A Comprehensive Analysis of Concepts, Evolution, Applications, and Trends
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59971/jumawa.v2i2.324Keywords:
Bibliometrics, Citation Analysis, Research Evaluation, Scholarly Communication, Scientific Productivity, Science MappingAbstract
Bibliometrics has emerged as a pivotal tool in understanding the dynamics of scholarly communication, scientific productivity, and research evaluation. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the foundational concepts, historical evolution, key applications, and recent trends in bibliometric research. It also highlights the growing importance of bibliometric indicators in shaping academic policies and funding decisions globally. Through a review of literature and practical illustrations, this study provides a consolidated overview useful for researchers, librarians, policymakers, and institutional leaders aiming to harness bibliometric tools in the age of data-driven science.
Downloads
References
Alperin, J. P., Muñoz Nieves, C., Schimanski, L. A., Fischman, G. E., Niles, M. T., & McKiernan, E. C. (2019). How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?. eLife, 8, e42254.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). The state of h index research. EMBO reports, 10(1), 2–6.
Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.
Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0187394.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 6555–6592.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.
Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring Research: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062.
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLOS ONE, 8(5), e64841.
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
