Scientometric Analysis of the Research output: a study of Government Medical College &amp; Hospital (GMCH), Chandigarh

Kaur, Har; Mahajan, Preeti; Gupta, Brij Mohan

doi:10.1080/09737766.2011.10700914

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The highly cited papers (HCP) are significant for the reputation of any individual researcher and the institution with which the researcher is associated. The papers that studied the HCP are contributed by Marisha et al (2017), Chakravarty and Madaan (2016), Gupta (2013), Gupta et al (2011), Kumar et al (2015), Kumbar et al (2008), Noruzi andAbdekhoda (2014), Satpathy and Sa (2015), Shettar and Angadi (2018), Uma and Rao (2014), and Vasishta (2011). Marisha et al (2017 studied the productivity of 16 IITs.…”

Section: Use Of Metrics-(hcp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The indicators like Total papers (TP),Total citations (TC), Average citations per paper (ACPP), Annual citations per year (ACPY) are studied in a large number of papers by Abbott and Doucouliagos (2004), Abramo et al (2017), Agboola and Oduwole (2005), Ahmad et al (2018), Anderson and Tressler (2008), Anilkumar (2010, 2014), Anyaogu and Iyabo (2014), Chan et al (2014), Cohn and Farrington (2014), Dalrymple and Varlejs (1995), Dean et al (2011), Falagas et al (2006), Gupta and Bala (2013), Gupta and Dhawan (2008), Gupta et al (2010), Kaur et al (2011), Johanson and Woods (2002), Khiste (2017), Khiste et al (2018), Kostoff (2012), Krishnamurthy and Awari (2015), Kumar et al (2009, 2015), Liu et al (2015), McPherson et al (2013), Maske Dnyaneshwar and Khiste (2018), Murugan and Ravanan (2016), Nagarkar et al (2015), Naheem et al (2017), Nakanjako et al (2017), O’Brien and Cronin (2016), Ocholla et al (2012), Peter et al (2019), Ramos et al (2009), Ray et al (2016), Research Council UK (2010), Siwach and Satish Kumar (2015), Sudhier and Kumar (2010), Tsafe et al (2016), Uma and Rao (2014), Vasishta (2011), Visakhi and Gupta (2013) and Webber (2012). The indicators that reveal the number of collaborative papers at the local, national and international levels are termed as Locally collaborated papers (LCP), Domestic collaborative papers (DCP), National collaborative papers (NCP), and International collaborative papers ICP respectively and reflected in many studies likely…”

Section: Use Of Metrics—(tp) (Tc) (Acpp) (Acpy) (Lcp) (Dcp) (Ncp) (Icp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metrics employed in the evaluation of research productivity: A systematic literature review

Mahapatra

Sahoo

2022

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper makes a systematic review of 131 articles on research productivity basing upon a model developed by Denyer and Tranfield. The current review paper analyzed the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the sample literature in the field of research productivity. The quantitative analysis incorporates the chronological distribution of articles, keyword wise distribution, form wise distribution, discipline wise distribution, publisher wise distribution, data sources used in the articles, most prolific journals of the publications and qualitative dimensions studied are top-cited articles and all the metrices used in these articles. The paper is based upon literature retrieved from Scopus bibliographic database and other online databases like Emerald, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, JSTOR, ProQuest, and EBSCO for full-text articles. It was revealed that there is significant growth in the number of articles during the fourth decade (2011–2020) whereas the highest numbers of citations (1530) have been received during the third decade from 2001 to 2010. Journal articles appeared to be the predominant source of information. A wide range of metrices found to be used in the sample literature to analyze the research productivity namely basic metrics, metrics dealing with growth, collaboration and metrics at institute level and author level metrics. It will serve as a reference tool to the scholars and practitioners in the field who will be acquainted with the publications on research productivity as well as various metrices, laws of bibliometrics, statistical tools, used in the articles.

show abstract

Section: Use Of Metrics-(hcp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Use Of Metrics—(tp) (Tc) (Acpp) (Acpy) (Lcp) (Dcp) (Ncp) (Icp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Metrics employed in the evaluation of research productivity: A systematic literature review

Mahapatra

Sahoo

2022

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few studies have already been conducted to observe various type of rankings like "Scientometric Analysis of the Research output: a study of Government Medical College & Hospital (GMCH), Chandigarh" [2] , "Comparative Evaluation of Research output: AIIMS Vs PGIMER" [3] , "Ranking of Indian Pharmaceutical Institutions for their Research Performance during 2000-2009" [4] , "Collaboration in medical research: A case study" [5] etc. In all these studies various rankings of institutes, authors and subjects have been observed and also shown the impact of national and international collaboration on research etc.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking of top authors of medical research of India: Quality Vs Quantity

Kaur¹

2018

J. Med. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study effort is made to analyse the ranking of two top most medical institutes of India. The data is extracted from 'SCOPUS' citation database for the period of five year i.e. 2013-2017. Initially, growth of publications for this period found consistent for both the institutes. Then ranking of top 10 authors of both the institutes is done using quality indicator like Citation, G-Index, H-Index and I-10 Index. It has been found that majority of authors have different ranking according to total production and according to quality indicators. But, few authors have almost same ranking as per TP, TC, G-Index, H-Index and I-10 Index, which proved that they are consistent in their research.

show abstract

“…One resource is scientometrics, which addresses the problem by analyzing scientific publications through bibliometric and computational techniques, incorporating algorithmic methods such as machine learning and data mining to generate indicators of productivity and impact of scientific production, 3 such as cancer research. [4][5][6][7] In Mexico, researchers are increasingly deciding what to investigate and where to publish based on scientometric criteria, given that their performance is assessed with that same methodology. Moreover, scientometric indicators are the main support for the allocation of resources for research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Cancer Institute scientific production scientometric analysis

Ruiz-Coronel¹,

Jiménez-Andrade²,

Carrillo-Calvet³

2023

GMM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Scientometrics allows analyzing scientific publications productivity and impact through bibliometric and computational techniques. Objective: To propose a multidimensional methodology in order to obtain the scientometric profile of the National Cancer Institute (INCan), Mexico, and rank it with regard to other national health institutions. Method: Using the LabSOM software and the ViBlioSOM methodology based on artificial neural networks, the INCan scientific production indexed in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2017 was analyzed. The multidimensional scientometric profile of the Institute was obtained and compared with that of other national health institutions. Results: In terms of productivity, INCan ranks fourth among the 10 Mexican public health institutions indexed in the Web of Science; in the normalized impact ranking, it ranks sixth. Although out of 1323 articles 683 ( 51.62 %) did not receive citations, 11 articles classified as excellent (0.83 %) obtained 24 % of 11,932 citations and, consequently, INCan normalized impact rate showed a mean productivity higher than the world mean. Conclusion: Multidimensional analysis with the proposed neural network enables obtaining a more reliable and comprehensive absolute and relative institutional scientiometric profile than that derived from measuring isolated variables.

show abstract

Scientometric Analysis of the Research output: a study of Government Medical College & Hospital (GMCH), Chandigarh

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Metrics employed in the evaluation of research productivity: A systematic literature review

Metrics employed in the evaluation of research productivity: A systematic literature review

Ranking of top authors of medical research of India: Quality Vs Quantity

National Cancer Institute scientific production scientometric analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About