, Volume 92, Issue 3, pp 747–765 | Cite as

A bibliometric study of earthquake research: 1900–2010

  • Xingjian Liu
  • F. Benjamin Zhan
  • Song Hong
  • Beibei Niu
  • Yaolin Liu


We evaluated earthquake research performance based on a bibliometric analysis of 84,051 documents published in journals and other outlets contained in the Scientific Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) bibliographic databases for the period of 1900–2010. We summarized significant publication indicators in earthquake research, evaluated national and institutional research performance, and presented earthquake research development from a supplementary perspective. Research output descriptors suggested a solid development in earthquake research, in terms of increasing scientific production and research collaboration. We identified leading authors, institutions, and nations in earthquake research, and there was an uneven distribution of publications at authorial, institutional, and national levels. The most commonly used keywords appeared in the articles were evolution, California, deformation, model, inversion, seismicity, tectonics, crustal structure, fault, zone, lithosphere, and attenuation.


Bibliometrics Evaluation Earthquake Research performance 



The authors are thankful to Prof. Yuh-Shan Ho (Peking University, China) for his pioneering work in the bibliometric methods that were employed in this study. The authors would like to thank funding support from National High-tech R&D Program of China (2009AA122001; 2011AA120304). Comments from the anonymous referees and the editor are also gratefully appreciated. All errors remain the authors’ own.


  1. Andres, A. (2009). Measuring academic research: How to undertake a bibliometric study. Cambridge, UK: Chandos Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Brune, J. (1970). Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75, 4997–5009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5303–5310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiu, W. T., & Ho, Y. S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics, 73, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (1990). Keywords plus-ISIS breakthrough retrieval method. 1. Expanding your searching power on current-contents on diskette. Current Contents, 32, 5–9.Google Scholar
  6. Geller, R. J. (1997). Earthquake prediction: A critical review. Geophysical Journal International, 131, 425–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geller, R. J., Jackson, D., Kagan, Y., & Mulargia, F. (1997). Geoscience—Earthquakes cannot be predicted. Science, 275, 1616–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gokceoglu, C., Okay, A., & Sezer, E. (2008). International earth science literature from Turkey—1970–2005: Trends and possible causes. Scientometrics, 74, 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hough, S. (2009). Predicting the unpredictable: The tumultuous science of earthquake prediction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kostoff, R. N. (2000). The underpublishing of science and technology results. The Scientist, 14, 6.Google Scholar
  11. Li, Y., Wen, J., Du, L., Gao, Z., Li, L., Chen, Q., et al. (2009). A comparative study on earthquake-related literature published in medical journals. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2, 252–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindell, M. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research. Environment and Behavior, 32, 461–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu, X. J., Zhang, L., & Hong, S. (2011). Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: A bibliometric analysis. Biodiversity Conservation, 20, 807–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDonough, W., & Sun, S. (1995). The composition of the earth. Chemical Geology, 120, 223–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mikki, S. (2010). Comparing google scholars and ISI web of science for earth sciences. Scientometrics, 82, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R., De Bruin, R., & Dekker, P. (2005). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 15, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Okada, Y., Kasahara, K., Hori, S., Obara, K., Sekiguchi, S., Fujiwara, H., et al. (2004). Recent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan. Earth Planets Space, 56, xv–xxviii.Google Scholar
  18. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348–349.Google Scholar
  19. Rosas, S. R., Kagan, J., Schouten, J., Slack, P., & Trochim, W. (2011). Evaluating research and impact: A bibliometric analysis of research by the NIH/NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e17428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sheeba, J., & Nithyanandam, K. (2011). Trend in earthquake research: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Action Research and Engineering to Eradicate Poverty, 2, 555–558.Google Scholar
  21. Slyder, J., Stein, B., Sams, B., Walker, D., Beale, B., Feldhaus, J., et al. (2011). Citation pattern and lifespan: A comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics, 89, 955–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taskin, Z. (2010). Contribution of Turkish scholars to earthquake literature: The impact of the Marmara earthquake. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 96, 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomson Reuter. (2010). Special topic: Earthquake > top 20 authors. Accessed December 1, 2011, from
  24. Tsay, M. (2011). A bibliometric analysis and comparison on three information science journals: JASIST, IPM, JOD, 1998–2008. Scientometrics, 89, 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). R & D evaluation at the beginning of a new century. Research Evaluation, 8, 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N., & Noyons, E. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wells, D., & Coppersmith, K. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 974–1002.Google Scholar
  28. Wyss, M. (1997). Cannot earthquakes be predicted. Science, 278, 487–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhan, F., Zhu, Y., Ning, J., Zhou, J., Liang, W., & Wu, Y. (2011). Gravity changes before large earthquakes in China: 1998–2005. Geo-Spatial Information Science, 14, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhu, Y., Zhan, F., Zhou, J., Liang, W., & Wu, Y. (2010). Gravity measurements and their variations before the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100, 2815–2824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xingjian Liu
    • 1
    • 3
  • F. Benjamin Zhan
    • 2
  • Song Hong
    • 3
  • Beibei Niu
    • 3
  • Yaolin Liu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland, UK
  2. 2.Texas Center for Geographic Information Science, Department of GeographyTexas State University-San MarcosSan MarcosUSA
  3. 3.School of Resource and Environmental ScienceWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations