Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

 

Citation

Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., Edzan, N. N., & Koh, A. P. (2013). Citation Performance of Malaysian Scholarly Journals in the Web of Science, 2006–2010. Serials Review, 39(1), 47–55. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.01.001

Aksnes D. W., & Taxt R. E. (2004) Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33–41.

Bavdekar, S. B. (2012). Authorship issues. Lung India: Official Organ of Indian Chest Society, 29(1), 76–80. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113.92371

Borgman C. L., & Furner J. (2002) Scholarly communication and bibliometrics, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3–72

Bhat, V. R., & Kumar, B. T. (2008). Use of web based sources in scholarly electronic journals in the field of library and information science: a citation analysis. NISCAIR Online Periodicals Repository, 55, 145-152. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/1776

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF

Harinarayana, N. S., & Raju, N. V. (2012). Citation analysis of publications of LIS teachers in south India. Information Studies, 18(3), 143-161.

Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search–comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar Citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(11),1537–1547. Retrieved from http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/nov102005/1537.pdf

Lewison, G. (2001). Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation, 10(2), 89-95. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3152/147154401781777051

Subramanyam, K. (1982) Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: a review." Information Scientist 6(1), 33-38.

Thomas P. R. & Watkins D. S. (1998) Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications. Scientometrics, 41 (3), 335–355

Van Raan A. F. J. (1996) Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer-review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36 (3), 397–420

Website

http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/

Abstract

Bibliographical details of research papers and papers citing them were analyzed to indentify the productivity and performance of faculty and research scholars of University of Mysore. Findings show Authors of University of Mysore have collaborated with most of the developed countries in the world. USA has the highest collaborative works followed by Japan. Further, Researcher has also attempted to know the publication productivity per author. Study revealed that publication productivity per author for 806 collaborative research papers is 0.1810.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.