Bibliometric AnalysisFirst Author1*, Second Author 2, Third Author3

1 Affiliation of the first author2 Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy, Universiti Utara Malaysia 06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

3Affiliation of the third author

*Corresponding author E-mail: aidi@uum.edu.my

Abstract

Purpose –

Design/methodology/approach –

Findings –

Research limitations/implications –

Originality/value –

Keywords:

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. METHODS

1

Fig. 1: PRISMA Flow Diagram

Source: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

4. RESULTS

…

3.1. Document and Source Types

...

2

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility

(n = )

Studies included in qualitative synthesis

(n = )

Records screened(n = )

Records after duplicates removed(n = )

Records identified through database searching

(n = )

Identification

Eligibility

Included

Screening

Studies included in quantitative synthesis

(meta-analysis)(n = )

Full-text articles excluded, with reasons

(n = )

Records excluded(n = )

Additional records identified through other sources

(n = )

Table 1: Document TypeDocument Type Total Publications (TP) Percentage (%)Article 203 54.86Conference Paper 118 31.89Book Chapter 33 8.92Note 5 1.35Review 4 1.08Editorial 3 0.81Book 2 0.54Short Survey 1 0.27Undefined 1 0.27Total 371 100.00

...

Table 2: Source Type

Source Type Total Publications (TP) Percentage (%)Journals 212 57.30Conference Proceedings 104 28.11Book Series 27 7.30Books 22 5.95Trade Publications 5 1.35Total 370 100.00

3.2. Year of Publications/Evolution of Published Studies

...

Table 3: Year of PublicationsYear Total Publications Percentage (%) Cumulative Percent2006 65 5.89 21.672007 95 8.61 30.282008 69 6.26 36.542009 88 7.98 44.512010 80 7.25 51.772011 74 6.71 58.482012 74 6.71 65.192013 76 6.89 72.082014 76 6.89 78.972015 60 5.44 84.412016 72 6.53 90.932017 80 7.25 98.192018 20 1.81 100.00Total 1103 100.00

3

Fig. 2: Document by Year

3.3. Languages of Documents

…

Table 4: Languages Used for PublicationsLanguage Total Publications* Percentage (%)English 361 97.30German 4 1.08Portuguese 3 0.81Chinese 1 0.27French 1 0.27Spanish 1 0.27Total 371 100.00

*one document has been prepared in dual languages

3.4. Subject Area

...

Table 5: Subject AreaSubject Area Total Publications Percentage (%)Business, Management and Accounting 213 30.04Computer Science 183 25.81Economics, Econometrics and Finance 95 13.40Decision Sciences 86 12.13Social Sciences 42 5.92Engineering 38 5.36Mathematics 23 3.24Environmental Science 6 0.85Arts and Humanities 5 0.71Psychology 5 0.71Energy 3 0.42Multidisciplinary 3 0.42Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 0.28Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 0.28Materials Science 2 0.28Chemical Engineering 1 0.14

4

3.5 Most Active Source Titles

...

Table 6: Most Active Source Title

Source Title Total Publications

Percentage (%)

Journal of Information Systems 19 5.14International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 17 4.59New Dimensions of Business Reporting and XBRL 11 2.97International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 10 2.70Ceur Workshop Proceedings 9 2.43International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 8 2.16Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 8 2.16Lecture Notes in Computer Science Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics

8 2.16

International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 7 1.89Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization 7 1.89Issues in Accounting Education 6 1.62Accounting Horizons 5 1.35Decision Support Systems 5 1.35International Journal of E Business Research 5 1.35

3.6 Keywords Analysis

...

Fig. 3: Network visualization map of the author keywords

...

Table 7: Top Keywords

5

Author Keywords Total Publications Percentage (%)web accessibility 328 8.4accessibility 281 7.2usability 67 1.7wcag 61 1.6disability 48 1.2internet 40 1wcag 2.0 40 1web 40 1e-government 33 0.8evaluation 33 0.8disabilities 30 0.8w3c 30 0.8people with disabilities 24 0.6guidelines 23 0.6wai 22 0.6world wide web 20 0.5universal design 19 0.5assistive technology 18 0.5automated evaluation 18 0.5section 508 18 0.5

3.7 Geographical Distribution of Publications - Most Influential Countries

...Table 8: Top 20 Countries contributed to the publications

Country Total Publications Percentage (%)United States 265 20.87United Kingdom 127 10.00Spain 125 9.84Brazil 64 5.04Portugal 52 4.09Germany 48 3.78Italy 46 3.62France 39 3.07Japan 34 2.68Australia 33 2.60Norway 27 2.13Greece 26 2.05South Korea 26 2.05Austria 24 1.89China 21 1.65India 21 1.65Turkey 19 1.50Canada 18 1.42Malaysia 18 1.42Ecuador 15 1.18Switzerland 11 0.87

6

Belgium 10 0.79

3.8 Authorship

... Table 9: Number of Author(s) per Document

Author Count Total Publications Percentage (%)1 206 18.682 296 26.843 284 25.754 175 15.875 67 6.076 42 3.817 9 0.828 7 0.639 1 0.0910 2 0.1811 1 0.0921 1 0.0922 1 0.0926 1 0.090* 10 0.91Total 1103 100.00

*Conference review document. No author is listed.

Table 10: Most Productive AuthorsAuthor’s Name No. of Documents Percentage (%)Alario-Hoyos, C. 35 1.12Meinel, C. 35 1.12Pérez-Sanagustín, M. 23 0.74Staubitz, T. 19 0.61Dillenbourg, P. 17 0.55Reich, J. 17 0.55Chen, L. 16 0.51Khalil, M. 16 0.51Zheng, Q. 16 0.51Brooks, C. 15 0.48Kalz, M. 15 0.48Kloos, C.D. 15 0.48Muñoz-Merino, P.J. 15 0.48Renz, J. 15 0.48Rosé, C.P. 15 0.48Watson, S.L. 15 0.48Burgos, D. 14 0.45Davis, D. 14 0.45Ebner, M. 14 0.45García-Peñalvo, F.J. 14 0.45

7

Fig. 4: Network visualization map of the co-authorshipUnit of analysis = CountriesCounting method: Fractional countingMinimum number of documents of a country = 3Minimum number of citations of a country = 5

Fig. 5: Network visualization map of the co-authorshipUnit of analysis = CountriesCounting method: Full countingMinimum number of documents of a country = 3Minimum number of citations of a country = 5

Fig. 6: Network visualization map of the co-authorshipUnit of analysis = AuthorsCounting method: Fractional countingMinimum number of documents of an author = 3Minimum number of citations of an author = 3

8

Fig. 7: Network visualization map of the co-authorshipUnit of analysis = AuthorsCounting method: Fractional countingMinimum number of documents of an author = 1Minimum number of citations of an author = 5

3.9 Text Analysis

9

Fig. 8: VOSviewer visualization of a term co-occurrence network based on title and abstract fields (Binary Counting)

Fig. 9: VOSviewer visualization of a term co-occurrence network based on title and abstract fields (Full Counting)

Fig. 10: VOSviewer visualization of a term co-occurrence network based on title fields (Binary Counting)

10

3.8 Most Influential Institutions

…

Table 11: Most influential institutions with minimum of five publications

Institution Total Publications Percentage (%)Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg 14 3.78

University of Hawaii at Manoa 13 3.51University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 13 3.51Old Dominion University 12 3.24The University of Adelaide 12 3.24Universidad de Huelva 8 2.16University of Arkansas at Little Rock 7 1.89University of Winnipeg 7 1.89Jinan University 7 1.89Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 6 1.62University of Waterloo 6 1.62University of Birmingham 6 1.62University of International Relations 6 1.62Rutgers University-Newark Campus 5 1.35National University of Ireland Galway 5 1.35Florida Atlantic University 5 1.35University of Evansville 5 1.35Università degli Studi di Genova 5 1.35

3.10 Citation Analysis

…

Table 12: Citations MetricsMetrics DataPublication years 1996-2018Citation years 22 (1996-2018)Papers 1103Citations 8600Citations/year 390.91Citations/paper 7.80 Citations/author 4127.37Papers/author 512.53h-index 37g-index 63

Table 13: Highly cited articles

11

No. Authors Title Year Cites Citesper Year

1 S. Lawrence, C.L. Giles

Accessibility of information on the web [X] 1999 917 48.26

2 J. Lazar, A. Dudley-Sponaugle, K.-D. Greenidge

Improving web accessibility: A study of webmaster perceptions [X]

2004 132 9.43

3 H. Petrie, O. Kheir The relationship between accessibility and usability of Websites [X]

2007 112 10.18

4 T. Sullivan, R. Matson Barriers to use: Usability and content accessibility on the Web's most popular sites [X]

2000 110 6.11

5 J. Mankoff, H. Fait, T. Tran

Is your web page accessible? A comparative study of methods for assessing Web page accessibility for the blind [X]

2005 102 7.85

6 P.T. Jaeger Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Web sites: A multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities [X]

2006 93 7.75

7 S. Hackett, B. Parmanto, X. Zeng

Accessibility of internet websites through time [X]

2004 86 6.14

8 C. Power, A.P. Freire, H. Petrie, D. Swallow

Guidelines are only half of the story: Accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the Web [X]

2012 77 12.83

9 K.M. Griffiths, H. Christensen

The quality and accessibility of Australian depression sites on the World Wide Web [X]

2002 73 4.56

10 J. Abascal, M. Arrue, I. Fajardo, N. Garay, J. Tomás

The use of guidelines to automatically verify web accessibility [X]

2004 72 5.14

11 L. Von Ahn, S. Ginosar, M. Kedia, R. Liu, M. Blum

Improving accessibility of the Web with a computer game [X]

2006 70 5.83

12 H. Ritchie, P. Blanck The promise of the internet for disability: A study of on-line services and web site accessibility at centers for independent living [X]

2003 70 4.67

13 P. Sun, J.B. Unger, P.H. Palmer, P. Gallaher, C.-P. Chou, L. Baezconde-Garbanati, S. Sussman, C.A. Johnson

Internet accessibility and usage among urban adolescents in Southern California: Implications for web-based health research [X]

2005 68 5.23

14 M.G. Friedman, D.N. Bryen

Web accessibility design recommendations for people with cognitive disabilities [X]

2007 64 5.82

15 A. Schmetzke Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools [X]

2001 64 3.76

16 M. Vigo, M. Arrue, G. Brajnik, R. Lomuscio, J. Abascal

Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility [X]

2007 60 5.45

17 Y. Shi The accessibility of Chinese local government Web sites: An exploratory study [X]

2007 60 5.45

18 J.T. Richards, V.L. Hanson

Web accessibility: A broader view [X] 2004 59 4.21

19 J. Lazar, P. Beere, K.-D. Greenidge, Y.

Web accessibility in the Mid-Atlantic United States: A study of 50 homepages [X]

2003 58 3.87

12

Nagappa20 C.A. Adams, G.R.

FrostAccessibility and functionality of the corporate web site: Implications for sustainability reporting [X]

2006 55 4.58

Fig. 11: Network visualization map of the citation by countriesMinimum number of documents of an author = 1Minimum number of citations of an author = 5

13

Fig. 12: Network visualization map of the citation by documentsMinimum number of citations of a document = 5

Fig. 13: Network visualization map of the citation by documentsMinimum number of citations of a document = 10

14

5. DISCUSSION

6. CONCLUSION

Summary –

Contribution –

Limitation of the study –

Future research –

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

REFERENCES

Ahmi, A., & Mohamad, R. (2019). Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Literature on Web Accessibility. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 7(6), 250–258.

Ahmi, A., & Mohd Nasir, M. H. (2019). Examining the Trend of the Research on eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): A Bibliometric Review. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 5(2), 1145–1167.

15