IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i3d10.1007_s11192-024-04947-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Wei Chang

    (National Taiwan University
    National Taiwan University)

  • Majid Nabavi

    (Shiraz University)

Abstract

This study compared topics, impact, disciplines, and research methods in articles published from 2016 to 2020 between Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics (JOI) to provide referential data for researchers and understand developments in scientometric research. Regarding similarities between Scientometrics and JOI, the results revealed that authors affiliated with management-related institutes accounted for the largest group of researchers and were predominantly listed as the first authors. Methodology was the second most common topic, and the proportion of studies increased during the study period. Most researchers preferred combining various methods to analyze publications from different sources. Regarding the main differences between the two journals, articles on research-based communication and metrics and indicators dominated Scientometrics and JOI, respectively. Authors working for scientometric institutes were the second largest group of authors in JOI, whereas computer science authors were the second largest group in Scientometrics. The average impact of articles for each topic in JOI was higher than that of articles in Scientometrics.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Wei Chang & Majid Nabavi, 2024. "Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1415-1439, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04947-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-04947-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-04947-y
    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/s11192-024-04947-y?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. Donthu, Naveen & Kumar, Satish & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Pandey, Nitesh & Lim, Weng Marc, 2021. "How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 285-296.
    2. Shuto Miyashita & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Scientometrics for management of science: collaboration and knowledge structures and complexities in an interdisciplinary research project," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7419-7444, September.
    3. Song Yanhui & Wu Lijuan & Qiu Junping, 2021. "A comparative study of first and all-author bibliographic coupling analysis based on Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1125-1147, February.
    4. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 257-271, February.
    5. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    6. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    7. Yunwei Chen & Katy Börner & Shu Fang, 2013. "Evolving collaboration networks in Scientometrics in 1978–2010: a micro–macro analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1051-1070, June.
    8. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    9. William W. Hood & Concepción S. Wilson, 2001. "The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(2), pages 291-314, October.
    10. Staša Milojević & Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "Information metrics (iMetrics): a research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 141-157, April.
    11. A. Abrizah & Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & Vala Ali Rohani & Mike Thelwall & Jonathan M. Levitt & Fereshteh Didegah, 2014. "Sixty-four years of informetrics research: productivity, impact and collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 569-585, October.
    12. Haiyan Hou & Hildrun Kretschmer & Zeyuan Liu, 2008. "The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 189-202, May.
    13. Cristóbal Urbano & Jordi Ardanuy, 2020. "Cross-disciplinary collaboration versus coexistence in LIS serials: analysis of authorship affiliations in four European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 575-602, July.
    14. Tsung-Ming Hsiao & Kuang-hua Chen, 2020. "The dynamics of research subfields for library and information science: an investigation based on word bibliographic coupling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 717-737, October.
    15. K. Jonkers & G.E. Derrick, 2012. "The bibliometric bandwagon: Characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(4), pages 829-836, April.
    16. Alberto Martín-Martín & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2018. "Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2175-2188, September.
    17. Daria Maltseva & Vladimir Batagelj, 2020. "iMetrics: the development of the discipline with many names," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 313-359, October.
    18. Ole Ellegaard & Johan A. Wallin, 2015. "The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1809-1831, December.
    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. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Andrés Martínez-Medina & Sonia Morales-Calvo & Vicenta Rodríguez-Martín & Víctor Meseguer-Sánchez & Valentín Molina-Moreno, 2022. "Sixteen Years since the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: What Have We Learned since Then?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Fernando Morante-Carballo & Néstor Montalván-Burbano & Maribel Aguilar-Aguilar & Paúl Carrión-Mero, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Research on Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-29, July.
    4. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    5. Weisheng Chiu & Thomas Chun Man Fan & Sang-Back Nam & Ping-Hung Sun, 2021. "Knowledge Mapping and Sustainable Development of eSports Research: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    7. Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda & Emilio Abad-Segura, 2021. "Sustainable Business Model in the Product-Service System: Analysis of Global Research and Associated EU Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-33, September.
    8. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    9. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    10. Kameliya Deyanova & Nataliia Brehmer & Artur Lapidus & Victor Tiberius & Steve Walsh, 2022. "Hatching start-ups for sustainable growth: a bibliometric review on business incubators," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(7), pages 2083-2109, October.
    11. Alberto Martín-Martín & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2018. "A novel method for depicting academic disciplines through Google Scholar Citations: The case of Bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1251-1273, March.
    12. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    13. Ole Ellegaard, 2018. "The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 181-202, July.
    14. Yves Fassin, 2024. "Research on bibliometrics and the World’s leading universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6693-6718, November.
    15. Toluwase Asubiaro & Sodiq Onaolapo & David Mills, 2024. "Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1469-1491, March.
    16. Amit Kumar Singh & Yifang Zhang & Anu, 2023. "Understanding the Evolution of Environment, Social and Governance Research: Novel Implications From Bibliometric and Network Analysis," Evaluation Review, , vol. 47(2), pages 350-386, April.
    17. Sureka, Riya & Kumar, Satish & Colombage, Sisira & Abedin, Mohammad Zoynul, 2022. "Five decades of research on capital budgeting – A systematic review and future research agenda," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    18. A. Abrizah & Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & Vala Ali Rohani & Mike Thelwall & Jonathan M. Levitt & Fereshteh Didegah, 2014. "Sixty-four years of informetrics research: productivity, impact and collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 569-585, October.
    19. Saïd Echchakoui, 0. "Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    20. Biru Desta Kassaye & Yitbarek Takele Bayiley & Zerihun Kinde Alemu, 2025. "Returnee migrant entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis (1993–2024)," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.

    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:129:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04947-y. 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.