Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 675–685 | Cite as

Global analysis of the E-learning scientific domain: a declining category?

  • Gerardo Tibaná-Herrera
  • María Teresa Fernández-Bajón
  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
Article

Abstract

The scientific production in E-learning has an average annual growth rate of 16%, which along with the 3.9% annual increase in the number of virtual students worldwide present a very favorable prospect for the category. However, the growth in scientific production is not constant. The objective of this work was to analyze the behavior of scientific production in E-learning from a bibliometric perspective in the 2003–2015 period, to identify its evolution in relation to other areas of knowledge. The methodology used compared production in E-learning versus world production, production by regions and blocks of countries and production of related areas of knowledge. With these results, a visualization was generated in VOSViewer under the overlay mapping technique to identify the dynamics of the 81 existing scientific journals in the category. This analysis determined that the growth in production in E-learning is due to the contribution of the journals in Social Sciences and that the decrease during the years 2013–2015 is mainly due to the fact that Computer Science have decreased their contribution in conference papers and reviews. In conclusion, E-learning is on the decline, since the growth offered by the Social Sciences is not enough to counteract the decline in the contribution of Computer Science. The method used in this study is a contribution to bibliometric techniques to explain the behavior of scientific production in a certain area of knowledge.

Keywords

E-learning Bibliometric Global analysis Scientific production SCOPUS SCImago 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to SCImago Research Group for providing the production data (NDoc) of the E-learning subject category.

Author contributions

GT-H: Primary author, MTF-B, FM-A: Analysis and review.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Availability of data and materials

Data related to this research were provided by SCImago Research Group. These are protected by licensing and copyright.

References

  1. Adkins, S. (2017). The 2016 global learning technology investment patterns. Retrieved from commercial learning technology market analysis: http://www.metaari.com/assets/Metaari_s-Analysis-of-the-2016-Global-Learning-Technology-Investment-Pat25875.pdf.
  2. Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I., & Laoufi, N. (2017). Research on big data—a systematic mapping study. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 54, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report cardtracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from Online report card—tracking online education in the United States, 2015—OLC: https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015/.
  4. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2017). Distance education enrollment report 2017. Retrieved from digital learning compass: https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/digital-learning-compass-distance-education-enrollment-report-2017/.
  5. Castillo-Pérez, J. J., Muñoz-Valera, L., García-Gómez, F., & Mejía-Aranguré, J. M. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of scientific output on influenza in Mexico, 2000–2012. Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 53(3), 294–301.Google Scholar
  6. Chiang, J. K., Kuo, C. W., & Yang, Y. H. (2010). A bibliometric study of e-learning literature on SSCI database. In S. B. Heidelberg (Ed.), International conference on technologies for E-learning and digital entertainment, (145–155).Google Scholar
  7. Conole, G., & Oliver, M. (2006). Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice. Contemporary Perspectives in E-Learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on Practice.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966266.Google Scholar
  8. Elsevier. (2017). What content is indexed in Scopus? Retrieved from Scopus: Access and use Support Center: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11274/kw/review/supporthub/scopus/.
  9. Falagas, M. E., Papastamataki, P. A., & Bliziotis, I. A. (2006). A bibliometric analysis of research productivity in parasitology by different world regions during a 9-year period (1995–2003). BMC Infectious Diseases, 6, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fu, H.-Z., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S. (2013). Mapping of drinking water research: A bibliometric analysis of research output during 1992–2011. Science of the Total Environment, 443, 757–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2015). Analysis of scientific production in food science from 2003 to 2013. Journal of Food Science, 80(12), R2619–R2626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hassan, Y., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Graphical interface of the SCImago journal and country rank: An interactive approach to accessing bibliometric information. El profesional de la Información, 23(3), 272–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hung, J.-L. (2012). Trends of e-learning research from 2000 to 2008: Use of text mining and bibliometrics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jingqing, Z., Zhen, W., Beibei, N., & Song, H. (2015). Global environmental input-output research trends during 1900–2013: A bibliometric analysis. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 24(5B), 1996–2004.Google Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L., Kogler, D. F., & Yan, B. (2017). Mapping patent classifications: Portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1573–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leydesdorff, L., Moya-Anegón, F., & Guerrero-Bote, V. (2015). Journal maps, interactive overlays, and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of Scopus data (1996–2012). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 1001–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mallik, A., & Mandal, N. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of global publication output and collaboration structure study in microRNA research. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2011–2037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maurer, H., & Khan, M. S. (2010). Research trends in the field of e-learning from 2003 to 2008: A scientometric and content analysis for selected journals and conferences using visualization. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 7(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monge-Nájera, J., & Nielsen, V. (2005). The countries and languages that dominate biological research at the beginning of the 21st century. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 53(1–2), 283–294.Google Scholar
  20. OECD. (2015). OECD innovation strategy 2015: An agenda for policy action. Retrieved from The OECD Innovation Strategy—2015 revision: http://www.oecd.org/sti/OECD-Innovation-Strategy-2015-CMIN2015-7.pdf.
  21. OECD. (2017a). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. Retrieved from education policy outlook comparative report: http://www.oecd.org/edu/report.htm.
  22. OECD. (2017b). OECD library. Retrieved from education at a glance 2017—OECD indicators: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2017_eag-2017-en.
  23. Patel, V., & Kim, Y.-R. (2007). Contribution of low- and middle-income countries to research published in leading general psychiatry journals, 2002–2004. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(JAN), 77–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pauyo, T., Debas, H. T., Kyamanywa, P., Kushner, A. L., Jani, P. G., Lavy, C., et al. (2015). Systematic review of surgical literature from resource-limited countries: Developing strategies for success. World Journal of Surgery, 39(9), 2173–2181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rana, S. (2012). Bibliometric analysis of output and visibility of science and technology in Singapore during 2000–2009. Webology, 9(1), 96.Google Scholar
  26. Romo-Fernández, L., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Analysis of the Spanish scientific production in renewable energy, sustainability and the environment (Scopus, 2003–2009) in the global context. Investigacion Bibliotecologica, 27(60), 125–151.Google Scholar
  27. SCImago. (2007). SJRSCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com.
  28. Shah, D. (2016). Monetization over massiveness: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2016. Retrieved from monetization over massiveness: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2016—Class Central: https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2016/.
  29. Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers & Education, 51(2), 955–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tibaná-Herrera, G., Fernández-Bajón, M. T., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2017). Categorization of an emerging discipline in the world publication system (SCOPUS): E-learning. arXiv:1710.05723 [cs.DL]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05723.
  31. United Nations. (2016). Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning. Retrieved from sustainable development goals: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/.
  32. Waaijer, C. J., van Bochove, C. A., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). On the map: Nature and science editorials. Scientometrics, 86(1), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerardo Tibaná-Herrera
    • 1
    • 3
  • María Teresa Fernández-Bajón
    • 2
  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
    • 3
  1. 1.PhD Library Science ProgramComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Library and Information ScienceComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.SCImago Research GroupMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations