Skip to main content

An overview of forestry journals in the period 2006–2010 as basis for ascertaining research trends

Abstract

Articles published between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2010 in 42 forestry journals (N = 16,258) were collected and, depending on their content and key words, classified in one of 22 sub-disciplines. Among the forestry sub-disciplines, the following are currently dominant: Mensuration and inventories, Forest management, Plant ecophysiology and Wood science. PCA ordination was used to visualize grouping tendencies and data separation. For each component, a number of characteristics contributed to the total variation, and significant importance was attached to those with the highest loading factors. The first component included Mensuration and inventories, Plant ecophysiology, Vegetation ecology and Forest management, as the highest loading factors. The second components comprised Sociological aspects, Plant ecophysiology, Wood science and Forest management. The most pronounced increase trend over the five-year period is noted for Genetics and breeding, Vegetation ecology, Fuels and energy, while the most pronounced decrease trend is visible in Forest health, Forest fire, Sociological aspects and Forest products. PCA suggests the existence of three groups of journals: the first group comprises Forest Ecology and Management and Canadian Journal of Forest Research, the dominating two, the second group comprises Annals of Forest Science, Plant Ecology, Tree Physiology and Trees-Structure and Function, while the rest of the journals belong to the third group. The Canadian Journal of Forest Research is the most diversified, while Tree Genetics and Genomes, Silvae Genetica and Tree-ring Research are narrowly specialized.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93, 1005–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, P., & Chung, W. (2004). The key literature of, and trends in, forest-level management planning in North America, 1950-2001. International Review of Neurobiology, 6, 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnell, B. (2012). Trends in research and collaboration in the Canadian model forest network, 1993-2000. Forest Chronicle, 88(3), 274–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brambrink, A. M., Ehrler, D., & Dick, W. F. (2000). Publications on paediatric anaesthesia: A quantitative analysis of publication activity and international recognition. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 85, 556–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower, J. E., Zar, J. H., & von Ende, C. N. (1998). Field and laboratory methods for general ecology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirici, G. (2012). Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases. iForest, 5(3), 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, K. Y., Huang, Y. L., & Ho, Y. S. (2007). A bibliometric and citation analysis of stroke-related research in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 72(2), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, R., Kolstad, C., Kneese, A., Brookshire, D., Scrogin, D., Fisher, A., et al. (1998). Research trends and opportunities in environmental and natural resource economics. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbertin, M. K., & Nobis, M. P. (2010). Exploring research issues in selected forest journals 1979–2008. Annals of Forest Science, 67, 800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felton, A., Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B., Montague-Drake, R., Lowe, A., Saunders, D., et al. (2009). Climate change, conservation and management: An assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific journal literature. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 2243–2253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, A. X., Hackam, D., & Tonelli, M. (2008). Systematic review and meta-analysis: When one study is just not enough. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 3, 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helms, J. A. (2002). Forest, forestry, forester: What do these terms mean. Journal of Forestry, 100, 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, G. M., & Nitschke, C. R. (2005). Crossing disciplinary boundaries in forest research: An international challenge. Forest Chronicle, 81, 321–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsey, P., & Diamond, T. (2003). Establishing a core list of journals for forestry: A citation analysis from Faculty at Southern Universities. College and Research Libraries, 64, 357–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmit, D., Ingemarson, F., & Holmgren, S. (2012). Research on forest policy in Sweden: Review. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(2), 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klenk, N. L., Dabros, A., & Hickey, G. M. (2010). Quantifying the research impact of the Sustainable Forest Management Network in the social sciences: A bibliometric study. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 40, 2248–2255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., & Ho, Y. S. (2009). Bibliometric analysis of atmospheric simulation trends in meteorology and atmospheric science journals. Croatica Chemica Acta, 82, 695–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, A. S., & Needle, C. L. (2000). The relationships of population and forest trends. Geographical Journal, 166, 2–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcdonald, P., & Lassoie, J. (1996). The literature of forestry and agroforestry. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montambautt, J. R., & Alavapati, J. R. R. (2005). Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: A decade in review. Agroforestry Systems, 65, 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natale, F., Fiore, G., & Hofherr, J. (2012). Mapping the research on aquaculture. A bibliometric analysis of aquaculture literature. Scientometrics, 90(3), 983–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, M. W., & Corley, E. A. (2009). 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometrics exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics, 80(3), 657–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobis, M., & Wohlgemut, T. (2004). Trend words in ecological core journals over the last 25 years (1978–2002). Oikos, 106, 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadath, M. N., & Krott, M. (2012). Identifying policy change—Analytical program analysis: An example of two decades of forest policy in Bangladesh. Forest Policy and Economics, 25, 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, I. N. (1986). Three new parameters in bibliometric research and their application to rerank periodicals in the field of biochemistry. Scientometrics, 10, 235–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, T. W., & Stier, J. C. (2000). The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences: A forestry case study. American Society for Information Science, 51, 476–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, Y.-H., Lin, Y.-I., Lee, Y.-Y., Hung, W.-C., & Lee, C.-H. (2009). A comparison of methods for detecting hot topics. Scientometrics, 81(1), 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, Y.-H., & Tsay, M.-Y. (2013). Journal clustering of library and information science for subfield delineation using the bibliometrics analysis toolkit: CATAR. Scientometrics, 95(2), 503–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. K. (2008). Ranking forestry journals using the h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 326–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z.-Y., Li, G., Li, C.-Y., & Li, A. (2012). Research on semantic-based co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 90(3), 855–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Wang, Z., & Xu, S. (2013). Tracing scientist’s research trends realtimely. Scientometrics, 95(2), 717–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, A., & Hernandez, N. R. (1991). Increasing field complexity revealed through article title analyses. American Society for Information Science, 42, 731–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, S., Zhang, J., & Ho, Y.-S. (2008). Assessement of world aerosol research trends by bibliometrics analysis. Scientometrics, 77(1), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, G., Xie, S., & Ho, Y.-S. (2010). A bibliometric analysis of world volatile organic compounds research trends. Scientometrics, 83(2), 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 173011). We would like to thank Ms. Milica Stefanović for creating the computer software program for our research (Windows application, Key Words Analyzer, KWA). We are grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her thorough review and highly appreciate the comments and suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srđan Bojović.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bojović, S., Matić, R., Popović, Z. et al. An overview of forestry journals in the period 2006–2010 as basis for ascertaining research trends. Scientometrics 98, 1331–1346 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1171-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1171-9

Keywords

  • Forestry journals
  • Current state and research trends
  • Article evaluation
  • Forestry sub-disciplines
  • Principal-component analyses