Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 489–516 | Cite as

Eugene Garfield’s scholarly impact: a scientometric review

  • Chaomei Chen
Article

Abstract

The concept of citation indexing has become deeply involved in many parts of research itself and the broad environment in which research plays an integral role, ranging from research evaluation, numerous indicators, to an increasingly wider range of scientific disciplines. In this article, we pay tribute to Eugene Garfield and present a scientometric review of the intellectual assets that he brought to us. In addition, we explore the intellectual landscape that has subsequently evolved in connection to many of his ideas. We illustrate what systematic reviews of the scientific literature may reveal and what we may learn from the rich information conveyed through citation-induced patterns. The study is conducted with CiteSpace, one of many science mapping tools based on data from the Web of Science and Scopus. Without Garfield’s inventions, none of these would be possible.

Keywords

Eugene Garfield Scientometrics Visual analytics Systematic reviews CiteSpace 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank Lutz Bornmann for kindly sharing the set of 1558 records for the study.

References

  1. Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 93–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Leydesdorff, R. (in press). Reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) of Eugene Garfield’s publications. Scientometrics.Google Scholar
  3. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Hug, S. E. (in press). Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: A new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(suppl), 5303–5310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(2), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C., Hu, Z., Liu, S., & Tseng, H. (2012). Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opinions on Biological Therapy, 12(5), 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of co-citation clusters: A multiple-perspective co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313(7054), 411–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garfield, E. (1998). From citation indexes to informetrics: Is the tail now wagging the dog? International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies, 48(2), 67–80.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979–980.Google Scholar
  12. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaro, M. A. (1989). Advances in record linkage methodology as applied to the 1985 census of Tampa Florida. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84(406), 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Eugene Garfield and algorithmic historiography: Co-words, co-authors, and journal names. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 57(3), 248–260.Google Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42–46.Google Scholar
  17. Small, H. (2017). A tribute to Eugene Garfield: Information innovator and idealist. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 599–612.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tibély, G., Pollner, P., Vicsek, T., & Palla, G. (2013). Extracting tag-hierarchies. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e84133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Raan, A. F. J., & Wouters, P. (2017) Eugene Garfield 1925–2017: Visionary information scientist. https://www.cwts.nl/news?article=n-q2y2c4&title=eugene-garfield-1925–2017-visionary-information-scientist.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Computing and InformaticsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations