IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i7d10.1007_s11192-021-04006-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the publication output on country level in the research field communication using Garfield’s Impact Factor

Author

Listed:
  • Alicia Moreno-Delgado

    (Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR))

  • Juan Gorraiz

    (Vienna University Library, University of Vienna)

  • Rafael Repiso

    (Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR))

Abstract

The ever-increasing evaluation of science has led to the development of indicators at different levels. Our objective is to describe and analyze the publication output of those countries that were most active in the field between 2011 and 2020 according to the data retrieved for this category in Web of Science Core Collection. To this purpose, we are using Garfield’s Impact Factor and applying this indicator for countries instead of journals. Our results show that the most publication active countries are not those that make the most impact. We also confirm that English-speaking countries dominate the scenario in terms of number of publications and that states such as Spain and the Netherlands benefit from the Emerging Source Citation Index. Furthermore, we have found that at least 30% of most countries’ scientific production involves international collaboration and that the United States of America is the collaborator of choice in “Communication Studies”. Our study corroborates that our “country-based Impact factor” provides a quick and valuable bibliometric picture in good agreement with the results supplied by other indicators such as the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI), the 5-year impact factor, or the Percentage of publications in the top 10%.

Suggested Citation

  • Alicia Moreno-Delgado & Juan Gorraiz & Rafael Repiso, 2021. "Assessing the publication output on country level in the research field communication using Garfield’s Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5983-6000, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04006-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04006-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04006-w
    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/s11192-021-04006-w?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. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Journal impact measures in bibliometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 171-193, February.
    2. Han Woo Park & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 157-175, October.
    3. Ying Huang & Donghua Zhu & Qi Lv & Alan L. Porter & Douglas K. R. Robinson & Xuefeng Wang, 2017. "Early insights on the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI): an overlay map-based bibliometric study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 2041-2057, June.
    4. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    5. Rafael Repiso & Antonio Castillo-Esparcia & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2019. "Altmetrics, alternative indicators for Web of Science Communication studies journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 941-958, May.
    6. De Filippo, Daniela & Gorraiz, Juan, 2020. "Is the Emerging Source Citation Index an aid to assess the citation impact in social science and humanities?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    7. Éric Archambault & Étienne Vignola-Gagné & Grégoire Côté & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingrasb, 2006. "Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 329-342, September.
    8. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(8), pages 1849-1857, August.
    9. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2015. "Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 408-418.
    10. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Carole Probst, 2009. "The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set: The case of communication studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1709-1718, August.
    13. George A. Barnett & Catherine Huh & Youngju Kim & Han Woo Park, 2011. "Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 449-469, August.
    14. Edit Csajbók & Anna Berhidi & Lívia Vasas & András Schubert, 2007. "Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(1), pages 91-117, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gohar Feroz Khan & Sungjoon Lee & Ji Young Park & Han Woo Park, 2016. "Theories in communication science: a structural analysis using webometrics and social network approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 531-557, August.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    3. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    4. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    5. Maziar Montazerian & Edgar Dutra Zanotto & Hellmut Eckert, 2019. "A new parameter for (normalized) evaluation of H-index: countries as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1065-1078, March.
    6. Dejian Yu & Sun Meng, 2018. "An overview of biomass energy research with bibliometric indicators," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(4), pages 576-590, June.
    7. Mingyang Wang & Jiaqi Zhang & Shijia Jiao & Xiangrong Zhang & Na Zhu & Guangsheng Chen, 2020. "Important citation identification by exploiting the syntactic and contextual information of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2109-2129, December.
    8. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    9. Jielan Ding & Per Ahlgren & Liying Yang & Ting Yue, 2018. "Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1817-1852, September.
    10. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    11. Nan Zhang & Shanshan Wan & Peiling Wang & Peng Zhang & Qiang Wu, 2018. "A bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers in the field of Economics and Business based on the Essential Science Indicators database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1039-1053, August.
    12. Jiancheng Guan & Yan Yan & Jingjing Zhang, 2015. "How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 333-355, January.
    13. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    14. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    15. Natascha Helena Franz Hoppen & Samile Andréa de Souza Vanz, 2023. "The development of Brazilian women’s and gender studies: a bibliometric diagnosis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 227-261, January.
    16. José María Gómez-Sancho & María Jesús Mancebón-Torrubia, 2009. "The evaluation of scientific production: Towards a neutral impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 435-458, November.
    17. Chung Joo Chung & George A. Barnett & Kitae Kim & Derek Lackaff, 2013. "An analysis on communication theory and discipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 985-1002, June.
    18. Rafael Repiso & Antonio Castillo-Esparcia & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2019. "Altmetrics, alternative indicators for Web of Science Communication studies journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 941-958, May.
    19. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    20. Gutiérrez-Nieto, Begoña & Ortiz, Cristina & Vicente, Luis, 2023. "A bibliometric analysis of the disposition effect: Origins and future research avenues," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).

    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:126:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04006-w. 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.