Patterns of Research Productivity in the Virtual Worlds Literature: A Bibliometric Approach

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the internet has provided a much more dynamic platform, becoming more visual and allowing users to interact with each other in communities and share information in real time. The new Internet is a social media, and online communities are taking on a new dimension, quite literally, in the form of immersive 3D virtual worlds, such as such as Active Worlds, OSGrid, and Second Life. Surprisingly, 80% of active internet users have a registered account in virtual worlds which are playing an increasingly important role in the lives of many adults, teens, and children. Indeed, virtual worlds are believed to have implications that go beyond how we play, to also include how we buy, work, and learn. In recent years there has been increased behavioral research in virtual reality and virtual worlds. As a result, the subject of virtual world has become a major research area in recent years. To shed light on virtual worlds' trends, and contributions, a historical review and Bibliometric analysis are included in this research. The Bibliometric analytical technique was used to examine this topic in SSCI journals from 1991 through 2011. Also, the study investigated whether author productivity conformed to Lotka's Law, to understand author distributions within the field of virtual worlds and to elucidate the distributions of the core authors.

Lotka’s Law and productivity patterns of authors in biomedical science in Nigeria on HIV/AIDS

“…However, often, as in this case, an established law can remain debatable among scholars. Many well-known authors, including Baby and Kumaravel (2012), Burrell (2008), Egghe (2010), Fang and Fang (1995), Huber (2002), Naranan (1971), Potter (1981), Pao (1985), Schorr (1974), Sudhier (2013), Suen and Yang (2012), Torbati and Chakoli (2013) and Vlachy (1976), have subjected the pioneer study of Lotka to testing. Studies on the fitness of Lotka's Law began in a systematic manner starting with Vlachy (1978), who observed that non-conformity of Lotka's assertions could be influenced by the variables discussed earlier.…”

“…Lotka's Law has been modified by Baby and Kumaravel (2012), Burrell (2008), Coile (1977), Egghe (2010), Fang and Fang (1995), Huber (2002), Naranan (1971), Pao (1985), Potter (1981), Schorr (1974), Sudhier (2013), Suen and Yang (2012) and Vlachy (1976). Recently, Torbati and Chakoli (2013) suggested that the modifications and non-conformity to Lotka's assertions were a result of the counting method adopted, period covered, sources of data, community of authors, nature of discipline, errors in data and statistical test adopted.…”

“…According to the above mentioned studies, these variables are not sacrosanct to a particular law or model in the distribution of an author's productivity in any given discipline. Other studies have provided extensive reasons behind the variation of productivity patterns of authors (Araújo et al, 2014;Baby and Kumaravel, 2012;Egghe, 2010;Naranan, 1971;Ruiz-Castillo and Costas, 2014;Schorr, 1974;Sudhier, 2013;Suen and Yang, 2012;Torbati and Chakoli, 2013). Nwagwu (2006) noted that the literature on bibliometric studies has expanded beyond the level of publication analysis and that many communities have yet to utilize them as a strategy for gathering information that could be useful in understanding the patterns and trends in their local science.…”

Publishing Patterns of Health Informatics in Africa: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…The quantity apportioned to publication of articles in a particular field varies in context, subject and phenomenon. Several studies by Araújo, Moreira, Furtado, Pequeno, and Andrade (2014), Baby and Kumaravel (2012), Egghe (2010), Naranan (1971), Ruiz-Castillo and Costas (2014), Schorr (1974), Sudhier (2013), Suen and Yang (2012) and Torbati and Chakoli (2013) gave widespread explanations over the disparity of research output patterns and visibility of authors' research work. A follow-up research by Onyancha (2010), indicates that publication counts and analysis are progressively flattering to the global setting such that, in-depth meter of research output is counted through bibliometric analysis.…”