Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008b). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, scopus and google scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutt, B., Garg, K. C., & Bali, A. (2003). Scientometrics of the international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 56(1), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2012). Five years Journal of Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 422–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Alcaide, G. (2021). Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: Uncontainable or uncontrollable? Scientometrics, 126, 6837–6870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltseva, D., & Batagelj, V. (2020). iMetrics: The development of the discipline with many names. Scientometrics, 125(1), 313–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milojević, S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Information metrics (iMetrics): A research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity? Scientometrics, 95(1), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peritz, B. (1990). A bradford distribution for bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 18(5–6), 323–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taşkın, Z. (2021). Forecasting the future of library and information science and its sub-fields. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1527–1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yu-Wei Chang

  2. Center for Research in Econometric Theory and Applications, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yu-Wei Chang

  3. Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

    Majid Nabavi

Authors
  1. Yu-Wei Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Majid Nabavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majid Nabavi.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04947-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation