Authors’ perception on abstracting and indexing databases in different subject domains

Wijewickrema, Manjula

doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03896-0

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This conclusion coincides with that observed by Hammarfelt and Rushforth (2017) for the fields of biomedicine and economics, where JIFs and h-indices are preferred, in their opinion, largely because "they are well-established tools of evaluation within some disciplinary communities" (Hammarfelt & Rushforth, 2017, 178). Other recent studies show how, in general, for fields such as social sciences, technology and medicine WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar gain greater importance as indexing databases (Wijewickrema, 2021). They also highlight the fact that for the field of social sciences, the Scopus database Finally, it should be noted that the data on the assessment of the bibliometric indicators lead us to observe that, although researchers say they do not use the number of citations received as a priority criterion for defining the quality of a publication, they do exhibit a good knowledge and a slightly positive assessment of the two journal impact indicators most commonly used in scientific evaluation in Spain (SJR and JCR).…”

Section: Awareness and Assessment Of Bibliometric Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

Feenstra

López-Cózar

2022

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge and stance of researchers regarding bibliometric indicators is a field of study that has gained weight in recent decades. In this paper we address this issue for the little explored areas of philosophy and ethics, and applied to a context, in this case Spain, where bibliometric indicators are widely used in evaluation processes. The study combines data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender and area of knowledge. The survey data suggest that researchers do not consider bibliometric indicators a preferred criterion of quality, while there is a fairly high self-perception of awareness of a number of indicators. The qualitative data points to a generalised perception of a certain rejection of the specific use of indicators, with four main positions being observed: (1) disqualification of the logic of metrics, (2) scepticism about the possibility of assessing quality with quantitative methods, (3) complaints about the incorporation of methods that are considered to belong to other disciplines, and (4) criticism of the consequences that this generates in the discipline of philosophy.

show abstract

Section: Awareness and Assessment Of Bibliometric Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

Feenstra

López-Cózar

2022

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Usually, the Scopus indexed journals after evaluating them rigorously to ensure their quality, reliability and genuineness (Baas et al, 2020). Further, Scopus is considered one of the leading indexing databases with a higher number of source titles and bibliographic records (Wijewickrema, 2021). The database covers source titles from multiple subject domains, including LIS and IS (Abrizah et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2020). Further, Scopus is considered one of the leading indexing databases with a higher number of source titles and bibliographic records (Wijewickrema, 2021). The database covers source titles from multiple subject domains, including LIS and IS (Abrizah et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A bibliometric study on library and information science and information systems literature during 2010–2019

Wijewickrema

2022

LHT

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeStudying the nature of research progress in interrelated research domains is important for evaluating the research productivity and to understand the current trends of the area of research. This study aims to examine a research domain that combines library and information science with information systems (IS).Design/methodology/approachQuartile 1 journals that cover both subject domains in SCImago were selected for the study. Bibliographic records of the publications during 2010 and 2019 were retrieved from the Scopus database. VOSviewer data visualization tool was used to perform citation, coauthorship, bibliographic coupling, cocitation and co-occurrence analysis. In addition, descriptive and inferential statistics were exploited.FindingsThe absence of a consistent association between the number of documents authored and the number of citations received by a researcher was an important finding of the study. The strong association of authors regardless of the different topics they researched and the trend of increasing interest on collaborative research were also highlighted. Moreover, the authors who received the highest number of citations were not always the first authors of the documents which received the most citations. The documents published in information management, information theory and IS journals attained the most citations. The journals, institutions and countries with the highest number of documents and citations were also revealed by the research. Electrical engineering departments showed a higher research productivity, while they were utilized more compared to that of other departments. IS and management, information theory, communication, information retrieval, geographic-based IS and bioinformatics were the six major research areas of the considered domain.Originality/valueThis is the first study related to examining the research progress in a combined subject domain using multiple aspects including, individual performance, institutional progress, geographical contribution and so on. Identifying the major research areas in the combined subject domain can also be considered a novel contribution to the field.

show abstract

A cross‐domain analysis of research performance: Conventional and altmetric indicators in Medicine, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences

Wijewickrema

2024

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing research performance across distinct subject domains is not recommended unless proper treatments are applied to normalize the domain‐specific characteristics. Except for limited research aimed at exploring the field‐dependent behaviours of specific research performance indicators, it is difficult to find comprehensive research examining both conventional and altmetric indicators for their influence on journals, articles, and authors in distinct subject domains. This research used Scopus and PlumX as sources to collect conventional and altmetric data, respectively. In addition to descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test, cluster plots, and correlation analysis were employed for data analysis. The results reveal that all three levels of indicators behave in notably different ways in Medicine compared with that of the Physical and Social Sciences. Most indicators in all three levels attain higher maximum and average values in Medicine. For instance, the maximum values for most indicators, except for citations and documents, are significantly higher in Medicine than in the Physical and Social Sciences. However, the citations and productivity of Physical Sciences journals surpass the two in other domains. SNIP deviates lightly across subject domains compared with that of other journal‐level indicators. Further, citations do not have a large influence on SNIP and SJR as they do Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. All article‐level indicators show significant differences between Medicine and the Physical Sciences. Between the Physical and Social Sciences, all indicators except page count show significant differences. Further, article‐level indicators in the Social Sciences behave in nearly the same way as in the Physical Sciences. Citation counts positively influence captures. In addition, Medicine authors are likely to make more impact and be more productive in their field than authors in other fields. Collaboration was also found to improve both the productivity of authors and the impact of their research, irrespective of the domain they work in. These findings are important to authors, research evaluators, and publishers from different viewpoints. Discouraging performance comparisons based on raw indicator values can protect researchers from inaccurate assessments, enabling them to fully realize their potential for conducting cutting‐edge research. Finally, this research indicates different directions along which this area of research can be extended.

show abstract

Authors’ perception on abstracting and indexing databases in different subject domains

Cited by 3 publications

References 55 publications

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

A bibliometric study on library and information science and information systems literature during 2010–2019

A cross‐domain analysis of research performance: Conventional and altmetric indicators in Medicine, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About