Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln


Date of this Version


Document Type



  1. Ajiferuke, I. S. Y., Burrel, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative Coefficient: A Single Measure of the Degrees of Co-Authorship in Research. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 421-433.
  2. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.
  3. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(2), 317-323.
  4. Manoharan, A. (2014). Measuring Specialization of Authors Using Kumaravel’s Prepotency Index – A case study of Fibromyalgia. European Academic Research, 1(10), 3794–3801.
  5. Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka’s law: a testing procedure. Information Processing and Management, 21(305-320).
  6. Prasad, K. N. (1999). An introduction to Palaeobotany. New Delhi: APH Publishing Co.
  7. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.
  8. Saravanan, G., & Dominic, J. (2013). Scientometric Analysis of International Literature on Paleoecology. Paper presented at the 2nd National Conference on Scientometrics and Knowledgement Management 20-21, April 2013 [CD-ROM], Dharwad.
  9. Saravanan, G., & Pannerselvam, P. (2012). Bibliometric study of Current Botany from DOAJ. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Conference on Open Source Integrated Library Systems, 08-09 June 2012, Vandalur, Chennai.
  10. Saravanan, G., & Prasad, S. (2012). Scientometric Portrait of G. Thanikaimoni: A Palynologist of High Repute. Paper presented at the National Conference on Scientometrics: Conference Proceedings, Tumkur.
  11. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33-38.
  12. Tague, J., Beheshti, J., & Rees-Potter, L. (1981). The law of exponential growth: evidence, implications and forecasts. Library Trends, 30, 125-145.
  13. Thomson Reuters. (2008). Whitepaper using Bibliometrics: a guide to evaluating research performance with citation data.
  14. Tissot, C. (1991). Trends in pollen morphology. 6th bibliographic index to pollen morphology of angiosperms. Grana, 30, 601-604.
  15. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(523-538).
  16. Walton, C., & Morris, A. (2013). A bibliometric study of taxonomic botany. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 435-451.
  17. Wikipedia. Paleobotany,
  18. Plant evolution and Paleobotany,


Author both address is essential.

G. Saravanan1

1Librarian, French Institute of Pondicherry, # 11, Saint Louis Street, Pondicherry - 605 001, India & Ph. D. Scholar, Department of Library and Information Science, Karpagam University, Coimbatore – 641 021, Tamil Nadu, India, Email:


The present work is a bibliometric analysis of a leading journal in Palaeobotany and Palynology, ‘Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology’. The study, based on Web of Science TM as the tool reveals that 1821 authors have contributed 903 papers during the years 2003 to 2012. Our analysis includes the publications output, exponential growth rate, authorship patterns, collaborative co-efficient and prolific authors, country wise and organization-wise distribution of contributions.

The study reveals that multiple authorship with collaboration of three (25.47%) and two authors (25.36%) was dominant. The average degree of collaboration for study period was 0.87. The Collaborative Coefficient was 0.69. Country wise, USA stood first with 163 papers. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China and University Utrecht, The Netherlands were found to be the top ranked organizations contributing 73 and 31 papers respectively. This paper explores the mapping of the highly cited papers from Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology.