IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v110y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-016-2181-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A three-dimensional bibliometric evaluation of recent research in India

Author

Listed:
  • Gangan Prathap

    (Vidya Academy of Science and Technology
    A P J Abdul Kalam Technological University)

Abstract

In this paper a three-dimensional framework to see how Indian universities and research-focused institutions fare in the world of high end research in terms of excellence and diversity of its research base is proposed. At the country level scholarly performance is broken down into three components—size, excellence and balance or evenness. A web application available in the public domain which visualizes scientific excellence worldwide in several subject areas is used. India has a presence in fifteen of twenty-two subject areas in which there are at least 50 institutes globally that have published more than 500 papers. It has no institution which can be counted at this level of size and excellence in seven areas: Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Health Professions; Neuroscience; Nursing; Psychology; and Social Sciences. India’s research base is completely skewed towards the Physical Sciences and Engineering with very little for Biological Sciences and Medicine and virtually none in Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities when excellence at the highest level is considered. Its performance is also benchmarked against three nations, namely Australia, The Netherlands and Taiwan which are of similar size in terms of GDP and scientific output. It is seen that although India has the highest GDP among the four countries, its performance lags considerably behind. Even in terms of diversity, its performance is poor compared to the three comparator countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Gangan Prathap, 2017. "A three-dimensional bibliometric evaluation of recent research in India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1085-1097, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2181-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2181-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2181-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2181-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gangan Prathap, 2014. "The zynergy-index and the formula for the h-index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(2), pages 426-427, February.
    2. Andy Stirling, 2007. "A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society," SPRU Working Paper Series 156, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Lin Zhang & Ronald Rousseau & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2016. "Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1257-1265, May.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2011. "Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2133-2146, November.
    5. David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2012. "Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 395-401, August.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Stefaner, Moritz & de Moya Anegón, Felix & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2014. "What is the effect of country-specific characteristics on the research performance of scientific institutions? Using multi-level statistical models to rank and map universities and research-focused in," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 581-593.
    7. Gangan Prathap, 2014. "Quantity, quality, and consistency as bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(1), pages 214-214, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ernesto Galbán-Rodríguez & Deborah Torres-Ponjuán & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge, 2021. "Multidimensional quantitative analysis of the Cuban scientific output and its regional context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2643-2665, March.
    2. Hamdi A. Al-Jamimi & Galal M. BinMakhashen & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Use of bibliometrics for research evaluation in emerging markets economies: a review and discussion of bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5879-5930, October.
    3. Rogheyeh Eskrootchi & Nadia Sanee, 2018. "Comparison of medical research performance by thermodynamic and citation analysis methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2159-2168, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gangan Prathap, 2019. "Balance: a thermodynamic perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 247-255, April.
    2. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    3. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    4. Ronald Rousseau, 2018. "The repeat rate: from Hirschman to Stirling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 645-653, July.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Dieter Franz Kogler & Bowen Yan, 2017. "Mapping patent classifications: portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1573-1591, September.
    6. Xian Li & Ronald Rousseau & Liming Liang & Fangjie Xi & Yushuang Lü & Yifan Yuan & Xiaojun Hu, 2022. "Is low interdisciplinarity of references an unexpected characteristic of Nobel Prize winning research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2105-2122, April.
    7. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    8. Shiji Chen & Yanhui Song & Fei Shu & Vincent Larivière, 2022. "Interdisciplinarity and impact: the effects of the citation time window," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2621-2642, May.
    9. Lu Huang & Yijie Cai & Erdong Zhao & Shengting Zhang & Yue Shu & Jiao Fan, 2022. "Measuring the interdisciplinarity of Information and Library Science interactions using citation analysis and semantic analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6733-6761, November.
    10. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    11. Gangan Prathap, 2014. "A three-dimensional bibliometric evaluation of research in polymer solar cells," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 889-898, October.
    12. Kim, Hyeyoung & Park, Hyelin & Song, Min, 2022. "Developing a topic-driven method for interdisciplinarity analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    13. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    14. Yi Bu & Mengyang Li & Weiye Gu & Win‐bin Huang, 2021. "Topic diversity: A discipline scheme‐free diversity measurement for journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(5), pages 523-539, May.
    15. Andrea Zielinski, 2022. "Impact of model settings on the text-based Rao diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7751-7768, December.
    16. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Cristian Mejia & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7477-7502, September.
    17. Boris Forthmann & Mark A. Runco, 2020. "An Empirical Test of the Inter-Relationships between Various Bibliometric Creative Scholarship Indicators," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, June.
    18. Jianhua Hou & Hao Li & Yang Zhang, 2023. "Altmetrics-based sleeping beauties: necessity or just a supplement?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5477-5506, October.
    19. Fei Shu & Jesse David Dinneen & Shiji Chen, 2022. "Measuring the disparity among scientific disciplines using Library of Congress Subject Headings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3613-3628, June.
    20. Hongyu Zhou & Raf Guns & Tim C. E. Engels, 2022. "Are social sciences becoming more interdisciplinary? Evidence from publications 1960–2014," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(9), pages 1201-1221, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2181-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.