Scientometrics

, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 715–735

Analysis of publications on sturgeon research between 1996 and 2010

Article

Abstract

Sturgeon species are among the commercially most valuable and the most endangered groups of fish. To assess the existing literature published within the field of sturgeon research over the past 15 years (1996–2010) we applied a bibliometric approach, in order to identify patterns and trends of the published research in this field. The analysis was performed based upon articles obtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge online database. The results revealed that although all 27 sturgeon species have been objects of the research, species that are endangered or facing a high probability of extinction have received disproportionately less attention. White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) was the most frequently studied species, but it was recently surpassed by Persian sturgeon (A. persicus). Early life phases have been among the central objects of the research, and genetics, especially the use of microsatellite DNA, is becoming increasingly popular and had the highest impact. Research related to aquaculture was prominent, while the research related to hybrids (as a commodity of aquaculture production) was decreasing in popularity. Papers dealing with conservation issues were most frequently focused on European sturgeon (A. sturio). A steady increase in the number of published articles over time was observed. However, the overall citation rate declined significantly over time. During the period reviewed, the sturgeon research published in peer reviewed journals dominantly originated from the USA and EU. Nevertheless, considering the current trend in output, it is very likely that the Asian countries, mainly Iran and China, will surpass them within the next 5–10 years. International and inter-institutional collaboration both tended to increase the impact of the research. Stimulation and improvement of the international cooperation should be considered as future priorities.

Keywords

Acipenser Huso Scaphirhynchus Pseudoscaphirhynchus Bibliometry Trends 

References

  1. Abt, H. A. (2007a). The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72(1), 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abt, H. A. (2007b). The future of single-authored papers. Scientometrics, 73(3), 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415, 726–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Althouse, B. M., West, J. D., Bergstrom, T., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arunachalam, S., & Balaji, J. (2001). Fish science research in China: How does it compare with fish research in India? Scientometrics, 52(1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asari, M. A., & Aziz, N. (2005). The use, misuse, and misconception of impact factor. The International Medical Journal, 4(2), 102–103.Google Scholar
  7. Azevedo, P. G., Mesquita, F. O., & Young, R. J. (2010). Fishing for gaps in science: A bibliographic analysis of Brazilian freshwater ichthyology from 1986 to 2005. Journal of Fish Biology, 76, 2177–2193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billard, R., & Lecointre, G. (2001). Biology and conservation of sturgeon and paddlefish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10, 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borsi, B., & Schubert, A. (2011). Agrifood research in Europe: A global perspective. Scientometrics, 86, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bronzi, P., Rosenthal, H., & Gessner, J. (2011). Global sturgeon aquaculture production: An overview. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 27, 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanza, R., Stern, D., Fisher, B., He, L., & Chunbo, M. (2004). Influential publications in ecological economics: A citation analysis. Ecological Economics, 50, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & von Ins, M. (2007). Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics, 73(2), 175–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & von Ins, M. (2008). Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods. Scientometrics, 77(1), 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hicks, D. M., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85, 741–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmgren, M., & Schnitzer, S. A. (2004). Science on the rise in developing countries. PLoS Biol, 2(1), 0010–0013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsieh, W. H., Chiu, W. T., Lee, Y. S., & Ho, Y. S. (2004). Bibliometric analysis of patent ductus arteriosus treatments. Scientometrics, 60(2), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Igami, M., & Saka, A. (2007). Capturing the evolving nature of science, the development of new scientific indicators and the mapping of science. STI working paper 2007/1, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 53 pp.Google Scholar
  21. IMF. (2011). Nominal GDP list of countries, April 2011: Data for the year 2010. World Economic Outlook Database, International Monetary Fund. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/index.aspx. Accessed 31 May 2011.
  22. Jarić, I., Lenhardt, M., Cvijanović, G., & Ebenhard, T. (2009). Acipenser sturio and Acipenser nudiventris in the Danube—extant or extinct? Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25, 137–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., & von Ins, M. (2008). Scientific output and impact: Relative positions of China, Europe, India, Japan and the USA. In Kretschmer, H., & Havemann, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of WIS 2008, fourth international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & ninth COLLNET meeting, Berlin, 9 pp. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/. Accessed 31 May 2011.
  24. Liu, X., Zhang, L., & Hong, S. (2011). Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: A bibliometric analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 807–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ludwig, A. (2006). A sturgeon view on conservation genetics. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 52, 3–8.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma, C., & Stern, D. I. (2006). Environmental and ecological economics: A citation analysis. Ecological Economics, 58, 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neff, M. W., & Corley, E. A. (2009). 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics, 80(3), 657–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Persson, O., Luukkonen, T., & Hälikkä, S. (2000). A bibliometric study of Finnish science. Working papers No. 48/00, VTT, group for technology studies, Espoo, Finland, 74 pp. www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2000/wp48.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2011.
  29. Pikitch, E. K., Doukakis, P., Lauck, L., Chakrabarty, P., & Erickson, D. L. (2005). Status, trends and management of sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6, 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Qiu, H., & Chen, Y. F. (2009). Bibliometric analysis of biological invasions research during the period of 1991 to 2007. Scientometrics, 81(3), 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ren, S., & Rousseau, R. (2002). International visibility of Chinese scientific journals. Scientometrics, 53(3), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenthal, H., Pourkazemi, M., & Bruch, R. (2006). The 5th international symposium on sturgeons: A conference with major emphasis on conservation, environmental mitigation and sustainable use of the sturgeon resources. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 22(Suppl. 1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Said, Y. H., Wegman, E. J., Sharabati, W. K., & Rigsby, J. H. (2008). Social networks of author–coauthor relationships. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52, 2177–2184.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soteriades, E. S., & Falagas, M. E. (2005). Comparison of amount of biomedical research originating from the European Union and the United States. BMJ, 331, 192–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stocks, G., Seales, L., Panlagua, F., Maehr, E., & Bruna, E. M. (2008). The geographical and institutional distribution of ecological research in the tropics. Biotropica, 40(4), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UNDP. (2010). Human Development Index and its components. United Nations Development Programme. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table1.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2011.
  38. Williot, P., Sabeau, L., Gessner, J., Arlati, G., Bronzi, P., Gulyas, T., et al. (2001). Sturgeon farming in Western Europe: Recent developments and perspectives. Aquatic Living Resources, 14, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zetterström, R. (2002). Bibliometric data: A disaster for many non-American biomedical journals. Acta Paediatrica, 91, 1020–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu, B., Que, Y., Yang, Z., & Chang, J. (2008). A review on genetic studies in sturgeons and their trade control in China. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 24(Suppl. 1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Multidisciplinary ResearchBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Society to Save the SturgeonRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations