Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

 

Date of this Version

7-3-2013

Document Type

Article

Citation

  1. Agrawal, A. (2005). Corruption of journal impact factors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(4), 157.
  2. Amin, M., & Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, (1). Retrieved April 24, 2013 from https://info.aiaa.org/SC/PC/Private%20Documents/Journals%20Subcommittee%20Materials/IFUseandAbuse.pdf.
  3. Anyi, K. W. U., Zainab, A. N., & Anuar, N. B. (2009). Bibliometric studies on single journals: a review. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 14(1), 17-55.
  4. Arnold, D. N. & Fowler, K. K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the AMS, 58 (3), 434-437. Retrieved April 27, 2013 from http://www.ams.org/notices/201103/rtx110300434p.pdf.
  5. Cantos-Mateos, G., Vargas-Quesada, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. & Zulueta, M. A. (2012). Stem cell research: bibliometric analysis of main research areas through KeyWords Plus. Aslib Proceedings, 64 (6), 561 – 590.
  6. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Hassan-Montero, Y., González-Molina, A., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). New approach to the visualization of international scientific collaboration. Information Visualization, 9 (4), 277-87.
  7. Chua, C., Cao, L., Cousin, K., & Straub, D.W.(2002). Measuring research-production in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3, 145-215.
  8. Das, H. K. (2012). Bibliometric analysis of the plant taxonomy journal Nelumbo, 2004-2011. International Journal of Library and Information Studies, 2(4). Retrieved April 20, 2013 from: http://www.ijlis.org/img/2012_Vol_2_Issue_4/51-61.pdf.
  9. Davarpanah, M. R. & Amel, F. (2009). Author self-citation pattern in science. Library Review, 58 (4), 301–309.
  10. Epstein, I. (2005). Following in the footnotes of giants: a citation analysis and its discontents. Social Work in Health Care, 41 (3/4), 93-101.
  11. Fassoulaki, A., Papilas, K., Paraskeva, A., & Patris, K. (2002). Impact factor bias and proposed adjustments for its determination. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 46 (7), 902-905.
  12. Fowler, J.H., & Aksnes, D.G (2006). Does self-citation pay? Retrieved April 26 from http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/does_self_citation_pay.pdf.
  13. Garfield, E. (2006). The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. JAMA, 295 (1), 90-93.
  14. Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of the impact factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3 (2), 363-369.
  15. Garg, K.C. (2003). An overview of cross-national, national, and institutional assessment as reflected in the international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 56 (2), 169-199.
  16. Gumpenberger, C., Wieland, M., & Gorraiz, J. (2012). Bibliometric practices and activities at the University of Vienna. Library Management, 33 (3), 174 – 183.
  17. Hazarika, T., Goswami, K., & Das, P. (2003). Bibliometric analysis of Indian Forester: 1991-2000. IASLIC Bulletin, 48 (4), 213-233.
  18. Henk F. Moed (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 265–277. Retrieved April 25 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157710000039.
  19. Huang, M. H., & Lin, W. Y. C. (2012). The influence of journal self-citations on journal impact factor and immediacy index. Online Information Review, 36 (5), 639 – 654.
  20. Iovino, L. A. (2008). The civil rights movement in Mississippi: a bibliometric study in scholarly journals. Library Student Journal. Retrieved May 22 from http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/view/87/181.
  21. Isiakpona, C. D. (2012). Bibliometric Analysis of the Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal from 2004 to 2010. Library Student Journal. Retrieved May 22 from http://librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/view/301/360.
  22. Jack, Meadows. (2005). A practical line in bibliometrics. Interlending & Document Supply, 33 ( 2), 90 – 94.
  23. Jena, K. L., Swain, D. K., & Sahoo, K. C. (2012), “Annals of Library and Information Studies, 2002-2010: a bibliometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved April 18 from http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/jena-swain-sahoo.htm.
  24. Jena, K. L., Swain, D. K. & Sahu, S. B. (2012). Scholarly communication of The Electronic Library from 2003-2009: a bibliometric study. The Electronic Library, 30 (1), 103–119.
  25. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18. Retrieved April 28, 2013 from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/sylvank/pubs/Res_col9.pdf.
  26. Lokhande, R. S. (2013). Content Analysis of Open Access LIS Journal “ALIS” (2002 - 2011). International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technalogy. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/18283.
  27. Lowry, P.B., Karuga, G.G., & Richardson, V.J. (2007). Assuring leading institutions, faculty, and articles in premier information systems research journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 20, 142-203.
  28. Merton, R.K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79 (299), 606-23.
  29. Norris, M. & Oppenheim, C. (2010). The h-index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. Journal of Documentation, 66 (5), 681 – 705.
  30. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E.S. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21 (3), 313-23.
  31. Noruzi, A. (2006). The web impact factor: a critical review. The Electronic Library, 24 (4), 490 – 500.
  32. Park, T.K. (2010). D-Lib Magazine: Its first 13 years. D-Lib Magazine, 16 (1/2). Retrieved April 27, 2013 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january10/park/01park.html.
  33. Patra, S. K., Bhattacharya, P. & Verma, N. (2006). Bibliometric study of literature on bibliometrics. DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 26 (1), 27-32.
  34. Regolini, A. & Jannes-Ober, E.(2013). A bibliometric study of Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 16, 117-130.
  35. Rodríguez-Ruiz, O. (2009). The citation indexes and the quantification of knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 47 (2), 250 – 266.
  36. Sen, B. K. (1999). Symbols and formulas for a few bibliometric concepts. Journal of Documentation. 55 (3), 325 – 334.
  37. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L. D., Sadeddin, K. W. & Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008). Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 3-23.
  38. Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980-1989). Journal of Information Science, 24 (6), 431-5.
  39. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: a review. Journal of Information Science, 6, 35-37.
  40. Swain, D. K. (2011). Library Philosophy and Practice, 2004-2009: a scientometric appraisal. Library Philosophy and Practice, Annual volume 2011. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/dillipswain-LPP.pdf.
  41. Swain, D. K., & Panda, K. C. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2002-2010: A Bibliometric Study. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 2012, Vol. 33. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from http://eprints.rclis.org/19186/.
  42. Swain, D. K., Jena, K. L. & Mahapatra, R. K.(2012). Interlending & Document Supply: a bibliometric study from 2001 to 2010. Webology, 9(2). Retrieved June 10, 2013 from http://www.webology.org/2012/v9n2/a102.html.
  43. Tiew, W. S., Abdullah, A. & Kaur, K. (2002). Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 1996-2000: a bibliometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 6 (2), 43-56.
  44. Tsay, M. Y. (2008). Journal bibliometric analysis: a case study on JASIST. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 13 (2), 121-139. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from http://majlis.fsktm.um.edu.my/document.aspx?FileName=663.pdf.
  45. Tsay, M. Y. (2011). A bibliometric analysis on the journal of information science. Journal of Library and Information Research, 5 (2), 1-28.
  46. Vijayakumar, M. & Naqvi, S. H. (2002). Authorship trends in Azadirachta Indica literature: a bibliometric study. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 39 (4), 445-455.
  47. Warraich, N. F. and Ahmad, S. (2011). Pakistan Journal of Library and Information Science: a bibliometric analysis. Pakistan Journal of Library & Information Science, 12. Retrieved June 10, 2013 from pu.edu.pk/images/journal/pjlis/pdf/pjlis-12-warraich1.pdf.
  48. Zainab, A.N., Anyi, K.W.U., & Anuar, N.B. (2009). A single journal study: Malaysian Journal of Computer Science. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 22 (1), 1-18.

Abstract

This paper aims to evaluate the pattern of publications of Internet Research (IR) from 2008 to 2012 and to reveal the research influence of this journal from the citing and cited references of the papers through appropriate bibliometric measures. The study analyses five volumes of Internet Research from the year 2008 to 2012. Citations to each of the published articles are explored through Google Scholar for assessing average impact of individual paper. Citation record for measurement of impact factor and immediacy index was extracted from Scopus. It is found that the average length of articles published in IR is 19.83 ranging from year wise average of 18.63 to 21.96 pages. The study revealed the domination of collaborative research and the degree of collaboration (DC) in Internet Research is found to be 0.83. The numbers of references used by the authors are high with majority of them citing 41 to 50 references and on an average, Internet Research authors have cited over 53 references per article. It is found that more than two third of citations reflected in Internet Research are emanated from journals followed by books. However, proceedings of conferences/seminars, and e-citations referred by authors were found quite less and negligible. The study further reveals that major share of contribution to the publications of Internet Research hails from Taiwan, followed by Spain, and USA. However, UK occupies the 4th rank by scores though the number of authors of this country is lesser than that of South Korea. Moreover, the study reveals that a total number of 148 source articles published in Internet Research have received in all 1783 Google Scholar citations averaging 12.04 citations per paper. The journal citing half life is 6.65 years and the average age of citations is 9.71. Additionally, 2012 Impact Factor of Internet Research (based on record of Scopus citations) is computed to be 1.900 and immediacy index is 0.241.

Download

Share

COinS