Global analysis of the E-learning scientific domain: a declining category?
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.
KeywordsE-learning Bibliometric Global analysis Scientific production SCOPUS SCImago
Thanks to SCImago Research Group for providing the production data (NDoc) of the E-learning subject category.
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.
- 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.
- Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card—tracking 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/.
- 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/.
- 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
- 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
- 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/.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- OECD. (2017a). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. Retrieved from education policy outlook comparative report: http://www.oecd.org/edu/report.htm.
- 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.
- Rana, S. (2012). Bibliometric analysis of output and visibility of science and technology in Singapore during 2000–2009. Webology, 9(1), 96.Google Scholar
- 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
- SCImago. (2007). SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com.
- 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/.
- 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/.