30
CHAPTER – II
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is devoted to examine the review the works relating to various
aspects of bibliometric studies. It could be observed that there are various research
studies highlighting the importance of bibliometric analysis and its applications in various
fields of science. This type of analysis enables the researcher to identify the issues
involved in bibliometric research.
Review of related studies further avoids the duplication of work that has already
been done in that area. It also helps the researcher study the different aspects of the
problem. It enables the researcher to identify the unexplored areas, in order to create new
grounds for research. By considering this efficiency of various dimensions of
bibliometric studies, a couple of studies based on India and outside India reviewed
pertaining to the present study has been presented conceptually from general to particular
as follows:
2.1 STUDIES RELATED TO AUTHOR PRODUCTIVITY
Schubert [et al] (1985) compared the medical research output of 11 mid-size
countries (Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden, Israel and New Zealand) in the field of clinical medicine using papers
indexed by SCI during 1978-1979 and their citations in literature till 1980. The study
indicated that professors proved to be more productive than average scientists of the same
31
country with no particular eminence, and also a correlation existed between the quality of
clinical medicine papers and the infant mortality of the countries in question.
Harsanyi (1993) examined the authorship pattern of publications in Library and
Information Science and considered the methodological impact of various ways of
allotting credit for multi-authored works and relationships between multiple authorship
and other publication variables such as quality and impact. Given the complex
relationship between collaboration and productivity, the concomitant use of non-
bibliometric methods of studying collaboration, as well as the application of meta-
analysis was suggested.
Nagpaul and Sharma (1994) compared the profile of research output and trans-
national co-operation as revealed through multi-country publications of 36 countries in 10
sub-fields of physics during 1891-1985 using SCI database. They stated that multiple
authorship pattern was highly notified in 10 sub-fields of physics.
Cano (1999) reviewed 17 years of research in Library and Information Science in
Spain for a period 1977-1994. He identified that the Spanish research in Library and
Information Science had concentrated more on information retrieval, description of
services and studies of scientific communication. Authorship pattern suggested
prevalence for individual authorship as (68 percent).
Saravanan (2000) studied research productivity of G7 countries in Astronomy
literature. He identified USA occupied the first place with 66.24 percent, UK had 16.47
32
percent, 8.37 percent gone to Germany and remaining 8.92 percent covered by France,
Japan, Italy, India and Canada respectively.
Dhawan (2000) examined physics research in India and China using Physics
Abstracts for the years 1990 and 1995. He found that China was ahead of India in terms
of publication output, however average impact per paper for India was higher than China.
Parameshwaran and Smitha (2001) made a bibliometric analysis of Library and
Information Science Abstracts for 1994-1998. Their findings were: maximum number of
publications fell under broad fields’ information and communication technology with
13.41 percent coverage; more people wrote individually i.e, single authorship amounted
to 77.5 percent and double authorship was 15.83 percent indicating that solo research
predominates in the field of LIS; and the portion of Indian contribution to LIS research
was very meagre (1.14 percent).
The study of subject Information Science as a science was explored by analyzing
articles published in Journal of the American Society for Information Science from its
initial publication, as American Documentation, in 1950 through 1999, by Koehler. The
analysis of the study revealed that there had been a slow but perhaps inevitable shift
based on the first single non-funded researcher and author to a much wider research and
publishing participation among authors, regions, corporate authors, and countries.
Jacobs (2002) made a study covering the period 1992-1996, which demonstrated
that there was a direct relationship between status and publication productivity. Further,
33
there were significant differences in productivity between areas of sciences, but that there
was no direct relationship between institutional funding and productivity.
Suresh (2002) developed a robust formula to credit authors for their publication.
The formula satisfied several criteria of theoretical and practical significance and tested
bibliographical references from INSPEC data base, mainly from physical sciences. Their
results satisfied several objective and quantitative criteria in the process of evaluating
relative scientific productivity in a given discipline.
Benito, Juna Gomez [et al](2005) illustrated that the value of n calculated by the
least squares method was 2.34 giving a C value of 0.722. As the value of the maximum
difference between the real and estimated accumulated frequencies was 0.038 that is less
than the critical value (c.v.= 0.079), the data obtained fit those estimated through
application of Lotka’s law.
Ramesh Babu and Ramakrishnan (2007) calculated Activity Index (AI) to
compare hepatitis literature of India with India as well as world output. The result
indicated that Indian efforts in hepatitis research is greater in 13 years out of 20 years of
study since the AI is higher than 100 in those 13 years, which reflects higher activity of
hepatitis research than the world’s average. In the years, where the AI is less than 100,
reflects lower activity of hepatitis research than world’s average the AI for India was peak
in 1988 (128.58) almost doubling the AI for the year 1995 (51.12).
Dutt, Suresh Kumar, and Garg (2007) found that absolute output for both China
and India is on the increase. However, China’s activity index has declined during the
34
period 1993 – 1995, 1996 – 1998 and 1999 – 2001 as compared to the activity indeed
during period 1990 – 1992, while in case of India, the activity index has risen during
1996 – 1998 and 1999 – 2001 as compared to the activity indeed during 1990 – 1992.
AkhtarHussain et al (2011) analyzed a bibliometric study of 578 articles that
were published during the period 2000 to 2010 in the Electronic Library journal. The
paper covers the bibliometric analyses of year-wise distribution of articles, category-wise
classification of papers, subject-wise distribution of articles, authorship patterns, and
institutions-wise distribution of contributions. Special issues of the Electronic Library
brought out during 2000-2010, and prolific authors during 2000 to 2010 have been
analyzed.
Dillip K Swain et al (2014) this study examined the patterns of publications in
the Journal of Educational Media and Library Science (JoEMLS) from 2008 to 2012. The
degree of collaboration in JoEMLS publications is found to be 0.63. Taiwan occupies the
top position in the country-wise ranking of publications, followed by China and Malaysia.
The frequent occurrences of keywords indexed in the articles, like ‘bibliometrics’,
‘information literacy’ and ‘digital archive’, indicate its research focus on promising areas
of librarianship. On examination of citations of all the published articles of JoEMLS, it is
found that among the 99 published papers, only 17 have received their relative impact as
they have been more or less cited in other different published sources.
Santosh Kumar Tunga (2014) presented a case study of the authorship pattern
and degree of collaboration in the field of horticulture based on a sample of 8437 journal
articles and 1327 books citations appended to 80 doctoral dissertations of Bidhan
35
Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) and Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya
(UBKV), West Bengal during 1991 to 2010. It shows that the horticulture scientists
mainly used journal articles (77.796%) for collecting the required information. The study
revealed that out of 8437 references cited, 1763 (20.695%) were single authored articles
and 6665 (78.997%) were multi-authored articles. Team research was on the increase in
the field of horticulture. Two authored (37.039%) were the highest in the cited journals
followed by three authored (25.116%), single authored (20.896%) and four authored
(11.332%) papers. The highest number of cited articles was in the year 2005 with 947
(11.236%).
2.2 STUDIES RELATED TO RESEARCH COLLABORATION
Price (1963) made a study on collaborative authorship, and revealed that the co-
authorship had increased steadily over time and has been rapidly growing since the
beginning of twentieth century.
Merton (1963) reported that the rate of increase in multiple authorship varies
from one subject area to another. In Physics, the proportion of the single author papers
fell from 75 percent in the 1920s to 39 percent in the 1950s. The corresponding figures
for psychology were from 84 percent to 55 percent.
According to Ranganathan (1963) the single authored articles termed as solo
research or research in peril that has been on the declining trend in the modern era. What
he predicted for the modern era holds good for the post modern era also.
36
Clarke (1964) in his study on Bibliometric papers criticized the view of Price and
concluded with a generalization as regards the increasing trend towards multiple
authorship is not valid for science as a whole.
Manten (1968) made a study on earth science and found that the multiple
authorship in the field of Earth Science increased in the frequency of multiple author
papers.
Zuckerman (1968) examined the research output contribution of 41 Nobel
laureates. The result indicated that there was high degree of collaboration and
productivity among them.
Turkeli (1973) studied the post doctoral productivity of Turkish Physicists along
with related social environmental factor. The study reveals that about 60 percent of
contributions were based on collaborative research.
Meadows (1974) has studied that there has been consistent trend towards
increased collaboration in all major branches of sciences over the years.
Ozinonu (1990) carried out a comparison between scientific production of
Turkish Physicists in the periods 1961-1971 and 1994-2000. The results showed that, in
30 years, appreciable increases had occurred in the number of collaborative authors
making significant contributions.
37
Kabir (1995) made a Bibliometric study of bibliometric literature and reported
that solo research predominates and degree of collaboration ranged from 0.20-0.35.
Bibliometric literature was doubling in every 10 years.
Kundra (1996) investigated the collaborative research trends in Indian Medical
Sciences 1900-1945 and drew general and broad conclusion. The growth pattern
suggested that a large proportion of co-authored papers in a discipline or a journal, to
some extent, was based on the type of research and the discipline involved. As a result, it
was not impossible to have a relatively lower proportion of collaborative papers in a
particular sample, even when collaborative research overall had become the normal
practice.
Ramesh [et al] (2000) analyzed the papers published in the quarterly International
Rice Journal from 1986-1995. The analysis showed that multiple author contributions
constituted the maximum proposition (87.82 percent) and the degree of collaboration over
this period varied from 0.90 – 0.95. The length of the articles with 1-5 pages was found
to be at the maximum with 78.3 percent.
Kannappanavar and Vijayakumar (2001) made a study on the authorship
trend in International Monitary Fund Literature for a period 1991-1998 and concluded
that collaborative research was in an increasing trend varying from 0.45 - 0.62. The
average degree of collaboration was found to be 0.56 - 0.81 by studying five selective
journals in geology covering a period 1987-1996.
38
Bandyopadhyay (2001) analysed the references appended to 92 doctoral theses
of mathematics, physics, mathematical engineering, philosophy and political science
submitted to University of Burdwan. In his findings, authorship collaboration was found
to be high in Physics. Moderate collaboration was observed in mathematics and
mechanical engineering. However, the collaboration was very low in political science
and philosophy excluding psychology while it was high in nuclear physics followed by
optics. The study also revealed that multiple authorship trend increased steadily through
decades (1950-1990) in all the branches of physics, mathematics, and psychology while
there was a decline for certain periods in mechanical engineering, philosophy excluding
psychology and in all the branches of political science.
Garg and Padhi (2001) analysed 3174 papers published in journals in the field of
Laser Science and Technology. It indicated that only 401 papers were single authored
and the rest 2773 were co-authored papers. Of the 2773 collaborated papers, only 687
were collaborated at domestic and national levels, and the rest was at international level.
Kim (2001) examined the productivity of Korean researchers in physics and
Mechanical Engineering. The study identified the type of authorship and their
collaboration pattern amongst the sources cited by Korean scientists.
Dalpe (2002) conducted a study to assess quality for bibliometric studies in
relation to collaboration of authors using biotechnology research and revealed the
interaction between Science and Technology was fairly good.
39
Macias-Chapula and Cesar (2002) studied the literature on health system reform
in Latin American and Caribbean through the web as well as the databases on CD ROM.
The results stated that there were no comprehensive databases in terms of time, document
type and content coverage. The results indicated the need to organize and administrate
the existing literature on healthcare reform so as to transfer it into the knowledge
demanded by the user community.
Karisiddappa, Gupta and Suresh Kumar (2002) studied the distribution of
productivity of authors and their collaboration in theoretical population genetics. The
study revealed that the productivity of distributions of authors was closer to Lotka’s type
of distribution for group of authors and collaboration.
Vijayakumar, Kalyane, and Kademani (2002) analysed the publications of
Ahmed Hassan Zewail, Nobel laureate in Chemistry, Who had collaborated with one or
two colleagues and published 246 papers during 1976-1994. The study revealed that the
collaboration trend was high in all the years of study period.
Suryanarayana (2002) studied Tobacco research publication published
throughout the world. The study summarised that the growth and fall of tobacco
literature in the world were based on the collaborative contributions.
Ponzi (2002) conducted a study of productivity of authors and their collaboration.
It was found that the collaboration was in intellectual structure and interdisciplinary
breadth of knowledge management in its early stage of development.
40
Ramesh and Nagaraju (2003) discussed the various features of distribution of
papers, the authorship pattern and year-wise distribution of degree of collaboration in
their study. They revealed that the author affiliations emphasized the dominance of
Indian authors and the multiple- authorship belonging to academic institutions.
Vijayakumar, Shehbcz and Nagvi (2003) studied the authorship pattern of
azadirachta Indica literature. They found that the collaborative research was more
favoured than the solo research.
Gupta and Dhawan (2003) carried out the research collaboration between India
and China. It was evident from the rise in the number of co-authored papers from 21 in
1994 to 74 in 1999. It was also found that the S&T collaboration between India and
China had been taking place mainly through multilateral channels and the output through
bilateral channels was very small (11.7 percent).
Lundberg [et al] (2006) studied co-authorship analysis based 62104 publications
in the Web of Science that have been published by researchers with Karolinska Institute
between 1982 and 2003. The result shows that 2812 addresses representing 486
companies had co-authored publications. These companies had co-authored 3496
publications with researchers affiliated with Karolinska Institute during the time period.
405 of the 486 companies had written at least one co-authored publication.
Neerja Verma et al (2007) dealt with the analysis of 131 contributions of the
journals entitled ‘Annals of Library and Information Studies’ published during 1999-
2005. They examined year wise, institution wise, state wise distribution of contributions,
41
authorship pattern, citation analysis, length of contributions etc. The study revealed that
the journals were the most cited publication amongst the library and information
scientists. They found out that the source journal was the most cited journal.
Uma Devi L.N (2010) carried the gender based research papers published in
scopus database characterized by twelve themes. It discussed and analyzed trends in
gender research in Asian countries from 1999-2008 in accordance with sources –wise
research output, year-wise publications, authorship pattern, and relative growth rate.
Low, et al., (2013) examined the research collaboration is the way forward in
order to improve quality and impact of its research findings. International research
collaboration had resulted in international co-authorship in scientific communications and
publications. This study highlighted the collaborating research and authorship trend in
clinical medicine in Malaysia from 2001 to 2010. Malaysian-based author affiliation in
the Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) and clinical medicine journals
(n = 999) and articles (n = 3951) as of 30th Oct 2011 were downloaded. Types of
document analyzed were articles and reviews, and impact factors (IF) in the 2010 Journal
Citation Report Science Edition were taken to access the quality of the articles. The
number of publications in clinical medicine increased from 4.5 % (n = 178) in 2001 to
23.9 % (n = 944) in 2010. The top three contributors in the subject categories were
Pharmacology and Pharmacy (13.9 %), General and Internal Medicine (13.6 %) and
Tropical Medicine (7.3 %). By journal tier system: Tier 1 (18.7 %, n = 738), Tier 2
(22.5 %, n = 888), Tier 3 (29.6 %, n = 1170), Tier 4 (27.2 %, n = 1074), and journals
without IF was (2.1 %, n = 81). University of Malaya was the most productive. Local
collaborators accounted for 60.3 % and international collaborations 39.7 %. Articles with
42
international collaborations appeared in journals with higher journal IFs than those
without international collaboration. They were also cited more significantly than articles
without international collaborations. Citations, impact factor and journal tiers were
significantly associated with international collaboration in Malaysia's clinical medicine
publications. Malaysia had achieved a significant number of ISI publications in clinical
medicine participation in international collaboration.
2.3 STUDIES RELATED TO CORE JOURNALS
Naranan (1970) inspired by a model proposed by Fermi in 1949 in cosmic ray
astrophysics account for Bradford’s law. The most significant first step in the model was
to recognize that the Bradford’s law was equivalent to a simple power law distribution or
articles in journals. Specifically J(p) the number of journals carrying exactly p articles is
the form of J(p)=Kp (K being constant and = 270) to explain the power law relation.
White (1985) observed that the super-imposition of the Bradford distribution over
the linear Zipf distribution, which demonstrates the emergence of more used and popular
items, may yield a technique to describe the pattern of books used by library patrons. She
felt that this law, when applied to circulation data, these formulations could support such
policies as shortened loan periods for heavily used and the identification of a core
collection.
Klaic (1990) examined the research activity of chemists from Rugjer Boskovic
Yugoslavia during 1976-1985 covering 2018 research papers of scientific work. The
papers were classified according to subfields used in the Journal Citation Reports. In this
study, he found that over 67 percent of papers were in the form of journal articles.
43
Ugolini [et al](1997) assessed the publication quality of the National Institute for
Cancer research (Genoa), Italy, and found that the scientists of the institute had published
in high quality journals as reflected by the impact factor of the journals.
Rao (1999) using COMPENDEX database between 1990 and 1994, found that
engineers in India published their articles in a few selected journals. Chemical
engineering, ceramics, plastics and polymers were main fields of their concentration.
Braun (2000) studied the scientific publications on the basis of the data obtained
from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Philadelphia. All countries which
published atleast 50 first-authored papers in the field in question during the period of
study were included. The sources journals during the period 1980-1984 and 1985-1989
were considered as source items and citations to them were counted for the periods from
1980 to 1989.
Arunachalam and Balaji (2001) studied fish and aquaculture research in the
People’s of Republic China over the six years 1994-1999 using data from six databases,
three abstracting services, and three citation indexes. The results were compared with fish
science research in India using bibliometric studies. They found that about 78 percent of
China’s journal papers appeared in 143 domestic journals whereas in the case of India, 70
percent of journal output appeared in 113 Indian Journals.
Kyvik, Svein (2003) revealed that the scientific or scholarly article is the
dominant type of publication within all fields. In total, 85 percent of all publications
44
were articles in journals, books, or reports (93 percent in the medical sciences, 87 percent
in the natural sciences, 86 percent in technology, 83 percent in the humanities, and 73
percent in the social sciences). Of the total number of articles about 2/3 were published in
journals and 1/3 in books and reports.
Peter Willet (2008) found that The Journal of Chemical Information and
Modeling (previously the Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences) was
the core journal for the subject, but with many significant papers being published in
journals whose principal focus was molecular modeling, quantitative structure-activity
relationships or more general aspects of chemistry. The discipline was international in
scope, and many of the most cited papers describe software packages that play a key role
in modern chemo informatics research.
2.4 STUDIES RELATED TO GROWTH OF LITERATURE AND
BIBLIOMETRICS IN GENERAL
Ozinonu (1970) made an early survey relating to growth of Basic science in
Turkey. The author identified the growth of manpower and frequency of publications in
Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry and Bio-science for the period 1933-1966.
Nagarajan (1995) examined the Research Productivity of Indian Scientists in
Marine Biology. He identified the Marine Science literature at the International level
reveals that the relative growth rates of marine science research output showed a
declining trend, contrastingly doubling time for publications increased remarkably. The
same trend was witnessed in terms of Indian level output.
45
Dhruv, Gupta, and Kandhari (1995) studied the evolution of collaboration in
four sub-disciplines of Physics for the period 1800-1950. The overall evolution of
physics publications in India revealed a remarkable break with the past in the decade
1920s onwards. In fact, the growth rate entered a new face after this time. The
collaboration coefficients calculated decade-wise were strongly correlated with the
decade-wise total number of publications. This conforms to increasing collaboration as
the number of publications increases.
Melin and Persson (1996) indicated in their study that most of the collaborations
had resulted from academic institutions (52.98 percent) followed by industrial houses
(21.40), and research institution (18.29 percent).
Ravi (1996) studied the Nuclear Science Research Productivity of Indian Scientist
and found that the Nuclear science research papers were published mainly in Journals.
Among the International sources of publications, United States and United Kingdom
predominated in publishing Indian Nuclear Science Research papers. The percentage of
two-authored and three-authored papers was more than the single authored and other
multi-authored papers.
Karki and Garg (1997) calculated activity index for India for different years to
see how India’s performance changed during the period of study. The result indicates that
India’s research effort in alkaloid chemistry is lower than the world during 1971, 1973,
1975, and 1977. But during the next five years, viz., 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1987 it
has picked up, and is higher than the world reaching its peak in 1981. The average AI for
46
India for 1971 – 1989, however, is 99, which indicates that India’s research effort in
alkaloid chemistry corresponds precisely to the world’s average.
Okubo [et al] (1998) analyzed the publication profile of 48 nations during 1981-
1992 using SCI to examine cutting edge versus ancient research in these nations and
identified countries whose publication patterns underwent the most marked changes. The
study pointed out that there appeared to be an overall shift towards the American pattern
of research interests worldwide. The south Asian nations still have not acquired the
balanced publication pattern that characterizes the most advanced countries, although
these countries have ventured into new areas like computer and material science and are
also concerned about environmental and health science research.
Tonta (2000) analyzed the bibliometric features of 8442 biomedical publications
whose first authors were affiliated with a Turkish research institution. It was found that
the researchers affiliated with Hacettepe University, which was in the forefront of
biomedical research in Turkey, had single-handedly contributed to almost a quarter (23.1
percent, to be exact) of all biomedical publications appeared in international journals.
Goel (2001) examined the Gender differences in psychological research in India
based on Ph. D theses covered the period between 1976 and 1986. The analysis showed
that among 1271 theses 62.94 percent was produced by male researcher and 37.06
percent was by female researchers in India.
47
Arunachalam and Gunasekaran (2002) made a bibliometric study on
Tuberculosis Research in India and China, and identified that there was a tremendous
mismatch between the share of the burden of the disease and the share of research efforts.
Kim, Mee-Jean (2002) carried out a research on bibliometrics, and found that a
total of 96 Korean academic institutions participated in 4,665 articles. The top 15
institutes that published more than 100 articles produced 4,031 papers, or 86.4 percent of
the total number of publications.
Velloso, Lannes, and Leopoldo (2004) carried out a study for 4-year period,
1997 – 2000 and identified that Brazilian scientists published 34,274 papers indexed by
ISI and from these, 79.7 percent was derived from governmental universities, 11.6
percent from governmental research institutes, 3.7 percent from private universities, and
0.2 percent from private research institutes.
Gu (2004) presented that the publication productivity per annum steadily
increased between 1991 and 1996 and followed by a sharp growth in 1997, rapidly
peaked in 2001. Eventhough the growth rates are declining during the period of 1996 to
2001, the average yearly increment in such a time interval reaches 54 articles, and an
existing upward trend is expected to continue in the near future.
Sivaraman (2004) examined the research productivity of science faculties in the
universities of Tamilnadu. The result showed that University of Madras ranks first in
order among twelve universities sharing 27.80 percent followed by Anna University
(21.70 percent), Madurai Kamaraj University (15.87 percent), and so on, contrastingly,
48
Anna University ranks first in the case of individual performance by faculties. It was also
states that publications of faculties were predominated by journal articles.
Cherchye and Vanden Abeele (2005) analyzed business and economics research
“micro unit” at Dutch Universities in order to analyze the patterns of this research and the
impact of its size and external financing received for it. Their results showed that there is
a positive relationship between the efficiency of academic research and the amount of
external financing that it receives.
Tombazos (2005) established ranking for two subperiods, 1991 – 1996 and 1997
– 2002, from articles in the most 30 frequently cited journals in Economics. The result
shows that only eight Spanish institutions appear among the first two hundred institutions
in the first subperiod, while in the second, five Spanish Universities appear in the first
fifty positions.
Patra and Chand (2005) revealed that there was, for the first few years, a very
little growth observed. After that, the growth picked up a good pace. In 1987, 1989,
1997, 2003 the number of publications dropped from the previous years.
He, Zhang, and Teng (2005) carried out a bibliometric research on biochemistry
and molecular biology. The results showed that based on yearly analysis, the rates of
increase for Chinese papers were 5.96 percent, 19.53 percent and 8.83 percent with an
average rate of increase by 12.61 percent each year. It was also found that there were
increasing trends for Chinese papers in biochemistry and molecular biology both in the
total number in the percentage of the world papers. They also pointed out that 38.37
49
percent of the total number of papers comes from 72 national universities where as 13.43
percent is from the rest of 1443 universities. The national universities and institutes of
the Chinese Academy of Sciences are the important sites for research output of
biochemistry and molecular biology in China.
Garcia – Garcia [et al] (2005) examined that the growth in scientific productivity
in gynecology and obstetrics was progressive upto 1998 when there was stagnation. The
accumulative growth in total scientific production of each 4-year block over the preceding
one was considerable for the periods 1991 – 1994 (74.4 percent) and 1995 – 1998 (61.1
percent), but the growth stabilizes in the period 1999 – 2002 (3.1 percent). However,
these data confirm that the material analysed is closer to an exponential adjustment than a
linear adjustment, as predicted by Price’s Law.
The report of Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (2006) revealed
that there was an increase of 3.9 percent from 20.2 and 21 percent from 1997 in the
publications of universities’ authors. The subject-wise analyses disclosed that the largest
productivity was from natural sciences, out of seven subject fields. The publications by
individual universities bring out a fact that University of Auckland ranks first with 1015
(31 percent) papers, followed by University of Otago (928 papers), University of
Canterbury (437 papers), Massey University (428 papers), and so on.
Lopez-Munoz [et al](2006) stated that over the last 25 years, there has been a
marked increase in the number of publications generated in relation to bipolar disorder at
a worldwide basis. The mathematical adjustment to an exponential curve obtains a
correlation coefficient r=0.9479, indicating 9.81 percent of variance. In contrast, the
50
linear adjustment of the measured values provides an r=0.8493 indicating 26.33 percent.
Therefore, it was concluded that the repertoire analysed was more in keeping with an
exponential fitting than a linear one, and that the postulates of Price’s Lare were fulfilled.
Leta, Glanzel,Thijs (2006) found that from 1991 to 2003, universities from the
public sector accounted for more than 80% of the country’s total publications in the ISI
database, a share that seems to be increasing . In this period, the number of publications
addressed to these institutions increased from 3,023 to 11,845.
Ramos, Royuela, Surinach (2007) explained that the five most productive
universities during the period of study were Pompeu Fabra Universities, Carlo III
University, Autonomous University of Barcelona, University of Valencia and University
of Alikante which published over 140 articles.
Dhawan and Gupta (2007) analyzed High Productivity Institutions (HPI) in
Indian physics, and identified that 64 high productivity institutions have together
contributed 23,835 papers, accounting for 88 percent of the total Indian physics output
during 1993 – 2001. Of the 64 HPIs, eight belong to Institutes of National Importance
(INIs), 23 to Research Institutions (RIs), and 33 to Universities & Colleges.
Sanz-Casado [et al] (2007) bringed out a fact that there was a gradual increase in
scientific production observed from the 70s to the mid-80s, with steep rise at the end of
the decade. Production increased very fast from 1990, with a peak in 1991, until 1996,
where another sharp rise was recorded, with peaks in 1996. The number of publications
51
grew by 94.87 percent between 1973 and 1982 and by 258.97 percent and 871.79 percent
from 1973 to 1992 and 1973 to 2002, respectively.
Aryati Bakri1 and Peter Willett (2009) discussed publication and citation
patterns in the Malaysian Journal of Computer Science (MJCS) from 1996-2006. The
articles in MJCS were mostly written by Malaysian academics, with only limited inputs
from international sources. Comparisons were made with the companion Malaysian
Journal of Library and Information Science in terms of the type, number of references,
length and numbers of authors for individual papers.
Stumpf, et al., (2011) described the Neotropical Ichthyology journal was created
in 2003 and soon became one of the main publications in its field as it is reflected in the
number of articles submitted every year and the fact that it has been indexed by both
SciELO and ISI. In order to understand the reasons for its trajectory, the journal history
was recovered and bibliometric indices on author, citation and impact factor were mapped
for the period between 2003 and 2010. A descriptive study on journal information source
and a bibliometric study of the 388 articles published by the journal and the 642 articles
that cite it have been carried out. Bibliometric analyses showed that 75.8% of the articles
had been written by Brazilian authors and 91.3% had been published in collaboration.
The journal was cited by 171 different publications from 28 countries, including
renowned journals in the field. Self-citation accounted for 26.8% of journal citation.
Analyses had been able to show that strict evaluation control and editing of the articles
have contributed towards its success and internationalization.
52
GhouseModin N Mamdapur et al (2011) analyzed articles in Baltic Astronomy
published during the years 2000 to 2008 with regard to distribution of contributions,
authorship pattern of contributions, distribution of references, analysis of length of
papers, etc. Out of 8489 references appended, 1521 (17.92 percent) appeared in the year
2004. The degree of collaboration for the period 2000-2008 was 0.89. Authors have
primarily relied on journals followed by books, conference proceedings and reports.
Authors from USA have contributed maximum number of papers compared to other
countries and India stood 21st in the ranked list. Astrophysical Journal topped the ranked
list of journals cited by the authors followed by Astronomy and Astrophysics. It can be
concluded that top 20 journals cited by the authors cover almost 87.60 percent of
references and also indicates that collaborative research was prevalent in astronomy
research.
Grandjean, et al., (2011) described the environmental research addresses
scientific questions of possible societal relevance; it is unclear to what degree research
focuses on environmental chemicals in need of documentation for risk assessment
purposes. In a bibliometric analysis, we used SciFinder to extract Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) numbers for chemicals addressed by publications in the 78 major
environmental science journals during 2000-2009. The Web of Science was used to
conduct title searches to determine long-term trends for prominent substances and
substances considered in need of research attention. The 119,636 journal articles found
had 760,056 CAS number links during 2000-2009. The top-20 environmental chemicals
consisted of metals, (chlorinated) biphenyls, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, and
ethanol and contributed 12% toward the total number of links- Each of the top-20
substances were covered by 2,000-10,000 articles during the decade. The numbers for the
53
10-year period were similar to the total numbers of pre-2000 articles on the same
chemicals. However, substances considered a high priority from a regulatory viewpoint,
due to lack of documentation, showed very low publication rates. The persistence in the
scientific literature of the top-20 chemicals was only weakly related to their publication in
journals with a high impact factor, but some substances achieved high citation rates. The
persistence of some environmental chemicals in the scientific literature might be due to a
'Matthew' principle of maintaining prominence for the very reason of having been well
researched. Such bias detracts from the societal needs for documentation on less well
known environmental hazards, and it may also impact negatively on the potentials for
innovation and discovery in research.
AkhtarHussain et al (2011) analyzed a bibliometric study of 578 articles that
were published during the period 2000 to 2010 in the Electronic Library journal. The
paper covers the bibliometric analyses of year-wise distribution of articles, category-wise
classification of papers, subject-wise distribution of articles, authorship patterns, and
institutions-wise distribution of contributions. Special issues of the Electronic Library
brought out during 2000-2010, and prolific authors during 2000 to 2010 have been
analyzed.
Song, et al., (2012) described that the bioinformatics was a fast-growing
interdisciplinary research field that applies advanced computational techniques to
biological data. Bibliometrics analysis has recently been adopted to understand the
knowledge structure of a research field by citation pattern. In this paper, they explore the
knowledge structure of Bioinformatics from the perspective of a core open access
Bioinformatics journal, BMC Bioinformatics with trend analysis, the content and co-
54
Authorship network similarity, and principal component analysis. The experimental
results showed that Bioinformatics was fast-growing, dynamic and diversified. The
content analysis showed that there was an increasing overlap among Bioinformatics
journals in terms of topics and more research groups participate in researching
Bioinformatics according to the co-Authorship network similarity.
Tang, et al., (2012) revealed the research output and impact metrics derived from
commercial citation databases such as Web of Science and Scopus had become
commonly used indicators of predominantly English language scholarly performance. Yet
it had been pointed out that existing metrics were largely inadequate to reflect scholars'
overall peer-mediated performance, especially in the social sciences and humanities
(SSH) where publication forms were more diverse. In this paper alternative metrics
exploring a variety of communication sources were explored, with the aim of better
reflecting SSH scholarship. Data for a group of 16 SSH scholars resident on Taiwan were
collected, along with the number of grants and awards received from the chief public
grant making body for the sciences on the island. Principle component analysis revealed
four underlying dimensions represented by the 18 metrics. Multiple-regression analyses
were performed to examine how well each of the metrics and dimensions predicted the
number of public grants awarded the study cohorts. Differences in the significance of the
predictors were found between the social sciences and humanities. The results suggest the
need to consider disciplinary differences when evaluating scholarly performance.
Peymani, et al., (2012) has carried out to investigate the trends in stem cell
research in Iran from 1995 to 2010. Original research and review articles were considered
and publications were identified with the keyword "stem cell" and an affiliation to an
55
Iranian institution. Data were obtained from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)
Web of Science databases and Scopus. Since 1995, 491 articles were published. The
mean number of citations per publication was3.928 and the most frequently cited paper
received 76 citations. Articles were published in journals with impact factor that ranged
from 0.46 to 8.1. There was an increasing trend in stem cell publications based on
research done in Iran, although the rate of citations of these papers was low.
Abramo, D'Angelo, and Murgia, (2013) described about the debate on the role
of women in the academic world. They had focused on various phenomena that could be
at the root of the gender gap seen in many nations. However, in spite of the ever more
collaborative character of scientific research, the issue of gender aspects in research
collaborations had been treated in a marginal manner. In this article they applied an
innovative bibliometric approach based on the propensity for collaboration by individual
academics, which permits measurement of gender differences in the propensity to
collaborate by fields, disciplines and forms of collaboration: intramural, extramural
domestic and international. The analysis of the scientific production of Italian academics
showed that women researchers register a greater capacity to collaborate in all the forms
analyzed, with the exception of international collaboration, where there is still a gap in
comparison to male colleagues.
Galloway, Pease, and Rauh, (2013) examined the quantifying scholarly output
via citation metrics is the time-honored method to gauge academic success. Altmetrics, or
alternative citation metrics, provide researchers and scholars with new ways to track
influence across evolving modes of scholarly communication. This article dealt with
librarians an overview of new trends in measuring scholarly influence, introduce them to
56
altmetrics tools, and encourage them to engage with researchers in discussion of these
new metrics.
Chen, et al., (2013) studies about the bibliometric study of cholinesterase
inhibitors was used to find the trend of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and the order
of drugs which was most tolerated or more effective in AD treatment. 4,982 articles and
reviews from the Science Citation Index Expanded during 1993-2012 were analyzed. The
main results were as follows: The publication of cholinesterase inhibitor research
increased overall during 1993-2012. Chinese Academy of Science had most publications,
University of California, San Diego and Hebrew University of Jerusalem won first place
with the highest average citation per paper and the highest h-index respectively.
Neurosciences, pharmacology and chemistry were "raising" subject categories in
cholinesterase inhibitors research. With the comprehensive analysis of distribution and
change of author keywords in two 10-year-time periods, it can be concluded as follows:
(i) the order of drugs which was most tolerated or more effective in AD treatment might
be donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, tacrine, memantine and huperzine A, and
memantine attracted increasing interest recently and might be used more frequently now,
especially for moderate to severe dementia. (ii) The pathogenesis of oxidative stress
hypothesis attracted extensive attention. The interest to - amyloid cascade hypothesis
increased slightly but that of the cholinergic hypothesis decreased during the past decade.
(iii) "Oxidative stress", "-amyloid", "neuroprotection", "memory" and "cognition" are the
main orientations in the AD research in the future.
Bhupendra Radha et al (2012) discussed Bibliometric Analysis of the
Information Research: an International Electronic Journal (IRIEJ) The study was an
57
interacting research topic in the field of library and information science, in various fields
for the collection development of different subject in their libraries. The study included
form of documents, authorship pattern, ranking of authors, year wise distribution of
references and articles, ranking of cited journals, cited publishers and research
contributors of IRIEJ.
Parveen Kumar (2013) Identified the number of articles published in the ‘Journal
of Indian Library Association’ from the year 2007 to 2011. The research method adopted
was Bibliometrics. The study coverd the number of papers published, the number of
references made, the authorship patterns and average length of paper published etc. All
the points discussed in the study was helpful for its further development. The analysis
showed that only 2(2.81%) research paper were contributed by more than four authors. It
also revealed that out of 71 research papers, only 3(4.22%) research papers had no
citation. Only single author from foreign country contributed in the journal during the
period.
Roy, Sanku Bilas and Basak, Moutusi (2013) Bibliometrics was the discipline
where quantitative methods were employed to probe scientific communication process by
measuring and analyzing various aspects of written documents. It helped to monitor
growth of literature and patterns of research. This paper examined the articles published
in Journal of Documentation for authorship pattern, degree of collaboration, geographical
distribution of papers and citation analysis. The studies carried out for this paper found
that majority of papers are multi- authored. The degree of collaboration was found to be
0.51. The geographical distribution revealed that the contribution by United Kingdom is
the highest. The average citations per paper were 43.
58
Inferences
While reviewing the above studies, it was observed that there were a few studies
found exclusively for the analysis of research productivity of universities in foreign
countries, but not in India. There were some studies in India on the evaluation of
university’s research performance at state levels or a part of the national level study. This
phenomenon motivated the researcher to ascertain the research performance there is no
specific study on anthropology.
REFERENCES
1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., Murgia, G. (2013) Introduction to Altmetrics for
Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Librarians, Journal of
Informetrics 7 (4) , pp. 811-822
2. AkhtarHussain et al (2011) Bibliometric Analysis of the Electronic Library journal:
2000-2010; Webology, 8(1).
3. Arunachalam, Subbiah and Gunasekaran, Subbiah (2002). Tuberculosis Research in
India and China: From Bibliometrics to Research Policy. Current Science, 82: 933-
947.
4. Arunachalam, Subbiah., Jayshree Balaji (2001). Fish Science Research in China: How
does it compare with Fish Research in India. Scientometrics, 52(3): 13-28.
59
AryatiBakri and Peter Willett (2008) The Malaysian Journal of Library and
Information Science 2001-2006: A Bibliometric Study; Malaysian Journal of Library
and Information Science, 13 (1) 103-116.
5. Bandyopadhyay, Amit Kumar (2001). Authorship Pattern in Different Disciplines.
Annals of Library and Information Studies, 48: 139-147.
6. Batcha, Sadik (2003). Research Productivity of Cancer Disease in the SAARC
Countries with Special Reference to India: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis:
Annamalai University.
7. Benito, Juana Gomez [et al] (2005). A Bibliometric Study of Differential Item
Functioning. Scientometrics, 64(1): 3 – 16.
8. BhupendraRadhaet al (2012) Information Research: An International Electronic
Journal: A Bibliometric study. International Journal of Digital Library Services, vol 2
(1).
9. Braun T. (1994). World Science in the Eighties, National Performance in publication
output and Citation Impact Part 1. All Science Fields Combined Physics and
Chemistry. Scientometrics, 29: 299-334.
10. Braun, T., Glanzel, W. (2000). Chemistry Research in Central Europe (1992-1997):
Facts and Figures on Publication Output and Citation Impact. Scientometrics, 49:
187-213.
60
11. Cano V. (1999). Bibliometric Overview of Library and Information Science Research
in Spain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50: 675-680.
12. Chen, H., Wan, Y., Jiang, S., Cheng, Y. (2013) � Alzheimer's disease research in the
future: bibliometric analysis of cholinesterase inhibitors from 1993 to 2012
Scientometrics , pp. 1-13
13. Cherchye, L and Vanden Abeele, P. (2005). On research efficiency: A micro analysis
of Dutch Universities Research in Economics and Business management. Research
Policy, 34: 495 – 516.
14. Clarke, L Beverly (1964). Multiple Authorship Trends in Scientific Paper. Science,
143: 822-824.
15. Dalpe, Robert (2002). Bibliometric Analysis of Biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55(2):
243-258.
16. Dillip K Swain,Chandrakanta Swain and Bijayalaxmi Rautaray (2014) Bibliometric
Analysis of the Journal of Educational Media and Library Science from 2008 to 2012
PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science Vol. 8, No. 1, January-
March 2014: 9–1
17. Dhawan, S.M. (2000). Comparative Study of Physics Research in India and China
based on INSPEC Physics for 1990 and 1995, Scientometrics, 49: 423-441.
61
18. Dhawan, S.M. and Gupta, B.M. (2007). Role and Contribution of High Productivity
Institutions in Different Sub-fields of India Physics. In Proceedings of Third
International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics (ed. by Divya
Srivastava, Ramesh Kundra and Hildrun Kretshmer), 148 – 163.
19. Dhruv, Raina, Gupta, B.M., and Rohith Kandhari (1995). Collaboration in Physics: A
Case study of the Macro and Micro Parameterisation of Sub-Disciplines (1800-1950).
Scientometrics, 33: 295-314.
20. Dutt, Bharvi, Suresh Kumar, Garg, K.C. (2007). Traditional System of Medicine: A
Scientometric Profile of Herbal Mediine Research in India and China. In Proceedings
of Third International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics (ed.
by Divya Srivastava, Ramesh Kundra and Hildrun Kretshmer), 105 – 118.
21. Galloway, L.M., Pease, J.L., Rauh, A.E. (2013) Science and Technology Libraries ,
Alzheimer's disease research in the future: bibliometric analysis of cholinesterase
inhibitors from 1993 to 2012
22. Garcia – Garcia, Pilar [et al] (2005). Evolution of Spanish Scientific Production in
International Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals during the Period 1986 – 2002.
European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 123: 150
– 156.
23. Garg, K.C., Padhi, P. (2001). A Study of Collaboration in Laser Science and
Technology. Scientometrics, 51(3): 415-427.
62
24. Ghose Modin N.Mamdapur et al (2011) Baltic Astronomy 2000 -2008: A
Bibliometric Study; Annals of Library and Information Science, vol58:34-40.
25. Goel, Kamelesh (2001). Bibliometrics of Social Science Research in India. University
News, 39: 9-11.
26. Grandjean, P., Eriksen, M.L., Ellegaard, O., Wallin, J.A. (2011) , The Matthew effect
in environmental science publication: A bibliometric analysis of chemical substances
in journal articles, Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 10 (1) ,
art. no. 96
27. Gu, Yinian (2004). Global Knowledge Management Research: A Bibliometric
Analysis. Scientometrics, 61(2): 171 – 190.
28. Gupta, B.M., Dhawan, S.M. (2003). India’s Collaboration with People’s Republic of
China in Science and Technology: A Scientometric Analysis of Coauthored Papers
during 1994-1999. Scientometrics, 57(1): 59-74.
29. Harsanyi, Martha A. (1993). Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems-Bibliometrics and
the Study of Scholarly Collaboration: A Literature review. Library and Information
Science Review, 15: 325-354.
63
30. He, Tianwei, Zhang, Jinglin, and Teng, Lirong (2005). Basic Research in
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in China: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Scientometrics, 62 (2): 249 – 259.
31. Jacobs, Daisy and Ingwersen, Peter A (2000). Bibliometric Study of the Publication
Patterns in the Sciences of South African Scholars 1981-1996. Scientometrics,
47(1):75-93.
32. Kabir, Humayoon, S. (1995). Bibliometrics of Bibliometrics. Library Science, 32: 13-
24.
33. Kannappanavar, B.U., Vijayakumar, M. (2001). Authorship Trend and Solla vs Team
Research in International Monetary Fund Literature: A Bibliometric Study. Annals of
Library and Information Studies, 48: 117-120.
34. Karisiddappa, C.R., Gupta, B.M., and Suresh Kumar (2002). Scientific Productivity
of Authors in Theoretical Population Genetics. Scientometrics, 53(1): 73-93.
35. Karki, M.M.S. and Garg, K.C. (1997). Bibliometrics of Alkaloid Chemistry Research
in India. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Science, 37: 157 – 161.
36. Kim , Mee-Jean (2001). A Bibliometric Analysis of physics publications in Korea,
1994 – 1998. Scientometrics, 50(3): 503 – 521).
64
37. Kim, Mee-Jean (2003). Citation Patterns of Korean Physicists and Mechanical
Engineers: Differences by Type of Publication Source and Type of Authorship.
Scientometrics, 55(3): 421-436.
38. Klaic B. (1990). Scientometrics Analysis of the Research Activities of Chemists from
the Rugjier Boskovic Institute, Yugoslavia, 1976-1985. Scientometrics, 19: 11-24.
39. Koehler, Wallace (2001). Information Science as Little Science: The Implications of a
Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of the American Society for Information
Science. Scientometrics, 51(2): 117-132.
40. Kundra R. (1996). Investigation of Collaborative Research Trends in Indian Medical
Sciences 1900-1945. Scientometrics, 36: 69-80.
41. Kyvik, Svein (2003). Changing Trends in Publishing Behaviour among University
Faculty, 1980-2000: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher
Education. Scientometrics, 58(1): 35.48.
42. Leta, Jacqueline, Glanzel, Wolfgang, Thijs, Bart (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2:
Sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67( 1): 87–105.
43. Lopez-Munoz, Francisco [et al] (2006). Bipolar Disorder as an Emerging Pathology
in the Scientific Literature: A Bibliometric Approach. Journal of Affective Disorders,
92: 161 – 170.
65
44. Low, W.Y., Ng, K.H., Kabir, M.A., Koh, A.P., Sinnasamy, J. (2013) , Trend and
impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in
Malaysia ,Scientometrics , pp. 1-13
45. Lundberg, Jonas [et al] (2006). Collaboration Uncovered: Exploring the Adequacy of
Measuring University-Industry Collaboration through Co-authorship and Funding.
Scientometrics, 69(3): 575 – 589.
46. Macias-Chapula and Cesar, A. (2002). Bibliometric and Webometric Analysis of
Health System Reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean. Scientometrics, 53:
407-427.
47. Manten, A.A. (1968). Multiple Authorship in Earth Science. Atlas (4A): 149A-152A.
48. ManishaGawde and Devendra Kumar Mishra (2012). Information Research: An
International ElectronicJournal: A Bibliometric Study (2007-2011). International
Journal of Librarianship and Administration, vol 3(1) 31-47.
49. Meadows, A.J. (1974). Communication in Science. London: Butterworths.
50. Melin, G. and Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-
authorship, scientometrics, 36: 363 – 377.
51. Merton, R.K., Garfield, E. (1963). Forward to Little Science, Big Science and Beyond
by D.J. De Solla Price. New York: Columbia University.
66
52. Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (2006). University Bibliometrics: An
Analysis of Publication Outputs, 1997 – 2003. Report, M R S T: Wellington, 1 – 19.
53. Nagarajan, M. (1995). Evaluation of Research Productivity of Marine Science in
India: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis, Annamalai University.
54. Nagpaul, P.S., Sharma, L. (1994). Research Output and Trans-National Cooperation
in Physics Sub-Fields: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Scientometrics, 31: 97-122.
55. Naranan, S. (1970). Bradford’s Law of Bibliography of Science: An Interpretation.
Nature 227: 631-632.
56. NeerjaVerma, RajnishTamrakar"and PriyankaSharmab (2007).Analysis of
contributions in Annals of Library and Information Studies. Annals of Library and
Information Studies, vol. 54(2)106-111.
57. Okubo, Y. et al. (1998). A Multivariate Analysis of Publication Trends in the 1980s
with Special Reference to South East Asia. Scientometrics, 41: 273-289.
58. Ozinonu K. (1970). Growth in Turkish Positive Basic Science 1933-1936. Ankara:
Middle East Technical University.
59. Parameshwaran, M., Smitha, K.G. (2001). Bibliometric Analysis of LISA. Annals of
Library and Information Studies, 4:149-153.
67
60. Parveen Kumar (2013) A Bibliometric Analysis of Journals of Indian Library
Association (2007-2011) www.indian journals.com Vol. 19, No. 3, July 2013 .
61. Patra and Chand (2005). Biotechnology Research Profile in India. Scientometrics,
63(3): 583 – 597.
62. Peymani, P., Zahiri, Z., Heydari, S.T., Khoshsima, M., Lankarani, K.B. (2012) ,
Iranian stem cell research trends: Bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping trends
from 1995 to 2010 , World Journal of Medical Sciences 7 (3) , pp. 159-162
63. Ponzi, Leonard J. (2002). The Intellectual Structure and Interdisciplinary Breadth of
Knowledge Management: A Bibliometric Study of its Early Stage of Development.
Scientometrics, 55(2): 259-272.
64. Price, D.J.Solla (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University.
65. Ramesh Babu, D. B. and Ramakrishnan, J. (2007). Indian Contributions to the Field
of Hepatitis (1984 – 2003): A Scientometric Study. In Proceedings of Third
International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics (ed. by Divya
Srivastava, Ramesh Kundra and Hildrun Kretshmer), 22 – 31.
66. Ramesh, [et al] (2000). Publication Pattern in Oryza (Oryza Sativa L.) from 1986-
1995: A Bibliometric Study. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 37: 215-
227.
68
67. Ramesh, L.S.R.V., Nagaraju, A.V.S.S. (2003). Publication Pattern in International
Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 1991-2000: A Bibliometric Study. SRELS journal of
Information Management, 39(4): 457-465.
68. Ramos, Raul, Royuela, Vicente and Surinach, Jordi (2007). An Analysis of the
determinants in economics and business publications by Spanish Universities
between 1994 and 2004. Scientometrics, 71 (1): 117 – 144.\
69. Ranganathan, S.R. (1963). Prolegomena to Library Classification, Bombay: Columbia
University.
70. Rao, I.K.R., Suma, A. (1999). Qualitative Study Indian of Engineering Literature,
Scientometrics, 46: 605-619.
71. Ravi, S. (1996). Nuclear Science Research Productivity of Indian Scientists: A
Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis, Annamalai University.
72. Roy, Sanku Bilas and Basak, Moutusi (2013) Journal of Documentation: A
Bibliometric Study (2013). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 945.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/945
73. Sanz-Casado, E [et al] (2007). Bibliometric Mapping of Scientific Research on Prion
Diseases, 1973 – 2002. Information Processing and Management, 43: 273 – 284.
69
74. Santosh Kumar Tunga (2014) Authorship pattern and degree of collaboration in
journal articles: A citation study of doctoral dissertations 1991-2010 .Information
Studies Vol. 20(2,).
75. Saravanan, T. (2000). Research Productivity in Astronomy Science in G7 Countries
with special Reference to India: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis, Annamalai
University.
76. Schubert, A.S. and Zsindley, T. Braun (1985). Scientometric Indicators for Evaluating
the Medical Research Output of Mid-Size Countries. Scientometrics 7: 215-239.
77. Sivaraman, P. (2004). Research Productivity of Faculty Members in the Universities
of Tamilnadu: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis: Annamalai University.
78. Song, M., Yang, C.C., Tang, X., Han, W.-S. (2012), Mapping the field of
Bioinformatics with a content and co-Authorship analysis, Proceedings - 2012 IEEE
International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops, BIBMW
2012 , art. no. 6470238 , pp. 774-781
79. Stumpf, I.R.C., Vanz, S.A.S., Gastaud, N., Vargas, R., Bentancourt, S.M.P. (2011) ,
Neotropical ichthyology: Trajectory and bibliometric index (2003 - 2010) ,
Neotropical Ichthyology 9 (4) , pp. 921-926
70
80. Suresh, B. (2002). Growth and Collaboration Trends in Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome Research Literature. A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis: Annamalai
University.
81. Suryanarayana, Y.V. (2002). Tobacco Research Publications: Global Scenario.
SRELS Journal of Information Management, 39(2): 183-194.
82. Tang, M.-C., Wang, C.-M., Chen, K.-H., Hsiang, J. (2012) , Exploring alternative
cyberbibliometrics for evaluation of scholarly performance in the social sciences and
humanities in Taiwan, Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting 49 (1)
83. Tombazos (2005). Ranking of Spanish Universities in Article Publications.
Scientometrics, 69: 141 – 154.
84. Tonta, Y. (2000). Contribution of Turkish researchers to the world’s biomedical
literature (1988-1997), Scientometrics, 48: 71–84.
85. Turkeli, A. (1973). Doctoral Training Environment and Post Doctorate Productivity
among Turkish Physicist. Science Studies, 3: 311-318.
86. Uma Devi L.N (2010) A Study on Bibliometric Analysis of Gender Research in Asian
Countries. IJISS vol 4(2): 1-6
87. Ugolini, D.S. Parodi and Santi, L. (1997). Analysis of Publication Quality in a Cancer
Research Institute. Scientometrics, 38: 265-274.
71
88. Velloso, Andrea, Lannes, Denise, and Leopoldo, De Meis (2004). Concentration of
Science in Brazilian Governmental Universities. Scientometrics, 61 (2): 207 – 220.
89. Vijayakumar, Kalyane, V.L., and Kademani. (2002). Research Collaborator Par
Excellence. Scientometrics, 53(1): 113-121.
90. Vijayakumar, M. Shehbaz, H., and Naqvi (2003). Authorship Trend in Azadirachta
Indica Literature: A Bibliometric Study. SRLES Journal of Information Management,
39(4): 445-455.
91. White, Emilie C. (1985). Bibliometrics: From Curiosity to Convention. Special
Libraries,35- 42.
92. Zuckerman, Harriet A. (1968). Pattern of Name Ordering among Authors of Scientific
Papers: A study of Social Symbolism and its Ambiguity. American Journal of
Sociology, 7: 276-271.