IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i3d10.1007_s11192-022-04625-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of Jürgen Habermas’s scientific production: a scientometric review

Author

Listed:
  • Gisleine Carmo

    (Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA), Programa de Pós-Graduação Em Administração)

  • Luiz Flávio Felizardo

    (Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA), Programa de Pós-Graduação Em Administração)

  • Valderí Castro Alcântara

    (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG))

  • Cristiane Aparecida Silva

    (Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA), Programa de Pós-Graduação Em Administração)

  • José Willer Prado

    (Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA), Programa de Pós-Graduação Em Administração)

Abstract

The use of bibliometrics, based on statistical and mathematical tools, makes it possible to measure the contributions of researchers to science. This is a widely used tool to assess scientific production in several areas of knowledge. Such methodology analyzes publication trends, author networks, structures of co-citation, journals and even the scientific contribution of renowned scholars in science. The precursor of bibliometrics, Eugene Garfield, who proposes the retrieval of information from the indexing of citations, was the object of a scientometric review aimed at assessing his impact on science. Given such relevance, this article presents the academic contribution of Jürgen Habermas based on a preliminary scientometric review of his studies. Jürgen Habermas is regarded not only as an active scholar in the social and political process, but also as a productive, controversial and influential contemporary author. The correct understanding of his works is a great challenge, as the bases of his thinking are so broad that they allow an interface between different approaches. We elaborated a design of his scientific work with the advancement to a connection between his main ideas through the use of bibliometric software. Bibliometrics, of the scientometric type, allows the understanding of how recognized patterns in citations can develop information relevant to the scientific field. The results confirm the multidisciplinary contribution of Habermas’s studies and highlight his main fields of research and works, which serve as a foundation for clearly understanding and applying his concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • Gisleine Carmo & Luiz Flávio Felizardo & Valderí Castro Alcântara & Cristiane Aparecida Silva & José Willer Prado, 2023. "The impact of Jürgen Habermas’s scientific production: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1853-1875, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04625-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04625-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04625-x
    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/s11192-022-04625-x?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. Aria, Massimo & Cuccurullo, Corrado, 2017. "bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 959-975.
    2. Jianguo Chen & Yangyue Su & Hongyun Si & Jindao Chen, 2018. "Managerial Areas of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Scientometric Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2011. "Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 499-514, June.
    4. Mercedes Jiménez-García & José Ruiz-Chico & Antonio Rafael Peña-Sánchez & José Antonio López-Sánchez, 2020. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Sports Tourism and Sustainability (2002–2019)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Haibin Chen & Wei Jiang & Yan Yang & Xin Man & Mingyi Tang, 2015. "A bibliometric analysis of waste management research during the period 1997–2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1005-1018, November.
    6. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    7. José Willer Prado & Valderí Castro Alcântara & Francisval Melo Carvalho & Kelly Carvalho Vieira & Luiz Kennedy Cruz Machado & Dany Flávio Tonelli, 2016. "Multivariate analysis of credit risk and bankruptcy research data: a bibliometric study involving different knowledge fields (1968–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1007-1029, March.
    8. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Shintaro Sengoku, 2017. "Tracing the knowledge-building dynamics in new stem cell technologies through techno-scientific networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1691-1720, September.
    9. Igors Skute, 2019. "Opening the black box of academic entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 237-265, July.
    10. Chaomei Chen, 2012. "Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 431-449, March.
    11. Weishu Liu & Mengdi Gu & Guangyuan Hu & Chao Li & Huchang Liao & Li Tang & Philip Shapira, 2014. "Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a 20-year perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 507-521, May.
    12. Chaomei Chen & Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan & Jianhua Hou, 2010. "The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1386-1409, July.
    13. Chaomei Chen & Loet Leydesdorff, 2014. "Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(2), pages 334-351, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo & Salehi, Hadi & Md Yunus, Melor & Farhadi, Hadi & Fooladi, Masood & Farhadi, Maryam & Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2013. "A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases," MPRA Paper 46898, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Mar 2013.
    16. Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Eugene Garfield’s scholarly impact: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 489-516, February.
    17. Cláudia Frias Pinto & Fernando Ribeiro Serra & Manuel Portugal Ferreira, 2014. "A bibliometric study on culture research in International Business," Working Papers 107, globADVANTAGE, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria.
    18. Michel Zitt & Suzy Ramanana-Rahary & Elise Bassecoulard, 2003. "Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(2), pages 259-282, February.
    19. Giacomo Marzi & Marina Dabić & Tugrul Daim & Edwin Garces, 2017. "Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 673-704, November.
    20. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman & Rommert Dekker & Jan van den Berg, 2010. "A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2405-2416, December.
    21. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2011. "National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 929-941, December.
    22. Chaomei Chen, 2012. "Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 431-449, March.
    23. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    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. Jingwei Han & Zhixiong Tan & Maozhi Chen & Liang Zhao & Ling Yang & Siying Chen, 2022. "Carbon Footprint Research Based on Input–Output Model—A Global Scientometric Visualization Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    3. Liang Zhou & Lin Zhang & Ying Zhao & Ruoshu Zheng & Kaiwen Song, 2021. "A scientometric review of blockchain research," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 757-787, September.
    4. Chaomei Chen & Zhigang Hu & Jared Milbank & Timothy Schultz, 2013. "A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 234-253, February.
    5. Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Carlos Romá-Mateo & Maria-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones, 2019. "Overview of trends in global epigenetic research (2009–2017)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1545-1574, June.
    6. Wang, Xinxin & Xu, Zeshui & Qin, Yong & Skare, Marinko, 2021. "Service networks for sustainable business: A dynamic evolution analysis over half a century," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 543-557.
    7. Wang, Xinxin & Qin, Yong & Xu, Zeshui & Škare, Marinko, 2022. "A look at the focus shift in innovation literature due to Covid-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 1-20.
    8. Saulo Cardoso Maia & Gideon Carvalho Benedicto & José Willer Prado & David Alastair Robb & Oscar Neto Almeida Bispo & Mozar José Brito, 2019. "Mapping the literature on credit unions: a bibliometric investigation grounded in Scopus and Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 929-960, September.
    9. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    10. Toshiyuki Hasumi & Mei-Shiu Chiu, 2022. "Online mathematics education as bio-eco-techno process: bibliometric analysis using co-authorship and bibliographic coupling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4631-4654, August.
    11. Caputo, Andrea & Pizzi, Simone & Pellegrini, Massimiliano M. & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Digitalization and business models: Where are we going? A science map of the field," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 489-501.
    12. Andrej Kastrin & Dimitar Hristovski, 2021. "Scientometric analysis and knowledge mapping of literature-based discovery (1986–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1415-1451, February.
    13. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Dongyi & Li, Jing, 2022. "A new method for measuring the originality of academic articles based on knowledge units in semantic networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    14. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    15. Keng Yang & Hanying Qi, 2022. "Research on Health Disparities Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-25, January.
    16. Chiemela Victor Amaechi & Idris Ahmed Ja’e & Ahmed Reda & Xuanze Ju, 2022. "Scientometric Review and Thematic Areas for the Research Trends on Marine Hoses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-31, October.
    17. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    18. Payam Hanafizadeh & Seyedali Marjaie, 2020. "Trends and turning points of banking: a timespan view," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 1183-1219, December.
    19. Lijun Li, 2023. "Big data visualisation in regional comprehensive economic partnership: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Juan Ruiz-Rosero & Gustavo Ramirez-Gonzalez & Jesus Viveros-Delgado, 2019. "Software survey: ScientoPy, a scientometric tool for topics trend analysis in scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 1165-1188, November.

    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:128:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04625-x. 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.