View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Proceedings of the
UGC Sponsored International Conference on
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES AND LIBRARY TECHNOLOGIES
VOL 2 METRIC STUDIES
24th – 25th February, 2017
Editors
Prof. S. Srinivasa Ragavan
Dr. R. Balasubramani
Dr. B. Ramesh Babu
Associate Editors
Dr. P. Ganesan
Dr. M. Surulinathi
Mr. C. Ranganathan
Dr. B. Jeyapragash
Dr. N. Amsaveni
Dr. M. Mandhirasalam
Dr. A. Senthamil Selvi
Organized By
Department of Library and Information Science
Bharathidasan University, Thiruchirappalli,
Tamilnadu. India – 620 024.
2017
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form by any
means without the prior written permission from the publishers.
All data, information, views, opinions, charts, tables, figures, graphs, etc that are published
in this volume are the sole responsibility of the authors. Neither the publisher nor the editors
in any way are responsible for the same.
Price: Rs.500/-
US $ 75
ISBN: 978-93-85399-86-2
©2017
Published by
Department of Library & Information Science
Bharathidasan University, Thiruchirappalli,
Tamilnadu, India – 620 024.
Printed at
SHANLAX PUBLICATIONS
61, 66 T.P.K. Main Road,
Vasantha Nagar,
MADURAI – 625003
Tamil Nadu, INDIA
Ph: 0452-4208765,
Mobile: 7639303383
email: publisher@shanlaxpublications.com
web: www.shanlaxpublications.com
Preface
Knowledge resources basically meant not mere access to the information available in any
format but gives emphasis on scientific and relevant organization of documents, may be in the
shelf or digital archive which involve a range of scientific principles and systems to organize,
retrieve, disseminate the required knowledge in subject domains. The foremost priority of
knowledge resource access adhere to the specific subjects domain, alternate approaches such as
regional, personal, time, materials and methods and even analytical also need to be taken care
by the knowledge resource systems. Library technologies may be of indexing, classification
system, metadata, taxonomy and ontology, semantic web, folksonomy, remote sensing or of
content management and e-learning systems. These both equally warrant the human interface
for effective organization and right delivery of right information at right time in a more
customized manner.
This Conference aimed at making an effort in this direction in bridging the gap between the user
community, knowledge resources and library technologies for the provision of information
services in the fast developing knowledge society. There are more than 265 papers by LIS
professionals and students from various reputed institutions all over India and a few
professionals from abroad have been contributed. Among them, the editorial committee has
included 160 papers after review process in the conference volume and grouped them into the
six broad subject categories.
Knowledge Organization and Knowledge Management
Information Use and User Studies
Digital Libraries and Web Technologies
E Resources and E-Learning
Open Access Resources and Open Source Technologies
Metric Studies
We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. V.M.Muthukumar, Honorable Vice-Chancellor,
Bharathidasan University and the university authorities for enabling us to organize this great
global event. We also acknowledge the delegates who took participate from Sri Lanka, Dubai,
Sultanate of Oman, Republic of China, Thailand and from African Continent and also Indian
delegates across all the states. We also appreciate and acknowledge all the good efforts of our
faculty colleagues, research scholars and students, particularly international and national
committee members to have successful organization of the conference and to bring out the
Conference Volume.
Editors
CONTENTS
Preface
List of Contributors
Technical Session 6: Metric Studies
S. No Title Page
No.
1 Management Information System Research Output : A Scientometric Study
Dr.Amsaveni, N and Manikandan, M
1
2 Quantitative Tools and Techniques for Metric Analysis in the Field of Library
and Information Science Research
Dr.R.LakshmiSankari
6
3 Authorship Pattern among the Faculty of Bharathidasan University:
A Scientometric Analysis
Mrs. Prasanna Kumari, N and Dr. Surulinathi, M
9
4 E Bibliometric Study of Doctoral Theses in Mineralogy
Dr. Siva Prasad, G
14
5 A Scientometrics Study of the Research Publication on Nanoscience 2011-2016
Karthick, B, Rajan, T and Rajaram, K
20
6 Mapping of Cartographic Research Productivity: A Bibliometric Study
Karuppasamy, K, Nageswara Rao, K and Dr.Duraipandi, R
24
7 Mapping the Research Productivity of Laser Science: Ascopus based Study on
scientometrics
Ramesh, B and Sankarasubramanian, N
30
8 Scientometric Analysis of Scientific Publications on Management Science
Research Literature
Sankarasubramanian, N, Dr. Duraipandi, R and Dr. Aravind
37
9 Scientometric Study of Materials Science Literature Research Productivity
Dr. Shanmugam, A.P and Dr. Duraipandi, R and Dr. A. Kalisdha
44
11 Mapping the Research Productivity of Nuclear Science: A Scopus based Study
on Bibliometrics
Dr. Duraipandi, R and Ramesh, B, Murugeswari
56
12 Authorship Pattern and Citation Analysis of Wireless Sensor Networks Research
Output
Sri Roopa, V and Dr. Amsaveni, N
63
13 Mapping The Research Productivity of Radio Science: A Scopus based Study on
Bibliometrics
Dr. Duraipandi, R Bhuvana, M, and 3Selvaraj, A
67
14 Scientific Publications of Thin Films Research:
A Scientometric Analysis
Kanchana, S & Mr. Mohd.Tariq
74
15 Scientometric Analysis of Indian Contribution
to Robotics Research
Arumugam, J & Dr. Balasubramani, R
81
16 Bibliometric Analysis on Organic Farming Using Bibexcel Tool 86
Dr.Thirumagal, A and Miss. Vanitha, A. 17 A Scientometrics Study of the Research Publication on Nanotechnology
(2011-2016): The Global Perspective
Rajaram, K Dr. Jeyachitra, S and Rajan, T
90
18 Abdominal Adhesions Research in Global: A Scientometric Analysis of Output
During 2001-2015
Gowri, P & Dr. Padma, P
95
19 Mapping of “Cloud Computing” Research During the Year 2011-2015:
A Scintometric Analysis
Thangamani, T and Dr.Palaniappan, M
100
20 Scientometric Mapping of Research on Corona Virus
Abu KS and Shanmuga Jothi, B
105
21 Buddhist Religious Studies : A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research
Trends From 2001-2016
Dr. Ravichandran P. Narenthiran. R
111
22 Scientometric Analysis on Congenital Glaucoma
Kumaragurupari, T and Dr. Geetha, V
114
23 Research Output Performance of Scientists on Dengue Disease From
2005-2014: A Scientometrics Analysis
Issac Newton, A and Dr.Gomathi, P
118
24 Authorship Pattern and Authors Collaboration of Applied and Environmental
Microbiology Journal Research Output Based on Web of Science Database
(2001-2005): An Bibliometric Study Dimensions
Rubinandhini, A & Dr.Gomathi, P
121
25 Bibliometric Analyses of Open Access Journals of Microbiology Available on
Directory of Open Access Journal Database
Dr. Manjunatha. M, Mr. Parameshappa Kenchakaller,
Lakshana Kumar B.M and Savitha K.S
126
26 Melissa Officinalis (Lemon Balm): Scientometric Analysis of A Database of
Records Output Drawn Form Pubmet 2013-2015
Dr. Ramasamy, R.U
129
27 Time Series and Trend Analysis of the Journal Solar Energy:
A Scientometric Study
Dr. Velvizhi, V
133
28 A Bibliometric Study on Growth of Research in Surgical Treatment – An
Anlaytical Review 2000-2014
Dr.Sundareswari, S
138
29 Indian Agricultural Contribution to Sorghum (Sorghum bicolour) Cereal Crop:
A Scientometric Study
Rajendran, L
142
30 Indian Dementia Research Output 1989-2016: A Scientometric Study
Ramasamy, K and Padma, P
147
31 Impact of Research Productivity on Systems Biology in India:
A Scientometric Study
Sankaralingam, R and Padma, P
152
32 Ostrich Research Publications: A Scientometric Analysis on Cab Direct for the
Period from 1966-2015
Selvaraj, A.D
157
33 Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publication of Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras: A Study Based on Web of Science Database
Melvin Jebaraj, C
162
34 Exploration of Dengue Research Trend: A Scientometrics Study 165
Mr. Thimmaiah B.N, Mr. Basavaraja M.T and Shivakumara S.U 35 Sugarcane Research Output in Global Level Reflected in Web of Science:
A Scientometric Analysis
Dr.Ashok Kumar, P, Dr. Sivasekaran, K and Santosh A Navalur
168
36 Bibliometric Analysis of the Authorship Patterns in the Indian Journal of
Sleep Medicine
Laksham, S and Thavamani, K
172
37 A Bibliometric Analysis on Editorial Volume of Electronic Resources and
Academic Libraries - A Study
Dr. Ravi Kumar Kennedy, I and Dr.Raja, T
178
38 Research Publications of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: A Study based on
Scopus Database
Dr. Sankar, M
182
39 A Scientometric Assessment of Earthquake Research Output in India
Dr.Vasanthi, R and Dr.Amsaveni, N
186
40 Bibliometric Analysis of Decision Science Journals Published over A Five Year
Period
Kohila, G.T, Dr. Balasubramani, R and Dr. Elavazhagan, K
191
41 Websites of State Universities in Tamil Nadu: A Webometric Study
Varadharajalu, J and Dr. Dhanavandan, S
195
42 A Scientometric Analysis of the Journal of Diabetic Retinopathy (2001 – 2005)
Hemala, K and Dr.Kavitha, E.S
200
43 Scientometric Analysis of Biodiversity Research Literature
Dr.Amudha, G and Dr.Panneer Selvam, P
205
44 Mapping of Oncology Research Output in India: A Scientometric Analysis
Muthukrishnan, M and Dr. Senthilkumar, R
211
45 Coffee Plant Research in India: A Scientometric Study
Dr. Navasakthi, C and Dr. Ramasamy, R. U
216
46 Global Spacecraft Research Outputs: A Bibliometric Study Based on Scopus
Database
Viswanathan, V & Dr. Tamizhchelvan, M
221
47 Visualizing The Citation Patterns of Concrete Technology Research Output:
A Study Using Citenet Explorer
Abu K.S and Dr.Balasubramani, R
227
48 Bibliometric analysis of Ecology of Freshwater Fish from 2000 – 2014 based on
Web of Science
Ramasamy Kumaresan, Krishnan Vinitha and Kattari Kannan
232
49 Scientometric Sketch of Global Research Output on Agrophysics
Asha Peter and Dr. Mini Devi, B
238
50 Mapping of Nanotechnology Research In India During The Year 2011-2015: A
Scientometric Study
SathiyaPriya, C and Dr. Gomathi, P
243
51 A Scientometrics Study of the Research Publication on Aerospace Application
Research Output(2007-2016): A Scientometric Study
Mrs. Shynee Martin, Dr. Geetha, V and Dr.Jaeqiline Nirmala, P
248
52 Research Output of Pediatric Cardiology: A Scientometric Study
Dr. Surulinathi, M and Subbiah, M
253
53 A Three-dimensional Bibliometric Analysis of University of Kerala: A study
based on the Publications indexed in Web of Science
Vishnumaya, R. S and Dr. Mini Devi, B
260
54 A Comparitive Study on the Scholarly Research Publications of University of 266
Colombo and University of Peradeniya Using Scientometric Tools
R. Maheswaran
55 Scientometric Analysis of Nuclear Physics Research Output in Global Level
Dr.Natarajan, N.O and Dr. Shanmugam, A.P
272
56 An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Sri Lankan publications on
environmental science
Pratheepan, T and Weerasooriya, W.A
278
57 Citation Analysis of Authors in Tamilnadu Agricultural University:
A Scientometric Study
Ulaganathan, G and Dr. Senthilkumar, R
284
58 Mapping of Aerospace Engineering Publications: A Study Based on Scimago
Journal and Country Rank Database
Dr. Senthilkumar, R and Ulaganathan, G
288
59 Scientometric study of Global Publication Output in Parkinson’s disease with
special reference to Asia during 2001-2016
Dimple Gopi and Dr Asha, B
292
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 1
Management Information System Research Output:
A Scientometric Study
1Dr.Amsaveni, N and
2Manikandan, M
1Assistant Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Bharathidasan University, Trichy 2Research Scholar, Department of Library and Information Science, Bharathidasan University, Trichy
Introduction
Management Information System is a superset of Boolean logic that handles the concept of partial truth,
which is a truth value between "completely true" and "completely false”. Management Information
System is multivalve. It deals with degrees of membership and degrees of truth. ‘Scientometrics’ is the
branch science of science that describes the output traits in terms of organizational research structure,
resource inputs and outputs, develops benchmarks to evaluate the quality of information output.
Scientometric research publications are a quantitative measure for the basic research activity in a country.
Objectives of the study
To measure the Authors productivity
To examine the year wise productivity and authorship patterns and the nature of collaborative
research
To identify the degree of collaboration
To identify the number of articles with their citation scores
Data and methodology
Web of Science is the largest abstract and citation database of research literature and quality webonly
journals. The study period 1989 to 2013 is selected as the database is available. A total of 45355 records
were downloaded and analyzed by using the Histcite software application analyzed and tabulated for
making observations as per the objectives of the study.
Table 1 - Showing brief description about Management Information System
Research Output during 1989 to 2013
1 Records 45355
2 Time Span 1989 - 2013
3 Contributed authors 156817
4 Contributed journals 6637
5 Document types 19
6 Languages 30
7 Contributing countries 182
8 Institutions 23486
9 Local References 14344
10 Global references 1184907
11 Local citations 56970
12 Global citations 601598
13 H - index 1447
Metric Studies
2 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
The table 1 reveals that the brief description about the MIS research output during the sample period
from the web of science database. The total time span is 25 years, 453555 records were downloaded.
Among those records were earned 601598 citation scores and 1447 h-index values. 30 different types of
languages were produced through 19 different types of document were produced the sample records,
among those 6637 are in the type of journal format. 182 countries were contributed through 23486
different types of institutions about the MIS research output.
Relative growth rate and doubling time
Table 2 - Relative Growth Rate and Doubling time of the Research Output in
Management Information System
Year R. o/p loge1p loge2
p Rt(P) Dt(P)
1989 49 - 3.892 - -
1990 129 3.892 5.182 1.290 0.54
1991 557 5.182 6.531 1.349 0.51
1992 684 6.531 7.124 0.593 1.17
1993 725 7.124 7.251 0.127 5.46
1994 935 7.251 7.415 0.164 4.23
1995 910 7.415 7.520 0.106 6.56
1996 978 7.520 7.543 0.023 30.08
1997 1051 7.543 7.615 0.072 9.62
1998 1083 7.615 7.666 0.050 13.73
1999 1238 7.666 7.750 0.084 8.25
2000 1382 7.750 7.871 0.121 5.72
2001 1377 7.871 7.923 0.052 13.41
2002 1558 7.923 7.984 0.062 11.21
2003 1861 7.984 8.137 0.153 4.54
2004 1998 8.137 8.258 0.121 5.72
2005 2136 8.258 8.327 0.069 10.07
2006 2399 8.327 8.420 0.093 7.49
2007 2579 8.420 8.513 0.093 7.44
2008 2898 8.513 8.608 0.096 7.25
2009 3273 8.608 8.728 0.119 5.81
2010 3439 8.728 8.812 0.084 8.25
2011 3815 8.812 8.889 0.078 8.92
2012 4000 8.889 8.964 0.074 9.30
2013 4301 8.964 9.024 0.060 11.49
Total 45355 5.132 (0.21) 196.76 (7.87)
Table 2 predicts data of relative growth rate and doubling time for total research output on MIS. The
analysis of MIS research output at International visual aid provides the following facts: It is observed that
its relative growth rates have contradicted progressively from 1.290 at 1990 to 0.06 in the year 2013.
During the whole study period sample mean relative growth rate is 5.132 and its average value is 0.21.
Contrary to this, the ‘Doubling Time’ for publication of all sources in MIS research output has decreased
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 3
from 0.54 years at 1990 to 11.49 years at 2013. During the study period doubling time value is 7.87
years. Hence the doubling of research literature is of 8 years in MIS.
Authorship pattern
The reflects the collaborative pattern of authors involved in Management Information System research.
totally 45355 articles were taken for this study; among those only 7174 articles were produced by single
authors; 11306 articles were produced by two authors team; 10334 articles were produced by three
authors team; 6667 articles were produced by four authors team; 3877 articles were produced by five
authors team; 2148 articles were produced by six authors team; 1322 articles were produced by seven
authors team; 813 articles were produced by eight authors team; 489 articles were produced by nine
authors team; and 1225 articles were produced by ten above authors team.
Most productive authors
The table 3 shows that the most productive authors in the field of MIS research output during 1989 to
2013.Table 3 reveals the contribution of top 10 most productive authors in Management Information
System research.
Table 3 - Top 10 Most Productive Authors in Management Information System
Research Output
S.No Author Records TLCS TGCS h-Index
1 Huang GH 119 568 3016 26
2 Lee S 76 133 677 13
3 Lee J 60 60 470 12
4 Kim S 57 32 358 9
5 [Anonymous] 50 0 0 0
6 Li L 47 165 584 15
7 Liu Y 47 28 206 8
8 Klein G 46 217 535 14
9 Zhang L 46 30 636 12
10 Liu L 45 72 633 12
“Huang GH”,College of Water Resources & Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University,has the top
list with the contribution of 119 records, h-Index (26), TLCS and TGCS are 568 and 3016 citations
respectively. Followed by “Lee S”, has second highest productivity of Management Information System
output 76 records, h-Index (13), TLCS and TGCS 133 and 677 citations respectively. The researcher has
identified the active author is “Huang GH”.
Degree of collaboration
A study of data from the above table 5 indicates the degree of collaboration in research output of
Management Information System. The degree of collaboration is 0.84 during the study period 1989 to
2013. i.e., out of the total 45355 literature published 38181 are from multiple authors which 84.18
percent is of total output and 7174 papers are published by single author which is 15.8 percent of total
output.
Metric Studies
4 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Table 4 - Degree of collaboration inManagement Information System research output
Year Single Author Multi Authors
Total Degrees of
Collaboration Articles percents Articles percents
1989 26 0.36 23 0.06 49 0.47
1990 54 0.75 75 0.20 129 0.58
1991 196 2.73 361 0.95 557 0.65
1992 235 3.28 449 1.18 684 0.66
1993 238 3.32 487 1.28 725 0.67
1994 281 3.92 654 1.71 935 0.70
1995 300 4.18 610 1.60 910 0.67
1996 280 3.90 698 1.83 978 0.71
1997 278 3.88 773 2.02 1051 0.74
1998 244 3.40 839 2.20 1083 0.77
1999 285 3.97 953 2.50 1238 0.77
2000 318 4.43 1064 2.79 1382 0.77
2001 290 4.04 1087 2.85 1377 0.79
2002 312 4.35 1246 3.26 1558 0.80
2003 350 4.88 1511 3.96 1861 0.81
2004 303 4.22 1695 4.44 1998 0.85
2005 299 4.17 1837 4.81 2136 0.86
2006 340 4.74 2059 5.39 2399 0.86
2007 354 4.93 2225 5.83 2579 0.86
2008 380 5.30 2518 6.59 2898 0.87
2009 372 5.19 2901 7.60 3273 0.89
2010 386 5.38 3053 8.00 3439 0.89
2011 410 5.72 3405 8.92 3815 0.89
2012 319 4.45 3681 9.64 4000 0.92
2013 324 4.52 3977 10.42 4301 0.92
7174(15.82) 100.00 38181 100.00 45355 84.18
It could be seen clearly from the above discussion that the degree of collaboration in producing research
output on Management Information System research has shown in increasing trend during the study
period; because the researcher has identified the selection area of Management Information System is a
new discipline. Based on this study, the result of the degree of collaboration C = 0.84. i.e. 84 percent of
collaborative authors’ articles published during the study periods.
Table 5 - Prolific Journals (10) according to highest research productivity
S.No Journal Recs. % TLCS TGCS TLCR
1 Expert Systems With Applications 380 0.8 502 3926 820
2 Information & Management 342 0.8 2200 8123 1171
3 Decision Support Systems 289 0.6 947 4247 984
4 Industrial Management & Data
Systems 274 0.6 782 2969 1057
5 International Journal of Production
Research 255 0.6 460 2836 923
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 5
6 International Journal of Information
Management 249 0.5 641 2566 851
7 International Journal of Medical
Informatics 248 0.5 609 4086 583
8 MIS QUARTERLY 248 0.5 5556 19623 1351
9 Journal of The American Medical
Informatics Association 237 0.5 675 5410 449
10 European Journal of Operational
Research 231 0.5 937 6633 438
The table 5 reveals that the top ten prolific journals of MIS research output during the sample time span.
the journal of "Expert Systems with Applications" has produced 380 records, TLCS 302 & TGCS 3926
and being the first rank position, followed by the journal of "Information & Management" has
produced highest number of articles and stood in second place as per the above table. The journal of
"MIS Quarterly" has earned the highest TLCS, TGCS and TLCR and stood in the first position based
these values.
Conclusion
This paper has discussed the contributions made by Management Information System researchers during
1989 - 2013 as reflected in Web of Science Database. During the twenty five years time span publication
is significantly increased. The collaborative work has been recognized compare to individual
contribution; particularly two authors team has produced highest number of articles in MIS research. The
individual scientist may be stimulated to distribute more number of contributions as an alternative of
single contributions. the active authors is "Huang GH" from China. The most productive journal is
"Expert Systems With Applications".
References
Amsaveni. N&M.Manjula(2014), “Application of Statistical models to the collaborative publications in
Bioinformatics,” International Journal ofComputer Science and mobile computing,Vol.3(2),pp.606-
616. ISSN 2320-088X.
Balasubramani.R& M. Gunasekaran(2012),Scientometric Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Research
Output: An Indian Perspective, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 70, No. 2 (2012),
pp. 317-322.
Surulinathi M. [et. al]. (2011). Scintometric profile of solar energy research in India.Recent Research
in Science and Technology, Vol. 3(10), 112-117.
Maheswaran, R. (2016). Funding Research output at the University of Peradeniya: A Scientometric
Analysis. In Suresh De Mel et al (Eds.), Unleashing Minds to create a sustainable future:
Proceedings of the International conference on the Humanities and Social Sciences 2016 (pp.
354 – 357). Peradeniya, Sri Lanka: Faculty of Arts, University of Peradeniya.
Metric Studies
6 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Quantitative Tools and Techniques for Metric Analysis in the Field of Library and
Information Science Research
1Dr.R.LakshmiSankari
1Librarian, Thiruvalluvar University Model Constituent College of Arts and Science, Tittagudi
Introduction
Prof. P.C. Mahalanobis, founder of the Indian Statistical Institute, in the early 1950’s argued that
statistics is a “key technology” – as it is required for all socio-economic development activities and since
statistical tools and techniques are used in all development and forecasting studies. In recent past,
statistics has been applied to a number of areas such as perspective planning, industrial and agricultural
development, etc. Statistics and related techniques when applied in depth to a field may give rise to a
new subject, econometrics is an example. Even in the field of library and information science, the
applications of quantitative tools and techniques are becoming increasingly popular.
Bio-bibliometric studies
Bio-Bibliometrics deals with the biographical study of the individual careers of scientists and researchers
and correlating bibliographic analysis of publications or academic and scientific achievements. The term
biobibliometrics was first coined by Sen and Gan in 1990, which means as the quantitative and analytical
method for discovering and establishing functional relationships between bio-data and biblio-data
elements.
Quantitative and qualitative tools
After Pritchard's initial work, bibliometrics expanded in two dimensions viz. quantitative and qualitative.
Quantitative analyses of literature are demonstrated by the early statistical studies culminating in the
emergence of three basic bibliometric laws namely:
Lotka's Law (1926) predicting the productivity distribution of various authors;
Zipf s Law (1933) describing word-frequency rankings, and
Bradford's Law of scattering (1934) describing distribution of documents (usually journals) in a
specific discipline or problem area.
Qualitative applications of bibliometrics emphasize practical utilization of research findings, the five of
which are especially useful for libraries for identifying a core literature; ranking publications in zones of
diminishing importance; establishing a transition point between zones of higher and lower utility; tracing
the spread of ideas as a study of epidemics; and classifying segments of literature through
interconnections of citations.
H-Index
The H-index is an index that quantifies scientific productivity of a scientist based on the number of
papers published by the scientist and on how often these papers are cited in papers written by other
scientists. H-Index is calculated based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's
publications and also applied to the productivity of a group of scientists, such as a department or
university or country. A scientist has index h if h of his Np papers have atleast h citations each, and the
other (Np - h) papers have at most h citations each. In other words, a scholar with an index of h has
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 7
published h papers with atleasth citations each. Thus, the h-index is the result of the balance between the
number of publications and the number of citations per publication (Hirsch, 2005).
Citation analysis
One author cites another author, a relationship is established. Citation analysis uses citations in scholarly
works to establish links. Many different links can be ascertained, such as links between authors, between
scholarly works, between journals, between fields, or even between countries. One very common use of
citation analysis is to determine the impact of a single author on a given field by counting the number of
times the author has been cited by others. One possible drawback of this approach is that authors may be
citing the single author in a negative context.
Co-Citation coupling
Co-citation coupling is a method used to establish a subject similarity between two documents. If papers
A and B are both cited by paper C, they may be said to be related to one another, even though they don't
directly cite each other. If papers A and B are both cited by many other papers, they have a stronger
relationship. The more papers they are cited by, the stronger their relationship is.
Bibliographic coupling
Bibliographic coupling operates on a similar principle, but in a way it is the mirror image of co-citation
coupling. Bibliographic coupling links two papers that cite the same articles, so that if papers A and B
both cite paper C, they may be said to be related, even though they don't directly cite each other. The
more papers they both cite, the stronger their relationship is.
Impact Factor (IF)
Impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the institute for Scientific Information
(ISI), now part of Thomson Reuters. Impact factor are calculated yearly for those journals that are
indexed in Thomson Reuter’s Journal Citation Reports. Generally, this indicator is used by several
librarians for collection management, journal publishers in marketing, information analysis in
bibliometric research and authors to identify the journals in which to publish. In citation analysis, the
Impact Factor is used to measure the average citation rate of articles in any scholarly journal in a
particular year. It denotes basically a ratio between the citation rate of the journal and citation potential as
well. Citation rate is defined as the number of times cited, whereas citation potential is defined as the
number of citable items published.
Therefore, the formula is: IF = the number of times a journal was cited / the number of citable items the
journal published. .
Limitations of bibliometrics and scientometrics
Some of the limitations of bibliometric and scientometric studies are summarized below:
It describes text, not necessarily meaning and context
Monographs are not well covered
The citation indexes offer selective coverage of journals mostly English
Only the first author of an article is cited in the citation indexes
Homographs- More than one author listed under single name with variant initials mixed with full
names
Metric Studies
8 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Translated and transliterated names
Authors with particle names (de, des, von,Van, etc.)
Maiden and married name in case of female author
Typographic human errors
Some important articles begin to hide as they are taken for granted in the field
Citations are sometimes biased for other than scholarly reasons
Some articles may be ahead of their time, therefore not cited (m) Variant
reference to the same item (year, volume, page, etc.)
Conclusion
Bibliometrics or Scientometrics studies are the most effective field in Library andInformation Science
research. These elements are marked by extensive use ofquantitative and qualitative techniques. These
techniques have extensive applications inidentifying the research trends in a subject, trends in authorship
and collaboration inresearch, core journals and author productivity, science policy and also these
techniqueshave been helpful in enabling the mapping of disciplines. In fact, in the last two decades
anumber of tools and techniques and indices for this purpose have been developed andapplied to various
areas including library and information science filed.
References
Balasuramanian, P and Baladhandayutham, A. (2011). Bibliometrics, Research Methodology in Library
Science, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi, pp 215-216.
Bradford, S C (1934). Sources of Information of specific subjects, Engineering, 137, p 85-86.
Cole, F.J and Eale, N. B (1917). The History of Comparative Anatomy Part - 1: A Statistical Analysis of
literature. Science Progress, 11, pp 578-96.
Deshmukh, Prashant P. (2011). Citations in Annals of Library and Information Studies during 1997-
2010: a Study, Annals of Library and Information Studies, 58, December 2011, pp. 355-361.
Fairthorne, R A (1969). Empirical hyperbolic distributions (Bradford Zipf-Mandelbort) for bibliometric
description and application, Journal of Documentation, 25, pp319.
Garfield, E. (1996). Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved?, British Medical Journal,
313,pp 411-413.Kessler, M M (1983). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers.
AmericanDocumentation, 14. pp. 10.15.
Lotka, A J (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity, Journal ofWashington Academy
of Sciences, 16, p 317.
Maheswaran, R. (2016). Status of Institutional repositories in SAARC countries: An Analytical Study .
In M. K. Weerasinghe, W. A. Weerasooriya, & W. Seneviratne (Eds.), Information for
sustainable development: Challenged and opportunities . First Internation conference on
Library and Information Management (pp. 64). Kelaniya, Sri Lanka: Department of Library
and Informartion Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kelaniya.
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 9
Authorship Pattern among the Faculty of Bharathidasan University:
A Scientometric Analysis
1Mrs. Prasanna Kumari, N and
2Dr. Surulinathi, M
1,2Research Scholar & Assistant Professor DLIS, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli
Introduction
Exploring the new trends of higher education and research has assumed added significance in the world
of modern era. Research plays a critical role in promoting the prosperity of a nation and the well being of
its citizens. Universities, through research make important contributions to the growth and development
of industries and government, thereby promoting national and global development. Now a day the
scientometrics, research publications are clearly one of the quantitative measures for the basic research
activity in a country. This study attempts to analyze the performance of Scholarly publications of
Bharathidasan University in terms of Publications, areas of research concentration, authorship pattern
and so on.
Methodology
The present study is to investigate the research performance of Bharathidasan University scholarly
publications. It aims to identify the distribution of research output on the basis of research papers
contributed by Scientists. The study examines the author productivity, degree of Collaboration, h-index,
g-index and gh-index was also brought under the purview of the study and it is also analytical in nature
with the suitable statistical tools applications in strengthening the experimental validity.
Data collection
There are various sources contributing to the research output of BDU research by overall scientists. For
this study the researcher has taken the secondary sources from online database. The necessary data was
collected from the database of Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and
Arts & Humanities Citation Index (ACHI) which is available via the Web of Science (WoS). The WoS is
the search platform provided by Thomson Reuters (the former Thomson Scientific emerged from the
Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in Philadelphia). SCI and SSCI database is one of the very
complete databases covering all aspects of science. The study period 1989 to June 2015 is selected in the
available database. The researcher has used the search string “Bharathidasan University” in the address
field for the study period of 1989 to 2015 (totally twenty seven years) downloaded the records based on
the above strings. A total of 3148 records were downloaded in the form of Notepad and used the Histcite,
VOS viewer and MS Excel packages for tabulation.
Objectives of the study
To classify the most productive authors and authorship patterns.
To identify the nature of collaboration and co-authorship pattern
Metric Studies
10 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
To determine the degree of collaboration in BDU research.
Authorship pattern
The authorship pattern analysis has easily identify productive range of authors, i.e., single and multi
authors. Table 1 has reveals that the year wise distribution of author groups and their publications count
over a period of twenty seven years revealed interesting results. It is identified from this analysis, single
authored, two authored and three authored articles were started from 1989. Followed by Four authored
articles produced from 1990, five authored articles produced from 1992, six and eight authored articles
produced from 1994, seven authored articles produced from 1999, nine authored articles produced from
2003 and ten above authored articles produced from 2002. The research has more than 100 articles are
been at the year of after 2002. 2001 has highest single authored articles published followed by 2014 has
highest two, seven and eight authored articles published, 2012 has highest three authored articles
published, 2011 has highest four and five authored articles published, 2013 and 2014 has highest six
authored articles published, 2013 has highest nine authored and more than ten authored articles published
respectively.
Out of 3148 publications were produced different types of authorship pattern by 12527 authors. 78 (2.5
%) of articles were produced by Single authored (0.6 %) papers, followed by 820 (26.05 %) of articles
were regarding two (Joint) authored publications by 1640 (13.09 %) authors, the maximum output
recorded was 58 during 2014. 638 (20.27 %) of articles were regarding three authored 1914 (15.3 %) of
publications, the maximum output recorded was 60 during 2012. 624 (19.82 %) of articles were
regarding four authored 2496 (19.92 %) of publications, the maximum output recorded was 63 during
2011. 449 (14.26 %) of articles were regarding five authored 2245 (17.92 %)of publications, the
maximum output recorded was 63 during 2011. 243 (7.72 %) of articles were regarding six authored
1458 (11.6 %) ofpublications, the maximum output recorded was each 35 during 2013 and 2014. 122
(3.88 %) of articles were regarding seven authored 854 (6.82%) ofpublications, the maximum output
recorded was 24 during 2014. 76 (2.41 %) of articles were regarding eight authored 608 (4.85 %)
ofpublications, the maximum output recorded was 13 during 2014. 40 (1.27 %) of articles were regarding
nine authored 360 (2.87%) ofpublications, the maximum output recorded was 10 during 2013. And 58
(1.84 %) of articles were regarding seven authored 874 (2.87%) ofpublications, the maximum output
recorded was 14 with performance during 2013.
Most productive authors
Totally 12527 authors (BDU and collaboration Institutions) were contributed. Among those highest
(above 60 articles) productivity authors were ranked according to their publications. From the below
table analysis most prolific authors, their publication productivity, started year of their research, h-index,
g-index, gh-index and TGCS were calculated. The selected top twenty authors, 7 authors were from
Chemistry department, 6 authors were from Physics department, 4 authors were from Animal Science
department, 2 authors were from Life Science department, only one author has from the department of
Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering.
The author “Lakshmanan M” produced 218 articles from the department of Non-Linear Dynamics and he
started his research at 1989 with 3971 TGCS, 34 h-index, 54 g-index and 1.58 gh-index values observed
and the mentioned author is active author of BDU. In overall duration he produced highest numbers of
articles, especially the year groups of 1987 to 1997 has highest contribution. By the authorship wise, 21
articles were produced as single author, 82 articles were produced being two authored team, 70 articles
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 11
produced being as three authors team, 38 articles produced as four authors team and 7 article produced
being 5 and more than five authored team.
Table 2 - Most productive Authors; Citations, Average Citation, h-index,
g-index, gh-index from BDU
Author Dept. Rec 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5&>5 Citation Av.
Citn
h-
index
g-
index
gh-
index
Lakshmanan M Non-
Linear Dynamics
218 21 82 70 38 7 3971
18.16
34 54 1.58
Muthiah PT Chemistry 143 11 81 29 14 8 1167 8.20 19 23 1.21
Ramamurthi K Physics 131 2 26 51 33 19 1101 8.39 15 28 1.86
Palaniandavar M Chemistry 127 13 48 36 15 15 3989 30.93 34 59 1.68
Parthasarathi V Life Science
111 1 94 7 7 2 367 3.31 9 12 1.33
Akbarsha MA Life Science
108 22 6 11 19 50 1233 11.38 18 31 1.72
Venuvanalingam P
Chemistry 108 1 36 35 24 12 819 7.60 18 23 1.27
Renganathan R Chemistry 96 0 23 25 20 28 1466 15.35 23 35 1.52
Balasundaram C Animal
Science
92 5 42 11 20 14 926 10.15 17 26 1.52
Dhanuskodi S Physics 84 31 36 8 5 4 916 10.99 18 26 1.44
Arumugam S Physics 82 12 5 16 17 32 389 4.83 11 15 1.36
Archunan G Animal Science
74
4 30 13 9 18 409 5.49 13 15 1.15
Ganapathi A Biotechn. & Genetic
Engg.
74 1 13 13 9 38 653 8.89 15 20 1.33
Geraldine P Animal Science
74 3 24 20 11 16 772 10.47 16 25 1.47
Senthilvelan M Non-Linear
Dynamics
67 2 32 30 3 0 531 8.03 13 20 1.53
Harikrishnan R Animal
Science
66 0 33 19 11 3 772 11.77 16 24 1.5
Arunachalam S Chemistry 64 1 32 18 6 7 658 10.30 15 23 1.53
Daniel M Physics 63 40 19 3 1 0 692 11.05 16 23 1.43
Jeyaraman R Chemistry 62 12 12 9 17 12 412 6.65 11 17 1.54
Ramesh R Chemistry 62 5 40 11 4 2 966 15.73 18 28 1.47
Bibliographic Coupling of BDU Scholars
The most productive authors results are; the author “Lakshmanan M” has 218 documents with 61055
bibliographic coupling values; followed by the author “Muthiah PT” has 143 documents with 314298
bibliographic coupling values; followed the author “Ramamurthi K” has 131 documents with 90414
bibliographic coupling values; the author “Palaniandavar M” has 129 documents with 239155
bibliographic coupling values; the author of “Parthasarathi V” has 111 documents with 319702
bibliographic coupling values; the author of “Akbarsha MA” has 109 documents with 114450
bibliographic coupling values measured. The author “Venuvalingam P” has 108 documents with 60269
bibliographic coupling values.
Metric Studies
12 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Degree of Collaboration
A study of the above data indicates the degree of collaboration in research publications of Bharathidasan
University. The below table analysis reveals that the single Vs. Multi-authored paper of Bharathidasan
University scholarly publications.
Table 3 - Single vs. Multi-authored & Degree of Collaboration
Year
Single Author Multi Author
Total Degree of
Collaboration No. of
Output %
No. of
Output %
1989 5 6.41 16 0.52 21 0.76
1990 1 1.28 18 0.59 19 0.95
1991 1 1.28 21 0.68 22 0.95
1992 1 1.28 32 1.04 33 0.97
1993 2 2.56 27 0.88 29 0.93
1994 0 0.00 46 1.50 46 1.00
1995 1 1.28 41 1.34 42 0.98
1996 4 5.13 53 1.73 57 0.93
1997 4 5.13 61 1.99 65 0.94
1998 0 0.00 63 2.05 63 1.00
1999 1 1.28 54 1.76 55 0.98
2000 3 3.85 52 1.69 55 0.95
2001 9 11.54 56 1.82 65 0.86
2002 2 2.56 87 2.83 89 0.98
2003 2 2.56 120 3.91 122 0.98
2004 3 3.85 114 3.71 117 0.97
2005 3 3.85 132 4.30 135 0.98
2006 5 6.41 138 4.50 143 0.97
2007 4 5.13 133 4.33 137 0.97
2008 4 5.13 131 4.27 135 0.97
2009 7 8.97 179 5.83 186 0.96
2010 3 3.85 195 6.53 198 0.98
2011 2 2.56 288 9.38 290 0.99
2012 4 5.13 257 8.37 261 0.98
2013 3 3.85 271 8.83 274 0.99
2014 3 3.85 313 10.20 316 0.99
2015 1 1.28 172 5.60 173 0.99
Total 78
(2.47) 100
3070
(97.52) 100 3148 0.975
The degree of collaboration value is 0.975 i.e. 98 percentage of articles were produced by the
collaborative work. The table value showed that 98 percent of articles were produced by collaborative
mode. This analysis strongly mentioned that the collaborative work has dominated in producing articles
from Bharathidasan University scholarly publications and shown an increasing trend during the study
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 13
period since it is a new discipline. Based on this study, the result of the degree of collaboration C=0.975.
i.e, 98 percent of collaborative author’s articles published during the sample study period.
Conclusion
Universities are cradles of innovation and knowledge creation. Research in Universities concerned with
value of research. Based on the research publications in Citaion and indexing databases with high h-
index values, the DST has recently sanctioned a research fund of Rs.9.50 Crores to Bharathidasan
University under promotion of university Research and Scientific Excellence (PURSE) scheme and its
shows the quality research. The H-index attempts to measures both the scientific productivity and the
apparent scientific impact of a researcher. Bharathidasan University gets NAAC reaccreditation with “A”
grade. Bharathidasan University has well established and regularly functioning Inter Quality Assurance
Cell (IQAC). By University with potential for excellence (UPE) program; University achieves excellence
in education, training, research and governance to face the challenges of future; it also strengthen the
academic and physical infrastructure for achieving excellence and innovation in teaching, learning,
research and outreach programmes; it also enhance the quality of the learning process. To promote
academic programmes relevant to the social and economic needs of the nation in general and the region
in particular it makes networking with each other to share the knowledge.
References
Ahn, J., Oh, D. H., and Lee, J. D. (2014). The scientific impact and partner selection in collaborative
research at Korean Universities. Scientometrics, 100(1), 173-188.
De Witte, K., Rogge, N., Cherchye, L., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2012). Accounting for Economies of
scope in performance evaluations of University Professors. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 64(11), 1595-1606.
Ranganathan, C., & Balasubramani, R. (2013). Authorship Pattern of Digital Architecture Research
Output: A Scientometric Analysis. International Journal of Engineering Research and
Technology, 2(12), ISSN: 2278-0181, URL: www.ijert.org
Tahira, M., Alias, R. A., and Bakri, A. (2013). Scientometric Assessment of Engineering in Malaysian
universities. Scientometrics, 96(3), 865-879.
Tan, H. X., Ujum, E. A., Choong, K. F., and Ratnavelu, K. (2015). Impact analysis of Domestic and
International Research Collaborations: A Malaysian case study. Scientometrics, 102(1), 885-904
Maheswaran, R. (2015). Scientometrics: The Development Measurement, and Scholarly Communications. Chidambaram, India : AMU Mani. Maheswaran, R. (2014). Basic Research Methods and Techniques for Library and Information Science.. Salem, India : SA.
Metric Studies
14 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
E Bibliometric Study of Doctoral Theses in Mineralogy
1Dr. Siva Prasad, G
1Lecturer in Library Science (SG), Govt. College for Women (A), Guntur
Introduction
Doctoral theses besides the publication in research journals can be considered as parameters to assess the
performance of the university or research laboratory in the field of research and development.
Bibliometrics deals with the measurement of the properties of documents. In practice, bibliometrics is
primarily applied to science related documents. There are many techniques like word frequency count,
co-citation analysis, co-word analysis, document counting as the number of single authorship, multiple
authorship articles, etc. Bibliometric method is used in the present study to understand the information
needs, use pattern and use of behaviour of research scholars in the field of Mineralogy.
Objectives
The objectives of the present study are:
to know the distribution of citations in different bibliographic forms
to examine the subject wise, language wise, and country-wise break up of citations
to examine the authorship pattern
to identify the core journals
Methodology
Fifty four theses available at Andhra University during 1962-2015 were studied for bibliometric analysis.
A total of 13,031 citations were recorded averaging 241 citations per thesis. Further, Ulrich’s
International Periodical Directory was referred to for knowing the country and the subject of the cited
journals.
Results and discussion
Bibliographic form-wise distribution of citations:
Table 1 shows the distribution of cited literature in different bibliographic forms. Journals are most used
bibliographic form account 9984 citations (76.62%) of the total citations (13,031). The total number of
citations from books were 1214 citations (9.31%), conferences with 691 citations (5.30%), Dissertations
with 670 citations (5.14%), reports with 262 citations (2.01%), reference books with 92 citations
(0.71%), monographs with 28 citations (0.22%), standards with 7 citations (0.05%), Patents with 5
citations (0.04%), Newspapers with 4 citations (0.03%), unpublished with 12 citations (0.09%) and
unidentified categories with 62 citations (0.48%).
Table 1 - Bibliographic form-wise distributions of citations
S.No Bibliographic
Form
No.of
Citations Percentage
Cum.
No. Cum.Percentage
1 Journals 9984 76.62 9984 76.62
2 Books 1214 9.31 11198 85.93
3 Conferences 691 5.30 11889 91.23
4 Dissertations 670 5.14 12559 96.37
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 15
5 Reports 262 2.01 12821 98.38
6 Reference
books 92 0.71 12913 99.09
7 Monographs 28 0.22 12941 99.31
8 Standards 7 0.05 12948 99.36
9 Patents 5 0.04 12953 99.40
10 Newspapers 4 0.03 12957 99.43
11 Unpublished 12 0.09 12969 99.52
12 Unidentified 62 0.48 13031 100.00
It can be concluded from table 1 that research scholars in geology use journals mostly for their research
work.
Subject-wise distribution of citations
The subject-wise distribution of citations in Geology is shown in Table 2. It is observed that geological
literature is scattered over 72 subject areas. Mineralogy account for 3941 citations (30.39%), General
Geology with 3852 citations (29.70%), Geochemistry with 1302 citations (10.04%), General science with
1043 citations (8.04%), Petrology with 743 citations (5.73%), Earth science with 533 citations (4.11%),
Geophysics with 205 citations (1.58%), Sedimentology with 130 citations (1.00%), Analytical
chemistry with 103 citations (0.80%), Chemistry with 99 citations (0.76%), Gemology with 74 citations
(0.57%), Soil Science with 73 citations with(0.56%), Environmental Science with 71 citations with
(0.55%) and 59 other subjects with 800 citations (6.17%).
Table 2 - Subject-wise distribution of citations
S.No Subject Number of
Citations Percentage
Cumulative
Number
Cumulative
Percentage
1 Mineralogy 3941 30.39 3941 30.39
2 General Geology 3852 29.70 7793 60.09
3 Geochemistry 1302 10.04 9095 70.13
4 General Science 1043 8.04 10138 78.17
5 Petrology 743 5.73 10881 83.90
6 Earth Science 533 4.11 11414 88.01
7 Geophysics 205 1.58 11619 89.59
8 Sedimentology 130 1.00 11749 90.59
9 Analytical
Chemistry 103 0.80 11852 91.39
10 Chemistry 99 0.76 11951 92.15
11 Gemology 74 0.57 12025 92.72
12 Soil Science 73 0.56 12098 93.28
13 Environmental
Science 71 0.55 12169 93.83
14 Others (59 Subjects) 800 6.17 12969 100.00
Metric Studies
16 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Language-Wise Distribution of Citations
The Language-wise distribution of citations in Geology. The citations in Mineralogy are distributed
among 11 languages. English occupies the first place with 82.94 percent of the total citations, followed
by German (1.55%), Russian (1.05%) and French (0.77%). The bi-lingual and multi-lingual categories
contribute 3.60 percent and 9.90 percent respectively.
Country-Wise Distribution of Citations
It is evident from Table 3 that the literature of Mineralogy is distributed among 59 countries. USA alone
contributes 33.58 percent of the total citations, followed by India (24.13%), UK (17.99%), Germany
(7.84%), and The Netherlands (4.48%). The remaining 11.98 percent of citations are distributed among
54 countries. USA, India and UK together contribute 75.70 percent of the total citations.
Table 3 - Country-wise distribution of citations
S.No Country No. of citn. Percentage Cum.
No
Cum.
Percentage
1 USA 4351 33.58 4351 33.58
2 India 3126 24.13 7477 57.71
3 UK 2331 17.99 9808 75.70
4 Germany 1016 7.84 10824 83.54
5 The Netherlands 581 3.60 11405 88.02
6 Japan 209 1.61 11614 89.63
7 Canada 189 1.46 11803 91.09
8 Russia 163 1.26 11966 92.35
9 Sweden 128 0.99 12094 93.34
10 France 112 0.86 12206 94.20
Authorship Pattern in Journal Citations
It can be seen from Table 4 that most of the journal citations (53.33%) have two authors. The remaining
citations are contributed by single (26.56%), three (15.66%), four (3.04%) and more than five (1.41%)
authors. It can be inferred from data that multi-authored papers are maximum in number accounting for
73.44 percent of total journal citations.
Table 4 - Authorship pattern in Journal citations
S.No Number of Authors No. of citn. Percentage Cum. No Cum. Percentage
1 Single 2650 26.56 2650 26.56
2 Two 5321 53.33 7971 79.89
3 Three 1563 15.66 9534 95.55
4 Four 303 3.04 9837 98.59
5 Five & Above 141 1.41 9978 100.00
Ranked List of cited Journals
It is observed from the table 5 that the journal citations are scattered over 758 journals. American
Mineralogist occupies the first position with 9.85 percent, followed by GeochemicaetCosmochimActa
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 17
(6.73%), Journal of the Geological Society of India (5.03%), Mineralogical Magazine (4.49%),
Economic Geology (4.12%), Journal of Geology (3.94%), American Journal of Science (3.65%), and
Geological Society of America Bulletin (3.50%). The first four journals cover 26 percent of the total
cited journal citations. The first 12 journals in the ranked list contributed 50 percent of the journal
citations. Among them, five journals are devoted to General Geology, four journals are devoted to
Mineralogy, and one journal each, is devoted to Geochemistry, Petrology and General science. The first
45 journals contributed 75 percent of the total cited journal citations and the remaining 25 percent of
citations are scattered over 713 journals.
Table 6 - Ranked list of cited Journals
Rank Title of Journal Country No. of
citations %
Cum.
No. Cum. %
1 American Mineralogist USA 983 9.85 983 9.85
2. Geoch..et Cosm. Acta UK 672 6.73 1655 16.58
3. J. Geol. Soc. India India 502 5.03 2157 21.61
4 Mineralogical Magazine UK 448 4.49 26.05 26.10
5 Economic Geology USA 411 4.12 3016 30.22
6 J. Geology USA 393 3.94 34.06 34.16
7 Amer. J. Sci. USA 364 3.65 3773 37.81
8. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. USA 349 3.50 4122 41.31
9. Contr. Min. Petr. Germany 289 2.89 4411 44.20
10 Geol. Surv. India Rec India 226 2.26 4637 46.46
11 J. Petrology UK 210 2.10 4847 48.56
12. Geol. Surv. India Mem. India 157 1.57 5004 50.13
13. Geolgical Magazine UK 151 1.51 5155 51.64
14. Proc. Ind.. Acad. Sci. (EPS) India 131 1.31 5286 52.95
15 Chemical Geology The
Netherlands 116 1.16 5402 54.11
16. Indian Mineralogist India 114 1.14 5516 55.25
17. Ear. Plan. Sci. Lett. The
Netherlands 103 103 5619 56.28
18 Precamb. Res The
Netherlands 101 1.01 5720 57.29
19. Minera. Depos. Germany 100 1.00 5820 58.29
20 Neus. Jahrb. Min. Abh Germany 99 0.99 5919 59.28
21 Q.J.Geol.Met.Min.Soc.Ind. India 96 0.96 6015 60.34
22. Current Science India 88 0.88 6103 61.12
23 J. Geol. Soc. Lon. UK 83 0.83 6186 61.95
24 Geol. Soc. Amer. Mem. USA 80 0.80 6266 62.75
25 J. Ind. Acad. Geosci. India 75 0.75 6341 63.50
26 Nature UK 73 0.73 6414 64.23
26 Can. J. Ear. Sci. Canada 73 0.73 6487 64.96
27 Norsk. Geol. Tids. Norway 71 0.71 6558 65.67
28 Geochem. Int. USA 68 0.68 6626 66.35
29 Phy. Chem. Ear. UK 65 0.65 6691 67.00
30 Bull. Comm. Geol. Fin. Finland 61 0.61 6752 67.61
Metric Studies
18 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
31 US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap USA 59 0.59 6811 68.20
32 Min. Petr. Austria 54 0.54 6865 68.74
32 Ark. Min. Geol.. Sweden 54 0.54 6919 69.28
33 Indian Minerals India 53 0.53 6972 69.81
33 Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin. (ES) UK 53 0.53 7025 70.34
33 J. Sed. Res. USA 53 0.53 7078 70.87
34 J. Geop. Res. USA 50 0.50 7128 71.37
35 2 Journals with 48 citations each 96 0.96 7224 72.33
36 1 Journals with 45 citations each 45 0.45 7269 72.78
37 2 Journals with 44 citations each 88 0.88 7357 73.66
38 1 Journals with 42 citations each 42 0.42 7399 74.08
39 1 Journals with 41 citations each 41 0.41 7440 74.49
40 1 Journals with 35 citations each 35 0.35 7475 74.84
41 1 Journals with 34 citations each 34 0.34 7509 75.18
42 1 Journals with 33 citations each 33 0.33 7542 75.51
43 1 Journals with 32 citations each 32 0.32 7574 75.83
44 2 Journals with 29 citations each 58 0.58 7632 76.41
45 3 Journals with 28 citations each 84 0.84 7716 77.25
46 2 Journals with 27 citations each 54 0.54 7770 77.79
47 1 Journals with 26 citations each 26 0.26 7796 78.05
48 2 Journals with 25 citations each 50 0.50 7846 78.55
49 1 Journals with 24 citations each 24 0.24 7870 78.79
50 1 Journals with 23 citations each 23 0.23 7893 79.02
51 3 Journals with 22 citations each 66 0.66 7959 79.68
52 1 Journals with 21 citations each 21 0.21 7980 79.89
53 1 Journals with 20 citations each 20 0.21 8000 80.09
54 7 Journals with 19 citations each 133 1.33 8133 81.42
55 3 Journals with 18 citations each 54 0.54 8187 81.96
56 6 Journals with 17 citations each 102 1.02 8289 82.98
57 3 Journals with 16 citations each 48 0.48 8337 83.46
58 8 Journals with 15 citations each 120 1.20 8457 84.66
59 4 Journals with 14 citations each 56 0.56 8513 85.22
60 2 Journals with 13 citations each 26 0.26 8539 85.48
61 8 Journals with 12 citations each 96 0.96 8635 86.44
62 2 Journals with 11 citations each 22 0.22 8657 86.66
63 10 Journalswith 10citations eech 100 1.00 8757 87.66
64 4 Journals with 9 citations each 36 0.36 8793 88.02
65 8 Journals with 8 citations each 64 0.64 8857 88.66
66 10 Journals with 7 citations each 70 0.70 8927 89.36
67 15 Journals with 6 citations each 90 0.90 9017 90.26
68 22 Journals with 5citations each 110 1.10 9127 91.36
69 26 Journals with 4citations each 104 1.04 9231 92.40
70 58 Journals with 3citations each 174 1.74 9405 94.14
71 83 Journals with 2citations each 166 1.66 9571 95.80
72 413Journals with 1 citation each 413 4.20 9984 100.00
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 19
Conclusion
Out of 13,031 citations from 54 theses were analysed by using citation analysis techniques and following
conclusions are drawn:
Citations cited in the theses are not in the standard format. Researchers have not adopted the
uniform pattern and sequence while cited document
The study finds that most cited documents are journals articles i.e. 9984 (76.62%) citations.
Books source is the next favoured category of the researchers i.e. 1214 (9.31%).
The subject-wise distribution of theses reveals that Mineralogy, Geology, Geochemistry,
General Science and Petrology forms 83.9 % of the total theses submitted during the period.
From the Language distributions it is observed that the English language contributed 82.94
percent of the total citations, followed by German (1.55%), Russian (1.05%) and French
(0.77%).
USA, India and UK are contributes 9808 (75.70%) of total citations.
It is concluded from the authorship pattern study that works of multi authors citations have been
frequently.
The journal articles are scattered in 758 different journals. However, most of citations (50.13%)
are found in 12 journals. The journal ‘American Mineralogist’.gets first rank for being cited
more number of times by the researchers in Mineralogy.
References
NIJAGUNAPPA (R) and NIJAGUNAPPA (P). Core journals used by Indian geoscientists (1978-82).
(1985). Journal of the Geological Society of India.26; 10-15.
SIVA PRASAD (G). Bibliometric study of citations in Ph.D. theses in Geology accepted by Andhra
University, Visakhapatnam: 1952-2001. (2003). Andhra University, Ph.D. (Unpublished).
VIMALA (V). Bibliometric study of citations in Ph.D. theses in Biological sciences. (1997). Sri
Venkateswara University, Ph.D. (Unpublished).
MAHESWARAN, R. (2016). Analyzing the Research Productivity of University of Petradeniya, Sri
Lanka. In P. Ravichandran (Ed.), Re-Engineering of Library Resources and Services:
Challenges and Opportunities: Proceedings of ICRLRS 2016 (pp .286 ). Annamalai Nagar, India:
Faculty Annamalai University.
Metric Studies
20 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
A Scientometrics Study of the Research Publication on Nanoscience 2011-2016
1 Karthick, B,
2Rajan, T and
3Rajaram, K
1Library and Information Assistant, Indian Institute of Management, Tiruchirappalli 2Assistant Librarian, KSR Institute for Engineering and Technology, Tiruchengode
3Librarian, K.S. Rangasamy Institute of Technology, Tiruchengode
Abstract
The Scientometrics Analysis of Research Output performance of Nanoscience research literature is an important
aspect of the present study. Scientometrics studies are used to identify the pattern of publication, authorship, citations and secondary journal coverage in the hope such regularities can give an insight into the dynamics of the
area under consideration. During 2011-2016 a total of 21927 papers were published by the scientists in the field of Nanoscience research. The average Number of Publications produced per year was 17%. The highest number of
publications 236 was produced in 2013. The most productive author is Weiss PS with 17 papers dealing with Nanoscience research and 1.3% of all papers published in this research field. The highest number of publication is
accounted to 877 (67.7%) Vs LCS 314 as Articles and lowest is as Article; Book Chapter - 1 Vs LCS 2. The highest number of publication is at USA and lowest number of publication is at Poland.
Keywords: Scientometric, Nanoscience research, Scientometric Analysis
Introduction
‘Scientometrics’ the branch science of science that describes the output traits in terms of organizational
research structure, resource inputs and outputs, develops benchmarks to evaluate the quality of
information output. Scientometric studies characterize the disciplines using the growth of the pattern and
other attributes. These studies have potential particularly in assessing the emerging disciplines. In the
present study, we are doing the scientometric study of the research performance on Nanoscience, a
significantly growing area in the knowledge driven world.
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to examine the current status of Nanoscience, as reflected in the
country research output during 2011–2016.The researcher has framed the following objectives for the
purpose of present research.
● To examine the Year wise distribution of publications;
● To identify the Document wise distribution of publications output;
● To analyse the ranking of authors based on publications output;
● To identify journal wise distribution of publications output;
● To assess the Institution wise research concentration;
● To analyse the Country wise distribution of publications;
Methodology
The present study aims at analysing the research output of Researchers in the field of Nanoscience. The
growth rates of output in terms of research productivity is analysed from 2011 to 2016. The authorship
pattern and author productivity are examined to identify the pattern of research contribution in the field
of Nanoscience. The data has classified into Histcite Software. The data so retrieved were downloaded
and later imported into a database management system for data cleaning and coding. In data cleaning, all
duplicate records as well records pertaining to publication years not under the purview of our study, were
eliminated.
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 21
Data Collection
The basic publication data used in this study is derived from the Expanded Version of Science Citation
Index (SCI) database, available in Web of Science. The raw publications data along with their citations
has been downloaded from the Web of Science in December 2016. Publications data for 6 years from
2011 to 2016 were used for analyzing the growth and impact of Nanoscience research.
Growth of Publications and Citation Scores
The table 1 depicts the Nanoscience research output in the Indian level. From the below table, we could
clearly see that during the period 2011 - 2016 a total of 1295 publications were published. Table 1 show
that a chronological histogram of citations, demonstrating that citation frequency grew steadily from
2011; it reached a maximum TGCS of 7499 in 2012 and TLCS of 114 in 2012. The highest publication is
236 in 2013 with 98 Global Citation Scores followed by 231 papers in 2016 with 343 Global Citation
Score and 222 papers in 2012 with 7499 Global Citation Scores. The lowest publication is 167 in 2011
with 6201 Global Citation Scores. It shows that even minimum numbers of records were scored higher
global citations. The study also reveals all these 1295 publications have 21927 cited references it shows
that there is a healthy trend in citing reference is found among the Indian Scientists belongs to
Nanoscience.
Table 1 - Shows Year Wise Distribution of Publication and Citation Scores
S.No Year No. of Papers % of Papers TLCS TGCS
1 2011 167 12.9 153 6201
2 2012 222 17.1 114 7499
3 2013 236 18.2 98 4457
4 2014 220 17 40 1934
5 2015 219 16.9 35 1493
6 2016 231 17.8 14 343
Total 1295 100 454 21927
Ranking of Authors Based on Publications
Table 3 indicates ranking of authors by number of publications. Authors “Weiss PS” published highest
number of articles for the study period with 17 records; next consecutive authors Ostrikov K. are
published next highest number of articles for the study period with 16 records. Thus the most-cited
authors are distinguished from the most-published ones. It is found from the analysis that Lotka’s law
may not be applicable with regard to author productivity in proliferation of research in Nanoscience as
the research papers equally distributed by a large number of authors.
Table 2 - Shows Ranking of Authors Productivity (Top 25)
S.No Author Recs % Cum TLCS TGCS
1 Weiss PS 17 1.3 - 28 268
2 Ostrikov K 16 1.2 33 17 502
3 Guan JC 9 0.6 42 10 65
4 Kumar S 8 0.6 50 5 270
5 Shapira P 8 0.6 58 32 131
Metric Studies
22 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
6 Valcarcel M 8 0.6 66 1 50
7 Lead JR 7 0.5 73 8 214
8 Miao JW 7 0.5 80 12 459
9 Zhang X 7 0.5 87 1 65
10 Ahmad A 6 0.4 93 0 62
Journal Wise Distribution of Publications
The study found that the total research output of the Nanoscience for the study period (2011 – 2016). As
the major portion of the research productivity covered by 25 journals that is coincide with the theory of
Bradford’s Law of scattering of journals in research productivity. The journal “American Chemical
Society Nano” topped with 53 publications with the Global Citation Score of 1076; next “Journal of
Nanoparticle Research” has 34 publications with the Global Citation Score of 132 and “Scientometrics”
with 29 publications with the Global Citation Score of 230 respectively. “Chemical Society Reviews” has
scored the highest Global Citation Score of 3809 with 27 publications while “Journal of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology” has scored a Global Citation Score of 97 with just 26 records.
Table 4 - Distribution of Nanoscience in Journal Publications (Top 25)
S.No Journal Recs TLCS TGCS
1 American Chemical Society Nano 53 50 1076
2 Journal of Nanoparticle Research 34 6 132
3 Scientometrics 29 64 230
4 Chemical Society Reviews 27 38 3809
5 Journal of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology 26 6 97
6 Nanoscale 26 11 371
7 Journal of Physical Chemistry 17 1 120
8 Accounts of Chemical Research 16 10 1198
9 Journal of Chemical Education 15 2 77
10 Langmuir 14 7 194
Institution Wise Distribution of Publications
In general, institutions which are specifically meant for research activities would contribute a greater
level of research publications and it is not up to the mark of desired level of expectations in other
institutions. The below given table 6 analysis indicates Institution-wise research productivity. It is noted
that Top institutions 25 were contributed 1295 of the total research productivity. It is noted that Chinese
Academy of Sciences Institute contributed the highest number of research publications (56) at the same
time it ranks first in terms of Global Citation Score 902.
Table 5 - Institution Wise Distribution of Publications (Top 25)
S.No Institution Recs % TLCS TGCS
1 Chinese Academy of
Sciences 56 4.3 20 902
2 Unknown 35 2.7 16 33
3 Fudan Univ 20 1.5 13 685
4 CNR 18 1.3 2 188
5 Univ Calif Los Angeles 17 1.3 27 713
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 23
6 CSIRO Mat Sci & Engn 16 1.2 16 503
7 Nanyang Technol Univ 16 1.2 5 383
8 Univ Calif Berkeley 15 1.1 13 527
9 Georgia Inst Technol 14 1.0 47 1116
10 Univ Illinois 13 1.0 6 1161
Country wise Distribution
Table 6 indicates that the country wise number of publications. Highest number of records has published
in USA 371 (28.6 %) at the same time it ranks first of global citation scores 10692, followed by china
have above 237 (18.3%) articles related this subject productivity; remaining countries were having less
contribution of Nanoscience research productivity.
Table 6 - Country wise Distribution of Publication (Top 25)
S.No Country Recs % TLCS TGCS
1 USA 371 28.6 204 10692
2 China 237 18.3 68 3502
3 India 96 7.4 24 1013
4 Germany 86 6.6 35 2469
5 France 81 6.2 27 1243
6 UK 77 5.9 56 1414
7 Italy 72 5.5 39 930
8 Spain 71 5.4 23 1152
9 Unknown 55 4.2 20 222
10 South Korea 49 3.7 16 1406
Conclusion
Nanoscience research literature is an important aspect of the content and meaning of the present study.
Scientometrics studies are used to identify frequency distribution of articles in journal by the year; citing
authors in Books, papers published in conference proceedings, year-wise distribution of citations is
highest, use pattern of different type of documents cited, year wise publication of citations in journals
and their distribution, Authors wise citation in the book, the publications of conference proceedings for
distinctive period. New technologies are creating new opportunities for libraries. The review was
conducted through this study is very helpful for the identifying the potential feature.
Reference
Artamonova, N. O., Busygina, N. A., & Krylov, E. M. (1984). Scientometric study in the field of
radiobiology, using a computer. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, 1(5), 9-13.
Arunachalam, S., & Singh, U. N. (1985). Sophisticated science in a small country: a Scientometrics
analysis of superconductivity research in Israel. Journal of Information Science, 10(4), 165-171.
Arunachalam, S., & Garg, K. C. (1986). Science on the Periphery: A Scientometric analysis of Science in
the Asian Countries. Journal of Information Science, 12(3), 105-11.
Rothman, H. (1985). Scientometric techniques for research planning and strategy. Info dial-Videotex. In
4th International Congress and Exhibition on Databases and Videotex pp(184-188).
Stefaniak. B. (1987). Use of bibliographic databases for Scientometrics studies, Scientometrics, 12(3-4),
149-161.
Metric Studies
24 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Mapping of Cartographic Research Productivity: A Bibliometric Study
1Karuppasamy, K, 2Nageswara Rao, K and 3Dr. Duraipandi, R 1Librarian, BHAVINI, Kalpakkam
2Assistant Librarian, Central Library, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 3Librarian, Human Resource Development Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Introduction
Cartography is the art and science of map making, practiced by cartographers. Humans have been
drawing maps for thousands of years, as part of an effort to understand their environment. The quest for
an accurate map drove explorers to adventure to far-flung areas well into the 1700s, and cartographers in
the modern day find frequent employment still, thanks to constant political and geological changes
around the world. To train in cartography, a student should be prepared to take years of courses in
multiple disciplines.The term comes from two Greek words, chartis, meaning map, and graphos, meaning
to draw or write. In historic times, an individual cartographer hand drew a map in entirety, often with
limited information. Modern practitioners of cartography have the advantage of computers and other
equipment to assist them, making their maps more precise. The science of cartography has also evolved,
as many maps have become multimedia data explosion chock full of information for the reader.
Objectives
The following main objectives were framed for the present study is:
Ranking the Year wise distribution of Cartographic Publications;
Identify the Author wise distribution of Cartographic Publications;
Ranking the Source wise Distributions of Publications Cartography;
Finding the various Document Types of Cartographic Publications;
Ranking of Institutions wise Collaboration with CartographicPublications
Identify the Countries/Territories wise collaboration of Cartographic research Scientists;
Ranking the Major Subject Areas of CartographicResearch Output;
Tracing the Major Languages and Keywords of Cartographic Research
Methodology
The methodology applicable for this study is Bibliometrics, which has used to analyzed in details the
bibliographic attributes of the research productivity in cartographyand indexed in Scopus database for the
study period of 2000-2015 for 16 years (up to 18thdec’). It found a total of 4887recordsused for
tabulation, analyzed the study to ranking the each category of research output of cartography.
Data analysis and discussion
Year wise Distribution of CartographicResearch Productivity
The below table -1 shows the year wise distributions of publication of cartographyfrom 2000 - 2015. The
study based on total 16 years the total output of 4887 publications was taken foranalyses. Among the
years, 2011 ranked at top with 468(9.58%) of publications and followed the year 2013 stood at second
rank has scored 459(9.39%) of records; the year 2014 has scored the third rank with 455(9.31%) of
records; the year 2012 has scored the fourth rank with 427(8.74%) of publications and followed by the
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 25
years and ranked their respective place of research output of cartographywith records. Hence, it also
shows that clearly there is a fluctuation trend of publications.
Table 1- show the Yearly Output of CartographicResearch
Year Recs % Rank
2015 342 7.00 7
2014 455 9.31 3
2013 459 9.39 2
2012 427 8.74 4
2011 468 9.58 1
2010 393 8.04 5
2009 351 7.18 6
2008 323 6.61 9
2007 328 6.71 8
2006 255 5.22 11
2005 287 5.87 10
2004 167 3.42 12
2003 155 3.17 15
2002 155 3.17 15
2001 157 3.21 14
2000 165 3.38 13
Figure -1 show the Yearly Output of CartographicResearch
Source Wise Distribution of CartographicResearch Output
The table – 2 presents the source wise output of 4887 for the study period of 2000 to 2015 found a total
of 126 journals. Among them the “Cartographic Journal” has scored 309(6.32%) of documents and
ranked at top; followed by the “Cartography and Geography Information Science” has occupied the
second rank with102(2.09%) of documents; the “Cartographica” has occupied third rank with 76((1.56%)
of documents and followed by other journals in their respective places.
Metric Studies
26 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Table 2- shows the Top 25 Source Output ofCartographicResearch
Source Recs %
Cartographic Journal 309 6.32
Cartography and Geography Information Science 102 2.09
Cartographica 76 1.56
Proceedings of SPIE the International Society for Optical
Engineering 70 1.43
International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium IGARSS 60 1.23
Journal of Maps 47 0.96
International Journal of Geographical Information
Science 43 0.88
KartographischeNachrichten 43 0.88
Boletim De CienciasGeodesicas 41 0.84
Cartographic Perspectives 34 0.70
Kartografija I Geoinformacije 33 0.68
Figure - 2 shows the Top 5 Source Output ofCartographicResearch
Author Wise Distribution of Cartographic ResearchOutput
The table –3 presents the most productivity authors output of Cartographic, a total documents of 4887 for
the study period of 2000 to 2015 found a total of 158 authors. Among them resulted that the first rank has
scored“Hurmi, L”, with 32(0.65%) of documents; followed by the second rank shared by two
authors“Toutin, T.” and “Kraak, M. J.“ with 16(0.33%) of documents each; the third rank hasscored by
“Weibel. R” with 15(0.31%) of documents each and followed by other authors in their respective
places.The figure-3 diagrammatically explaining the cartographic research output of top 15 authors of the
study period.
Metric Studies
Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies 27
Table 3- shows the Top 20 Authors of CartographicOutput
Author Recs % Author Recs %
Hurni, L. 32 0.65 Perkins, C. 13 0.27
Toutin, T. 16 0.33 Qian, H. 13 0.27
Kraak, M.J. 16 0.33 De Maeyer, P. 12 0.25
Weibel, R. 15 0.31 Guo, Q. 12 0.25
Dickmann, F. 14 0.29 Lorena, L.A.N. 11 0.23
MacEachren, A.M. 14 0.29 Mackaness, W.A. 11 0.23
Cartwright, W. 14 0.29 Li, L. 11 0.23
Dodge, M. 14 0.29 Levachkine, S. 11 0.23
Field, K. 14 0.29 Li, Z. 11 0.23
Jenny, B. 13 0.27 Fabrikant, S.I. 11 0.23
Affiliation Wise Collaboration Output ofCartographicResearch
The table – 4 presents the affiliations wise collaboration output of Cartographic and found a total of 160
institutions out of the total 4887 documents during 2000 to 2015. Among them the “Wuhan University”
has scored with 91 (1.86%) of documents and stood the top rank; the “Eidgenossische Technische
Hochschule Zurich” ranked at second with 47(0.96%) of publications; the “Pennsylvania State
University” ranked at third with 43(0.88%) of documents and followed by other institutions in their
respective places.
Table 4- show Top 20Affiliation Collaboration of CartographicResearch
Country Wise Distribution of Cartographic Research Output
The table – 5 presents the country wise output of Cartographic,a total of 4887 for the study period of
2000 to 2015 found that the country wise collaboration of cartographic resulted 105 among them the
“United States” has found as 724(14.81%) of documents and topped the rank; followed by “United
Kingdom” has scored 367(7.51%) of documents and ranked at second; the third rank got by “France”
with 348(7.51%) of records; Whereas, the country “India” with 45(1.17%) of publications and scored the
rank of twenty two with and followed by other countries in their respective places.
Affiliation Recs %
Wuhan University 91 1.86
EidgenossischeTechnischeHochschule
Zurich 47 0.96
Pennsylvania State University 43 0.88
Russian Academy of Sciences 41 0.84
UNESP-UniversidadeEstadualPaulista 40 0.82
Universitat Zurich 37 0.76
Lomonosov Moscow State University 33 0.68
Universidade de Sao Paulo - USP 33 0.68
UniverzitaPalackého v Olomouci 30 0.61
IGN InstitutGeographique National 30 0.61
Metric Studies
28 Knowledge Resources and Library Technologies
Table 5- shows the Top 25 Country wise Output of Cartographic Research
Subject
Area Wise Distribution of CartographicOutput
The table – 7 presents the major subject area wise output of Cartographic, a total of 4887 for the study
period of 2000 to 2015 found a total of 29 areas. Among the subject area wise analysis found as “Earth
and Planetary Sciences” has scored 2051(42.0%) of documents among the other areas and dominantly
catching position; followed by “Social Sciences” has scored 1815(37.1%) of documents and ranked at
second; the third rank placed by “Computer Sciences” has scored 897(18.4%) of records and followed by
other subject areas in their respective places. The below figure also show the diagrammatic explanation
of cartographic output.
Table 7- shows the Top 15 Subject Areas of Cartographic Output
Subject Area Recs
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2051
Social Sciences 1815
Computer Science 897
Environmental Science 681
Engineering 639
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 377
Arts and Humanities 361
Mathematics 189
Business, Management and Accounting 167
Physics and Astronomy 142
Medicine 133
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular
Biology 77
Energy 54
Material
Recommended