Scientometric cognitive and evaluation on smart city related construction and building journals data
In this paper, scientometrics cognitive and knowledge visualization technology were used to evaluate global scientific production and development trends in construction and building technology research of smart cities. All the data was collected from the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) database and Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The published papers from the subject of construction and building technology and their journals, authors, countries and keywords spanning over several aspects of research topics, proved that architecture/building research grew rapidly over the past 30 years, and the trend still continues in recent smart cities era. The purposed of this study were to identify the journals in the field of construction and building technology in smart city, make a comparative report on related researches, as well as propose a quality evaluation of those journals. Based on JCR and SCI paper data, the journals related to construction and building technology in smart city were assessed using ten metrics: languages, active degree, references, citation trends, main countries, leading institutes, cooperation trends, productive authors, author keywords and keywords plus. The results indicate that all the factors have great significance and are related to the impact of a journal. It also provides guidance to both evaluators and the study groups which assess journals during the process of judging or selecting research outlets, and future perspective on how to improve the impact of a paper or a journal.
KeywordsScientometrics cognitive Scientometric evaluation Smart city technology Construction and building journals Journal data management
This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant. 71473182), the China Scholarship Council (Grant. 201406270050), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant 2015M570535) and the Hefei Soft Science Research Project. The authors are grateful to Daniel Kwong, Xin Huang and Xiao-juan Zhang for their helpful discussions and suggestions. The authors would also like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
- Delgado, E., & Repiso, R. (2013). The impact of scientific journals of communication: comparing Google Scholar metrics. Web of science and scopus. Comunicar, 41, 45–52.Google Scholar
- Jacsó, P. (2013). The role of information professionals in interpreting the results of journal league lists for research performance evaluation. Anuari Think EPI, 11–15.Google Scholar
- Lippi, G., & Borghi, L. (2014). A short story on how the H-index may change the fate of scientists and scientific publishing. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 52(2), E1–E3.Google Scholar
- Liu, X. L., Wang, M. Y., Zhang, L., Wang, P., & Zhou, Z. X. (2013). Journal impact factor: Is it only used in China and South Asia? Current Science, 105(11), 1480–1484.Google Scholar
- Ramos-Brieva, J., & Cordero-Villafafila, A. (2013). Measuring the impact factor of individual researchers in biomedical disciplines. Actas Espanolas De Psiquiatria, 41(3), 175–184.Google Scholar
- Rapoport, A. (1977). A human aspects of urban form. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Uchida, S., Wada, Y., Yamamoto, S., Takagi, J., & Hisamune, K. (2014). Verification and validation procedures of calculation codes for determining corrosive conditions in the BWR primary cooling system based on water radiolysis and mixed potential models. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 51(1), 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yimin, S. (1990). Think of further research into architecture. Time + Architecture, 7(3), 2.Google Scholar
- Zhang, T. (2008). On design theory: Three themes. Time + Architecture, 24(2), 4.Google Scholar