, Volume 105, Issue 1, pp 449–470 | Cite as

Scientometric cognitive and evaluation on smart city related construction and building journals data

  • Liang-xing Su
  • Peng-hui Lyu
  • Zheng Yang
  • Shuai Ding
  • Kai-le Zhou


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.


Scientometrics 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.

Supplementary material

11192_2015_1697_MOESM1_ESM.doc (510 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 510 kb)


  1. Blank, L., Vasl, A., Levy, S., Grant, G., Kadas, G., Dafni, A., & Blaustein, L. (2013). Directions in green roof research: A bibliometric study. Building and Environment, 66, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caligiuri, P. M. (1999). The ranking of scholarly journals in international human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Canas, I., & Martin, S. (2004). Recovery of Spanish vernacular construction as a model of bioclimatic architecture. Building and Environment, 39(12), 1477–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan, K. C., Tong, J. Y., & Zhang, F. F. (2012). Accounting journal rankings, authorship patterns and the author affiliation index. Australian Accounting Review, 22(4), 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coe, R., & Weinstock, I. (1984). Evaluating the management journal: A second look. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 660–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Engels, T. C., Goos, E., Dexters, N. P., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2013). Group size, h-index, and efficiency in publishing in top journals explain expert panel assessments of research group quality and productivity. Research Evaluation, 22(4), 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrara, E., & Romero, A. E. (2013). Scientific impact evaluation and the effect of self-citations: Mitigating the bias by discounting the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2332–2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fry, T. D., & Donohue, J. M. (2013). Outlets for operations management research: A DEA assessment of journal quality and rankings. International Journal of Production Research, 51(23–24), 7501–7526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gemser, G., de Bont, C., Hekkert, P., & Friedman, K. (2012). Quality perceptions of design journals: The design scholars’ perspective. Design Studies, 33(1), 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomez-Meija, I., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 921–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huggett, S. (2013). Journal bibliometrics indicators and citation ethics: A discussion of current issues. Atherosclerosis, 230(2), 275–277.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Linton, J. D., & Thongpapanl, T. (2004). Ranking the technology innovation management journals. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Rapoport, A. (1977). A human aspects of urban form. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Singh, S. (2013). Toward more meaningful evaluation of contributions and journals across different specialties: Introducing specialty impact factor. Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology & Leprology, 79(6), 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Su, P., Shang, C. J., & Shen, Q. (2013). Link-based approach for bibliometric journal ranking. Soft Computing, 17(12), 2399–2410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tort, A. B. L., Targino, Z. H., & Amaral, O. B. (2012). Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors. PLoS ONE, 7(12), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Wang, X. W., & Dong, L. L. (2008). Methodological shifts of architecture research from the historical perspective. Journal of Qingdao Technological University, 29(2), 4.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang, H. J., He, Q. Q., Liu, X. J., Zhuang, Y. H., & Hong, S. (2012). Global urbanization research from 1991 to 2009: A systematic research review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(3–4), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yimin, S. (1990). Think of further research into architecture. Time + Architecture, 7(3), 2.Google Scholar
  27. Zhang, T. (2008). On design theory: Three themes. Time + Architecture, 24(2), 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liang-xing Su
    • 1
  • Peng-hui Lyu
    • 2
  • Zheng Yang
    • 1
  • Shuai Ding
    • 2
  • Kai-le Zhou
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Urban DesignWuhan UniversityWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of ManagementHefei University of TechnologyHefeiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations