the sciences at Israeli universities. Journal of Information Science, 31(1), 62–66.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frame, J. D., & Narin, F. (1987). The growth of Chinese scientific-research, 1973–84. Scientometrics, 12(1–2), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fu, H. Z., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2012). The most frequently cited adsorption research articles in the Science Citation Index (Expanded). Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 379(1), 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gao, S., Wu, K., & Liu, Z. F. (2010). Chemistry at play in materials science: the centennial celebration of chemistry at Peking University. Advanced Materials, 22(13), 1428–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Han, W. Q., Fan, S. S., Li, Q. Q., & Hu, Y. D. (1997). Synthesis of gallium nitride nanorods through a carbon nanotube-confined reaction. Science, 277(5330), 1287–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayhoe, R. (2005). Peking University and the spirit of Chinese scholarship. Comparative Education Review, 49(4), 575–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. He, J. X. (2007). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of academic papers of South China Agriculture University under network environment. Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Agriculture, 19(6), 181–184.Google Scholar
  23. He, T. W. (2009). International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries. Scientometrics, 80(3), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ho, Y. S. (2006). Second-order kinetic model for the sorption of cadmium onto tree fern: a comparison of linear and non-linear methods. Water Research, 40(1), 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ho, Y. S. (2012). Top-cited articles in chemical engineering in Science Citation Index Expanded: a bibliometric analysis. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 20(3), 478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hou, T. J., & Xu, X. J. (2001). A new molecular simulation software package—Peking University Drug Design System (PKUDDS) for structure-based drug design. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, 19(5), 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsieh, W. H., Chiu, W. T., Lee, Y. S., & Ho, Y. S. (2004). Bibliometric analysis of patent ductus arteriosus treatments. Scientometrics, 60(2), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang, R. M., Zhao, W. Z., & Lin, X. H. (2006). Scientific papers in China’s TCM colleges and universities from 1997 to 2005: a bibliometric analysis. Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science, 15(6), 74–76.Google Scholar
  30. Kang, K. J. (1978). Recent developments and applications of radiation/detection technology in Tsinghua University. Nuclear Physics A, 834(1–4), 736C–742C.Google Scholar
  31. King, J. (1988). The use of bibliometric techniques for institutional research evaluation: a study of avian virology research. Scientometrics, 14(3–4), 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kong, Y. C., Yu, D. P., Zhang, B., Fang, W., & Feng, S. Q. (2001). Ultraviolet-emitting ZnO nanowires synthesized by a physical vapor deposition approach. Applied Physics Letters, 78(4), 407–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kostoff, R. N. (2012). China/USA nanotechnology research output comparison-2011 update. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 986–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kostoff, R. N., Barth, R. B., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2008). Quality vs. quantity of publications in nanotechnology field from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 53(8), 1272–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leonardelli, S., & Belmin, J. (2008). International publications from the French geriatric teams: evolution in the course of last 22 years. Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging, 12(4), 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li, Z., & Ho, Y. S. (2008). Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate contingent valuation research. Scientometrics, 75(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, B. D. (2001). Fuzzy random chance-constrained programming. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 9(5), 713–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu, K. X., Ding, X. F., Fu, D. P., Pan, Y., Wu, X. H., Guo, Z. Y., et al. (2007). A new compact AMS system at Peking University. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B-Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 259(1), 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu, R., Zou, X., Wang, X., He, L., & Zeng, N. (2008). X-pinch experiments with pulsed power generator (PPG-1) at Tsinghua University. Laser and Particle Beams, 26(1), 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lou, J. L., Li, Z. H., Ye, Y. L., Hua, H., Faisal, Q. J., Jiang, D. X., et al. (2009). Performances of a beta-delayed neutron detection array at Peking University. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B-Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 606(3), 645–650.Google Scholar
  42. Luan, C. J., Zhou, C. Y., & Liu, A. Y. (2010). Patent strategy in Chinese universities: a comparative perspective. Scientometrics, 84(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Makino, J. (1998). Productivity of research groups: relation between citation analysis and reputation within research communities. Scientometrics, 43(1), 87–93.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mervis, J. (2010). Science indicators: trends document China’s prowess. Science, 327(5964), 407–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Vanraan, A. F. J. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mokhnacheva, Y. V., & Kharybina, T. N. (2011). Research performance of RAS institutions and Russian universities: a comparative bibliometric analysis. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 81(6), 569–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nagpaul, P. S. (1995). Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature: a bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 32(1), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pan, S. Y. (2004). How higher education institutions cope with social change: the case of Tsinghua University? China.. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  50. Picknett, T., & Davis, K. (1999). The 100 most-cited articles from JMB. Journal of Molecular Biology, 293(2), 173–176.Google Scholar
  51. Piel, G. (1986). The social process of science. Science, 231(4735), 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pouris, A. (2007). The international performance of the South African academic institutions: a citation assessment. Higher Education, 54(4), 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schloegl, C., Gorraiz, J., Bart, C., & Bargmann, M. (2003). Evaluating two Austrian university departments: lessons learned. Scientometrics, 56(3), 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sullivan, R., Lewison, G., & Purushotham, A. D. (2011). An analysis of research activity in major UK cancer centres. European Journal of Cancer, 47(4), 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Treiman, D.J. (2002). The growth and determinants of literacy in China. On-Line Working Paper Series, California Center for Population Research, UC Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  56. Tu, C.Y. (1988). The damping of interplanetary alfvénic fluctuations and the heating of the solar-wind. Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics, 93(A1), 7–20.Google Scholar
  57. Usang, B., Basil, A., Lucy, U., & Franca, U. (2007). Academic staff research productivity: a study of Universities in South–South Zone of Nigeria. Educational Research and Review, 2(5), 103–108.Google Scholar
  58. Van den Berghe, H., Houben, J. A., de Bruin, R. E., Moed, H. F., Kint, A., Luwel, M., et al. (1998). Bibliometric indicators of university research performance in Flanders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(1), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Raan, A. (1999). Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities. Scientometrics, 45(3), 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491–502.Google Scholar
  61. Wang, B. (1992). Three-dimensional analysis of a flat elliptic crack in a piezoelectric material. International Journal of Engineering Science, 30(6), 781–791.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang, Y. B. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of scientific papers of the South China Normal University. Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Agriculture, 18(2), 181–184.Google Scholar
  63. Wang, M. H., Fu, H. Z., & Ho, Y. S. (2011a). Comparison of universities’ scientific performance using bibliometric indicators. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 16(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  64. Wang, M. H., Li, J. F., & Ho, Y. S. (2011b). Research articles published in water resources journals: a bibliometric analysis. Desalination and Water Treatment, 28(1–3), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Xu, Y. X., Bai, H., Lu, G. W., Li, C., & Shi, G. Q. (2008). Flexible graphene films via the filtration of water-soluble noncovalent functionalized graphene sheets. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 130(11), 5856–5857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zachos, G. (1992). Research output evaluation of two university departments in Greece with the use of bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 21(2), 195–221.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang, M. W. (2000). Bibliometric analysis of medical literature in Harbin Medial University. Information Science, 18(2), 177–179.Google Scholar
  68. Zhang, X. (2011). Chemistry and physics at play in materials science: the centennial celebration of Tsinghua University. Advanced Materials, 23(9), 1042–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang, W. W., Qian, W. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2009). A bibliometric analysis of research related to ocean circulation. Scientometrics, 80(2), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhu, S.L. (2003). Understanding pentaquark states in QCD. Physical Review Letters, 91(23), Article Number: 232002.Google Scholar
  71. Zhu, X., Wu, Q., Zheng, Y. Z., & Ma, X. (2004). Highly cited research papers and the evaluation of a research university: a case study: Peking University 1974–2003. Scientometrics, 60(2), 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zorzetto, R., Razzouk, D., Dubugras, M. T. B., Gerolin, J., Schor, N., Guimaraes, J. A., et al. (2006). The scientific production in health and biological sciences of the top 20 Brazilian universities. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 39(12), 1513–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trend Research CentreAsia UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Environmental SciencesPeking UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations