Abstract
This study compared topics, impact, disciplines, and research methods in articles published from 2016 to 2020 between Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics (JOI) to provide referential data for researchers and understand developments in scientometric research. Regarding similarities between Scientometrics and JOI, the results revealed that authors affiliated with management-related institutes accounted for the largest group of researchers and were predominantly listed as the first authors. Methodology was the second most common topic, and the proportion of studies increased during the study period. Most researchers preferred combining various methods to analyze publications from different sources. Regarding the main differences between the two journals, articles on research-based communication and metrics and indicators dominated Scientometrics and JOI, respectively. Authors working for scientometric institutes were the second largest group of authors in JOI, whereas computer science authors were the second largest group in Scientometrics. The average impact of articles for each topic in JOI was higher than that of articles in Scientometrics.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The dataset used in the current study is available in the Figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24993978.
References
Abrizah, A., Erfanmanesh, M., Rohani, V. A., Thelwall, M., Levitt, J. M., & Didegah, F. (2014). Sixty-four years of informetrics research: Productivity, impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 101(1), 569–585.
Agrahari, A. (2019). An assessment of subject coverage of Scientometrics from 2001 to 2010. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2019. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2205
Asnani, R.Y., & Vyas, P. (2020). A scientometric study on literatures of the journal ‘Scientometrics’. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2020. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4477
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008a). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century-A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008b). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, scopus and google scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.
Chen, Y., Börner, K., & Fang, S. (2013). Evolving collaboration networks in Scientometrics in 1978–2010: A micro–macro analysis. Scientometrics, 95, 1051–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0895-2
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
Dutt, B., Garg, K. C., & Bali, A. (2003). Scientometrics of the international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 56(1), 81–93.
Egghe, L. (2012). Five years Journal of Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 422–426.
Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831.
Erfanmanesh, M., Rohani, V. A., & Abrizah, A. (2012). Co-authorship network of scientometrics research collaboration. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 17(3), 73–93.
González-Alcaide, G. (2021). Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: Uncontainable or uncontrollable? Scientometrics, 126, 6837–6870.
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.
Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291–314.
Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189–202.
Hsiao, T. M., & Chen, K. H. (2020). The dynamics of research subfields for library and information science: An investigation based on word bibliographic coupling. Scientometrics, 125(1), 717–737.
Järvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1993). The evolution of library and information science 1965–1985: A content analysis of journal articles. Information Processing and Management, 29(1), 129–144.
Jonkers, K., & Derrick, G. E. (2012). The bibliometric bandwagon: Characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), 829–836.
Kharabati-Neshin, M., Yousefi, N., Mirezati, S. Z., & Saberi, M. K. (2021). Highly cited papers in library and information science field in the Web of Science from 1983 to 2018: A bibliometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2021, 1–22.
Khasseh, A. A., Soheili, F., Moghaddam, H. S., & Chelak, A. M. (2017). Intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrics: A co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management, 53(3), 705–720.
Khasseh, A. A., Soheili, F., & Mousavi-Chelak, A. (2018). An author co-citation analysis of 37 years of iMetrics. Electronic Library, 36(2), 319–337.
Maltseva, D., & Batagelj, V. (2020). iMetrics: The development of the discipline with many names. Scientometrics, 125(1), 313–359.
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. (2018). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2175–2188.
Mejia, C., Wu, M., Zhang, Y., & Kajikawa, Y. (2021). Exploring topics in bibliometric research through citation networks and semantic analysis. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.742311
Milojević, S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Information metrics (iMetrics): A research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity? Scientometrics, 95(1), 141–157.
Miyashita, S., & Sengoku, S. (2021). Scientometrics for management of science: Collaboration and knowledge structures and complexities in an interdisciplinary research project. Scientometrics, 126(9), 7419–7444.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
Peritz, B. (1990). A bradford distribution for bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 18(5–6), 323–329.
Taşkın, Z. (2021). Forecasting the future of library and information science and its sub-fields. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1527–1551.
Urbano, C., & Ardanuy, J. (2020). Cross-disciplinary collaboration versus coexistence in LIS serials: Analysis of authorship affiliations in four European countries. Scientometrics, 124(1), 575–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03471-z
Yang, S., Yuan, Q., & Dong, J. (2020). Are scientometrics, informetrics, and bibliometrics different? Data Science and Informetrics, 1, 50–72. https://doi.org/10.4236/dsi.2020.11003
Yanhui, S., Lijuan, W., & Junping, Q. (2021). A comparative study of first and all-author bibliographic coupling analysis based on Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1125–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03798-7
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to this article. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chang, YW., Nabavi, M. Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020. Scientometrics 129, 1415–1439 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04947-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04947-y