KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES AND LIBRARY...

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: [email protected]

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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Authorship Pattern among the Faculty of Bharathidasan University:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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


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




























63 10 Journalswith 10citations eech 100 1.00 8757 87.66





68 22 Journals with 5citations each 110 1.10 9127 91.36




72 413Journals with 1 citation each 413 4.20 9984 100.00

Metric Studies


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES AND LIBRARY...

Documents

Transcript of KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES AND LIBRARY...