30

CHAPTER – II

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter is devoted to examine the review the works relating to various

aspects of bibliometric studies. It could be observed that there are various research

studies highlighting the importance of bibliometric analysis and its applications in various

fields of science. This type of analysis enables the researcher to identify the issues

involved in bibliometric research.

Review of related studies further avoids the duplication of work that has already

been done in that area. It also helps the researcher study the different aspects of the

problem. It enables the researcher to identify the unexplored areas, in order to create new

grounds for research. By considering this efficiency of various dimensions of

bibliometric studies, a couple of studies based on India and outside India reviewed

pertaining to the present study has been presented conceptually from general to particular

as follows:

2.1 STUDIES RELATED TO AUTHOR PRODUCTIVITY

Schubert [et al] (1985) compared the medical research output of 11 mid-size

countries (Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Netherlands,

Norway, Sweden, Israel and New Zealand) in the field of clinical medicine using papers

indexed by SCI during 1978-1979 and their citations in literature till 1980. The study

indicated that professors proved to be more productive than average scientists of the same

31

country with no particular eminence, and also a correlation existed between the quality of

clinical medicine papers and the infant mortality of the countries in question.

Harsanyi (1993) examined the authorship pattern of publications in Library and

Information Science and considered the methodological impact of various ways of

allotting credit for multi-authored works and relationships between multiple authorship

and other publication variables such as quality and impact. Given the complex

relationship between collaboration and productivity, the concomitant use of non-

bibliometric methods of studying collaboration, as well as the application of meta-

analysis was suggested.

Nagpaul and Sharma (1994) compared the profile of research output and trans-

national co-operation as revealed through multi-country publications of 36 countries in 10

sub-fields of physics during 1891-1985 using SCI database. They stated that multiple

authorship pattern was highly notified in 10 sub-fields of physics.

Cano (1999) reviewed 17 years of research in Library and Information Science in

Spain for a period 1977-1994. He identified that the Spanish research in Library and

Information Science had concentrated more on information retrieval, description of

services and studies of scientific communication. Authorship pattern suggested

prevalence for individual authorship as (68 percent).

Saravanan (2000) studied research productivity of G7 countries in Astronomy

literature. He identified USA occupied the first place with 66.24 percent, UK had 16.47

32

percent, 8.37 percent gone to Germany and remaining 8.92 percent covered by France,

Japan, Italy, India and Canada respectively.

Dhawan (2000) examined physics research in India and China using Physics

Abstracts for the years 1990 and 1995. He found that China was ahead of India in terms

of publication output, however average impact per paper for India was higher than China.

Parameshwaran and Smitha (2001) made a bibliometric analysis of Library and

Information Science Abstracts for 1994-1998. Their findings were: maximum number of

publications fell under broad fields’ information and communication technology with

13.41 percent coverage; more people wrote individually i.e, single authorship amounted

to 77.5 percent and double authorship was 15.83 percent indicating that solo research

predominates in the field of LIS; and the portion of Indian contribution to LIS research

was very meagre (1.14 percent).

The study of subject Information Science as a science was explored by analyzing

articles published in Journal of the American Society for Information Science from its

initial publication, as American Documentation, in 1950 through 1999, by Koehler. The

analysis of the study revealed that there had been a slow but perhaps inevitable shift

based on the first single non-funded researcher and author to a much wider research and

publishing participation among authors, regions, corporate authors, and countries.

Jacobs (2002) made a study covering the period 1992-1996, which demonstrated

that there was a direct relationship between status and publication productivity. Further,

33

there were significant differences in productivity between areas of sciences, but that there

was no direct relationship between institutional funding and productivity.

Suresh (2002) developed a robust formula to credit authors for their publication.

The formula satisfied several criteria of theoretical and practical significance and tested

bibliographical references from INSPEC data base, mainly from physical sciences. Their

results satisfied several objective and quantitative criteria in the process of evaluating

relative scientific productivity in a given discipline.

Benito, Juna Gomez [et al](2005) illustrated that the value of n calculated by the

least squares method was 2.34 giving a C value of 0.722. As the value of the maximum

difference between the real and estimated accumulated frequencies was 0.038 that is less

than the critical value (c.v.= 0.079), the data obtained fit those estimated through

application of Lotka’s law.

Ramesh Babu and Ramakrishnan (2007) calculated Activity Index (AI) to

compare hepatitis literature of India with India as well as world output. The result

indicated that Indian efforts in hepatitis research is greater in 13 years out of 20 years of

study since the AI is higher than 100 in those 13 years, which reflects higher activity of

hepatitis research than the world’s average. In the years, where the AI is less than 100,

reflects lower activity of hepatitis research than world’s average the AI for India was peak

in 1988 (128.58) almost doubling the AI for the year 1995 (51.12).

Dutt, Suresh Kumar, and Garg (2007) found that absolute output for both China

and India is on the increase. However, China’s activity index has declined during the

34

period 1993 – 1995, 1996 – 1998 and 1999 – 2001 as compared to the activity indeed

during period 1990 – 1992, while in case of India, the activity index has risen during

1996 – 1998 and 1999 – 2001 as compared to the activity indeed during 1990 – 1992.

AkhtarHussain et al (2011) analyzed a bibliometric study of 578 articles that

were published during the period 2000 to 2010 in the Electronic Library journal. The

paper covers the bibliometric analyses of year-wise distribution of articles, category-wise

classification of papers, subject-wise distribution of articles, authorship patterns, and

institutions-wise distribution of contributions. Special issues of the Electronic Library

brought out during 2000-2010, and prolific authors during 2000 to 2010 have been

analyzed.

Dillip K Swain et al (2014) this study examined the patterns of publications in

the Journal of Educational Media and Library Science (JoEMLS) from 2008 to 2012. The

degree of collaboration in JoEMLS publications is found to be 0.63. Taiwan occupies the

top position in the country-wise ranking of publications, followed by China and Malaysia.

The frequent occurrences of keywords indexed in the articles, like ‘bibliometrics’,

‘information literacy’ and ‘digital archive’, indicate its research focus on promising areas

of librarianship. On examination of citations of all the published articles of JoEMLS, it is

found that among the 99 published papers, only 17 have received their relative impact as

they have been more or less cited in other different published sources.

Santosh Kumar Tunga (2014) presented a case study of the authorship pattern

and degree of collaboration in the field of horticulture based on a sample of 8437 journal

articles and 1327 books citations appended to 80 doctoral dissertations of Bidhan

35

Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) and Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya

(UBKV), West Bengal during 1991 to 2010. It shows that the horticulture scientists

mainly used journal articles (77.796%) for collecting the required information. The study

revealed that out of 8437 references cited, 1763 (20.695%) were single authored articles

and 6665 (78.997%) were multi-authored articles. Team research was on the increase in

the field of horticulture. Two authored (37.039%) were the highest in the cited journals

followed by three authored (25.116%), single authored (20.896%) and four authored

(11.332%) papers. The highest number of cited articles was in the year 2005 with 947

(11.236%).

2.2 STUDIES RELATED TO RESEARCH COLLABORATION

Price (1963) made a study on collaborative authorship, and revealed that the co-

authorship had increased steadily over time and has been rapidly growing since the

beginning of twentieth century.

Merton (1963) reported that the rate of increase in multiple authorship varies

from one subject area to another. In Physics, the proportion of the single author papers

fell from 75 percent in the 1920s to 39 percent in the 1950s. The corresponding figures

for psychology were from 84 percent to 55 percent.

According to Ranganathan (1963) the single authored articles termed as solo

research or research in peril that has been on the declining trend in the modern era. What

he predicted for the modern era holds good for the post modern era also.

36

Clarke (1964) in his study on Bibliometric papers criticized the view of Price and

concluded with a generalization as regards the increasing trend towards multiple

authorship is not valid for science as a whole.

Manten (1968) made a study on earth science and found that the multiple

authorship in the field of Earth Science increased in the frequency of multiple author

papers.

Zuckerman (1968) examined the research output contribution of 41 Nobel

laureates. The result indicated that there was high degree of collaboration and

productivity among them.

Turkeli (1973) studied the post doctoral productivity of Turkish Physicists along

with related social environmental factor. The study reveals that about 60 percent of

contributions were based on collaborative research.

Meadows (1974) has studied that there has been consistent trend towards

increased collaboration in all major branches of sciences over the years.

Ozinonu (1990) carried out a comparison between scientific production of

Turkish Physicists in the periods 1961-1971 and 1994-2000. The results showed that, in

30 years, appreciable increases had occurred in the number of collaborative authors

making significant contributions.

37

Kabir (1995) made a Bibliometric study of bibliometric literature and reported

that solo research predominates and degree of collaboration ranged from 0.20-0.35.

Bibliometric literature was doubling in every 10 years.

Kundra (1996) investigated the collaborative research trends in Indian Medical

Sciences 1900-1945 and drew general and broad conclusion. The growth pattern

suggested that a large proportion of co-authored papers in a discipline or a journal, to

some extent, was based on the type of research and the discipline involved. As a result, it

was not impossible to have a relatively lower proportion of collaborative papers in a

particular sample, even when collaborative research overall had become the normal

practice.

Ramesh [et al] (2000) analyzed the papers published in the quarterly International

Rice Journal from 1986-1995. The analysis showed that multiple author contributions

constituted the maximum proposition (87.82 percent) and the degree of collaboration over

this period varied from 0.90 – 0.95. The length of the articles with 1-5 pages was found

to be at the maximum with 78.3 percent.

Kannappanavar and Vijayakumar (2001) made a study on the authorship

trend in International Monitary Fund Literature for a period 1991-1998 and concluded

that collaborative research was in an increasing trend varying from 0.45 - 0.62. The

average degree of collaboration was found to be 0.56 - 0.81 by studying five selective

journals in geology covering a period 1987-1996.

38

Bandyopadhyay (2001) analysed the references appended to 92 doctoral theses

of mathematics, physics, mathematical engineering, philosophy and political science

submitted to University of Burdwan. In his findings, authorship collaboration was found

to be high in Physics. Moderate collaboration was observed in mathematics and

mechanical engineering. However, the collaboration was very low in political science

and philosophy excluding psychology while it was high in nuclear physics followed by

optics. The study also revealed that multiple authorship trend increased steadily through

decades (1950-1990) in all the branches of physics, mathematics, and psychology while

there was a decline for certain periods in mechanical engineering, philosophy excluding

psychology and in all the branches of political science.

Garg and Padhi (2001) analysed 3174 papers published in journals in the field of

Laser Science and Technology. It indicated that only 401 papers were single authored

and the rest 2773 were co-authored papers. Of the 2773 collaborated papers, only 687

were collaborated at domestic and national levels, and the rest was at international level.

Kim (2001) examined the productivity of Korean researchers in physics and

Mechanical Engineering. The study identified the type of authorship and their

collaboration pattern amongst the sources cited by Korean scientists.

Dalpe (2002) conducted a study to assess quality for bibliometric studies in

relation to collaboration of authors using biotechnology research and revealed the

interaction between Science and Technology was fairly good.

39

Macias-Chapula and Cesar (2002) studied the literature on health system reform

in Latin American and Caribbean through the web as well as the databases on CD ROM.

The results stated that there were no comprehensive databases in terms of time, document

type and content coverage. The results indicated the need to organize and administrate

the existing literature on healthcare reform so as to transfer it into the knowledge

demanded by the user community.

Karisiddappa, Gupta and Suresh Kumar (2002) studied the distribution of

productivity of authors and their collaboration in theoretical population genetics. The

study revealed that the productivity of distributions of authors was closer to Lotka’s type

of distribution for group of authors and collaboration.

Vijayakumar, Kalyane, and Kademani (2002) analysed the publications of

Ahmed Hassan Zewail, Nobel laureate in Chemistry, Who had collaborated with one or

two colleagues and published 246 papers during 1976-1994. The study revealed that the

collaboration trend was high in all the years of study period.

Suryanarayana (2002) studied Tobacco research publication published

throughout the world. The study summarised that the growth and fall of tobacco

literature in the world were based on the collaborative contributions.

Ponzi (2002) conducted a study of productivity of authors and their collaboration.

It was found that the collaboration was in intellectual structure and interdisciplinary

breadth of knowledge management in its early stage of development.

40

Ramesh and Nagaraju (2003) discussed the various features of distribution of

papers, the authorship pattern and year-wise distribution of degree of collaboration in

their study. They revealed that the author affiliations emphasized the dominance of

Indian authors and the multiple- authorship belonging to academic institutions.

Vijayakumar, Shehbcz and Nagvi (2003) studied the authorship pattern of

azadirachta Indica literature. They found that the collaborative research was more

favoured than the solo research.

Gupta and Dhawan (2003) carried out the research collaboration between India

and China. It was evident from the rise in the number of co-authored papers from 21 in

1994 to 74 in 1999. It was also found that the S&T collaboration between India and

China had been taking place mainly through multilateral channels and the output through

bilateral channels was very small (11.7 percent).

Lundberg [et al] (2006) studied co-authorship analysis based 62104 publications

in the Web of Science that have been published by researchers with Karolinska Institute

between 1982 and 2003. The result shows that 2812 addresses representing 486

companies had co-authored publications. These companies had co-authored 3496

publications with researchers affiliated with Karolinska Institute during the time period.

405 of the 486 companies had written at least one co-authored publication.

Neerja Verma et al (2007) dealt with the analysis of 131 contributions of the

journals entitled ‘Annals of Library and Information Studies’ published during 1999-

2005. They examined year wise, institution wise, state wise distribution of contributions,

41

authorship pattern, citation analysis, length of contributions etc. The study revealed that

the journals were the most cited publication amongst the library and information

scientists. They found out that the source journal was the most cited journal.

Uma Devi L.N (2010) carried the gender based research papers published in

scopus database characterized by twelve themes. It discussed and analyzed trends in

gender research in Asian countries from 1999-2008 in accordance with sources –wise

research output, year-wise publications, authorship pattern, and relative growth rate.

Low, et al., (2013) examined the research collaboration is the way forward in

order to improve quality and impact of its research findings. International research

collaboration had resulted in international co-authorship in scientific communications and

publications. This study highlighted the collaborating research and authorship trend in

clinical medicine in Malaysia from 2001 to 2010. Malaysian-based author affiliation in

the Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) and clinical medicine journals

(n = 999) and articles (n = 3951) as of 30th Oct 2011 were downloaded. Types of

document analyzed were articles and reviews, and impact factors (IF) in the 2010 Journal

Citation Report Science Edition were taken to access the quality of the articles. The

number of publications in clinical medicine increased from 4.5 % (n = 178) in 2001 to

23.9 % (n = 944) in 2010. The top three contributors in the subject categories were

Pharmacology and Pharmacy (13.9 %), General and Internal Medicine (13.6 %) and

Tropical Medicine (7.3 %). By journal tier system: Tier 1 (18.7 %, n = 738), Tier 2

(22.5 %, n = 888), Tier 3 (29.6 %, n = 1170), Tier 4 (27.2 %, n = 1074), and journals

without IF was (2.1 %, n = 81). University of Malaya was the most productive. Local

collaborators accounted for 60.3 % and international collaborations 39.7 %. Articles with

42

international collaborations appeared in journals with higher journal IFs than those

without international collaboration. They were also cited more significantly than articles

without international collaborations. Citations, impact factor and journal tiers were

significantly associated with international collaboration in Malaysia's clinical medicine

publications. Malaysia had achieved a significant number of ISI publications in clinical

medicine participation in international collaboration.

2.3 STUDIES RELATED TO CORE JOURNALS

Naranan (1970) inspired by a model proposed by Fermi in 1949 in cosmic ray

astrophysics account for Bradford’s law. The most significant first step in the model was

to recognize that the Bradford’s law was equivalent to a simple power law distribution or

articles in journals. Specifically J(p) the number of journals carrying exactly p articles is

the form of J(p)=Kp (K being constant and = 270) to explain the power law relation.

White (1985) observed that the super-imposition of the Bradford distribution over

the linear Zipf distribution, which demonstrates the emergence of more used and popular

items, may yield a technique to describe the pattern of books used by library patrons. She

felt that this law, when applied to circulation data, these formulations could support such

policies as shortened loan periods for heavily used and the identification of a core

collection.

Klaic (1990) examined the research activity of chemists from Rugjer Boskovic

Yugoslavia during 1976-1985 covering 2018 research papers of scientific work. The

papers were classified according to subfields used in the Journal Citation Reports. In this

study, he found that over 67 percent of papers were in the form of journal articles.

43

Ugolini [et al](1997) assessed the publication quality of the National Institute for

Cancer research (Genoa), Italy, and found that the scientists of the institute had published

in high quality journals as reflected by the impact factor of the journals.

Rao (1999) using COMPENDEX database between 1990 and 1994, found that

engineers in India published their articles in a few selected journals. Chemical

engineering, ceramics, plastics and polymers were main fields of their concentration.

Braun (2000) studied the scientific publications on the basis of the data obtained

from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Philadelphia. All countries which

published atleast 50 first-authored papers in the field in question during the period of

study were included. The sources journals during the period 1980-1984 and 1985-1989

were considered as source items and citations to them were counted for the periods from

1980 to 1989.

Arunachalam and Balaji (2001) studied fish and aquaculture research in the

People’s of Republic China over the six years 1994-1999 using data from six databases,

three abstracting services, and three citation indexes. The results were compared with fish

science research in India using bibliometric studies. They found that about 78 percent of

China’s journal papers appeared in 143 domestic journals whereas in the case of India, 70

percent of journal output appeared in 113 Indian Journals.

Kyvik, Svein (2003) revealed that the scientific or scholarly article is the

dominant type of publication within all fields. In total, 85 percent of all publications

44

were articles in journals, books, or reports (93 percent in the medical sciences, 87 percent

in the natural sciences, 86 percent in technology, 83 percent in the humanities, and 73

percent in the social sciences). Of the total number of articles about 2/3 were published in

journals and 1/3 in books and reports.

Peter Willet (2008) found that The Journal of Chemical Information and

Modeling (previously the Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences) was

the core journal for the subject, but with many significant papers being published in

journals whose principal focus was molecular modeling, quantitative structure-activity

relationships or more general aspects of chemistry. The discipline was international in

scope, and many of the most cited papers describe software packages that play a key role

in modern chemo informatics research.

2.4 STUDIES RELATED TO GROWTH OF LITERATURE AND

BIBLIOMETRICS IN GENERAL

Ozinonu (1970) made an early survey relating to growth of Basic science in

Turkey. The author identified the growth of manpower and frequency of publications in

Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry and Bio-science for the period 1933-1966.

Nagarajan (1995) examined the Research Productivity of Indian Scientists in

Marine Biology. He identified the Marine Science literature at the International level

reveals that the relative growth rates of marine science research output showed a

declining trend, contrastingly doubling time for publications increased remarkably. The

same trend was witnessed in terms of Indian level output.

45

Dhruv, Gupta, and Kandhari (1995) studied the evolution of collaboration in

four sub-disciplines of Physics for the period 1800-1950. The overall evolution of

physics publications in India revealed a remarkable break with the past in the decade

1920s onwards. In fact, the growth rate entered a new face after this time. The

collaboration coefficients calculated decade-wise were strongly correlated with the

decade-wise total number of publications. This conforms to increasing collaboration as

the number of publications increases.

Melin and Persson (1996) indicated in their study that most of the collaborations

had resulted from academic institutions (52.98 percent) followed by industrial houses

(21.40), and research institution (18.29 percent).

Ravi (1996) studied the Nuclear Science Research Productivity of Indian Scientist

and found that the Nuclear science research papers were published mainly in Journals.

Among the International sources of publications, United States and United Kingdom

predominated in publishing Indian Nuclear Science Research papers. The percentage of

two-authored and three-authored papers was more than the single authored and other

multi-authored papers.

Karki and Garg (1997) calculated activity index for India for different years to

see how India’s performance changed during the period of study. The result indicates that

India’s research effort in alkaloid chemistry is lower than the world during 1971, 1973,

1975, and 1977. But during the next five years, viz., 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1987 it

has picked up, and is higher than the world reaching its peak in 1981. The average AI for

46

India for 1971 – 1989, however, is 99, which indicates that India’s research effort in

alkaloid chemistry corresponds precisely to the world’s average.

Okubo [et al] (1998) analyzed the publication profile of 48 nations during 1981-

1992 using SCI to examine cutting edge versus ancient research in these nations and

identified countries whose publication patterns underwent the most marked changes. The

study pointed out that there appeared to be an overall shift towards the American pattern

of research interests worldwide. The south Asian nations still have not acquired the

balanced publication pattern that characterizes the most advanced countries, although

these countries have ventured into new areas like computer and material science and are

also concerned about environmental and health science research.

Tonta (2000) analyzed the bibliometric features of 8442 biomedical publications

whose first authors were affiliated with a Turkish research institution. It was found that

the researchers affiliated with Hacettepe University, which was in the forefront of

biomedical research in Turkey, had single-handedly contributed to almost a quarter (23.1

percent, to be exact) of all biomedical publications appeared in international journals.

Goel (2001) examined the Gender differences in psychological research in India

based on Ph. D theses covered the period between 1976 and 1986. The analysis showed

that among 1271 theses 62.94 percent was produced by male researcher and 37.06

percent was by female researchers in India.

47

Arunachalam and Gunasekaran (2002) made a bibliometric study on

Tuberculosis Research in India and China, and identified that there was a tremendous

mismatch between the share of the burden of the disease and the share of research efforts.

Kim, Mee-Jean (2002) carried out a research on bibliometrics, and found that a

total of 96 Korean academic institutions participated in 4,665 articles. The top 15

institutes that published more than 100 articles produced 4,031 papers, or 86.4 percent of

the total number of publications.

Velloso, Lannes, and Leopoldo (2004) carried out a study for 4-year period,

1997 – 2000 and identified that Brazilian scientists published 34,274 papers indexed by

ISI and from these, 79.7 percent was derived from governmental universities, 11.6

percent from governmental research institutes, 3.7 percent from private universities, and

0.2 percent from private research institutes.

Gu (2004) presented that the publication productivity per annum steadily

increased between 1991 and 1996 and followed by a sharp growth in 1997, rapidly

peaked in 2001. Eventhough the growth rates are declining during the period of 1996 to

2001, the average yearly increment in such a time interval reaches 54 articles, and an

existing upward trend is expected to continue in the near future.

Sivaraman (2004) examined the research productivity of science faculties in the

universities of Tamilnadu. The result showed that University of Madras ranks first in

order among twelve universities sharing 27.80 percent followed by Anna University

(21.70 percent), Madurai Kamaraj University (15.87 percent), and so on, contrastingly,

48

Anna University ranks first in the case of individual performance by faculties. It was also

states that publications of faculties were predominated by journal articles.

Cherchye and Vanden Abeele (2005) analyzed business and economics research

“micro unit” at Dutch Universities in order to analyze the patterns of this research and the

impact of its size and external financing received for it. Their results showed that there is

a positive relationship between the efficiency of academic research and the amount of

external financing that it receives.

Tombazos (2005) established ranking for two subperiods, 1991 – 1996 and 1997

– 2002, from articles in the most 30 frequently cited journals in Economics. The result

shows that only eight Spanish institutions appear among the first two hundred institutions

in the first subperiod, while in the second, five Spanish Universities appear in the first

fifty positions.

Patra and Chand (2005) revealed that there was, for the first few years, a very

little growth observed. After that, the growth picked up a good pace. In 1987, 1989,

1997, 2003 the number of publications dropped from the previous years.

He, Zhang, and Teng (2005) carried out a bibliometric research on biochemistry

and molecular biology. The results showed that based on yearly analysis, the rates of

increase for Chinese papers were 5.96 percent, 19.53 percent and 8.83 percent with an

average rate of increase by 12.61 percent each year. It was also found that there were

increasing trends for Chinese papers in biochemistry and molecular biology both in the

total number in the percentage of the world papers. They also pointed out that 38.37

49

percent of the total number of papers comes from 72 national universities where as 13.43

percent is from the rest of 1443 universities. The national universities and institutes of

the Chinese Academy of Sciences are the important sites for research output of

biochemistry and molecular biology in China.

Garcia – Garcia [et al] (2005) examined that the growth in scientific productivity

in gynecology and obstetrics was progressive upto 1998 when there was stagnation. The

accumulative growth in total scientific production of each 4-year block over the preceding

one was considerable for the periods 1991 – 1994 (74.4 percent) and 1995 – 1998 (61.1

percent), but the growth stabilizes in the period 1999 – 2002 (3.1 percent). However,

these data confirm that the material analysed is closer to an exponential adjustment than a

linear adjustment, as predicted by Price’s Law.

The report of Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (2006) revealed

that there was an increase of 3.9 percent from 20.2 and 21 percent from 1997 in the

publications of universities’ authors. The subject-wise analyses disclosed that the largest

productivity was from natural sciences, out of seven subject fields. The publications by

individual universities bring out a fact that University of Auckland ranks first with 1015

(31 percent) papers, followed by University of Otago (928 papers), University of

Canterbury (437 papers), Massey University (428 papers), and so on.

Lopez-Munoz [et al](2006) stated that over the last 25 years, there has been a

marked increase in the number of publications generated in relation to bipolar disorder at

a worldwide basis. The mathematical adjustment to an exponential curve obtains a

correlation coefficient r=0.9479, indicating 9.81 percent of variance. In contrast, the

50

linear adjustment of the measured values provides an r=0.8493 indicating 26.33 percent.

Therefore, it was concluded that the repertoire analysed was more in keeping with an

exponential fitting than a linear one, and that the postulates of Price’s Lare were fulfilled.

Leta, Glanzel,Thijs (2006) found that from 1991 to 2003, universities from the

public sector accounted for more than 80% of the country’s total publications in the ISI

database, a share that seems to be increasing . In this period, the number of publications

addressed to these institutions increased from 3,023 to 11,845.

Ramos, Royuela, Surinach (2007) explained that the five most productive

universities during the period of study were Pompeu Fabra Universities, Carlo III

University, Autonomous University of Barcelona, University of Valencia and University

of Alikante which published over 140 articles.

Dhawan and Gupta (2007) analyzed High Productivity Institutions (HPI) in

Indian physics, and identified that 64 high productivity institutions have together

contributed 23,835 papers, accounting for 88 percent of the total Indian physics output

during 1993 – 2001. Of the 64 HPIs, eight belong to Institutes of National Importance

(INIs), 23 to Research Institutions (RIs), and 33 to Universities & Colleges.

Sanz-Casado [et al] (2007) bringed out a fact that there was a gradual increase in

scientific production observed from the 70s to the mid-80s, with steep rise at the end of

the decade. Production increased very fast from 1990, with a peak in 1991, until 1996,

where another sharp rise was recorded, with peaks in 1996. The number of publications

51

grew by 94.87 percent between 1973 and 1982 and by 258.97 percent and 871.79 percent

from 1973 to 1992 and 1973 to 2002, respectively.

Aryati Bakri1 and Peter Willett (2009) discussed publication and citation

patterns in the Malaysian Journal of Computer Science (MJCS) from 1996-2006. The

articles in MJCS were mostly written by Malaysian academics, with only limited inputs

from international sources. Comparisons were made with the companion Malaysian

Journal of Library and Information Science in terms of the type, number of references,

length and numbers of authors for individual papers.

Stumpf, et al., (2011) described the Neotropical Ichthyology journal was created

in 2003 and soon became one of the main publications in its field as it is reflected in the

number of articles submitted every year and the fact that it has been indexed by both

SciELO and ISI. In order to understand the reasons for its trajectory, the journal history

was recovered and bibliometric indices on author, citation and impact factor were mapped

for the period between 2003 and 2010. A descriptive study on journal information source

and a bibliometric study of the 388 articles published by the journal and the 642 articles

that cite it have been carried out. Bibliometric analyses showed that 75.8% of the articles

had been written by Brazilian authors and 91.3% had been published in collaboration.

The journal was cited by 171 different publications from 28 countries, including

renowned journals in the field. Self-citation accounted for 26.8% of journal citation.

Analyses had been able to show that strict evaluation control and editing of the articles

have contributed towards its success and internationalization.

52

GhouseModin N Mamdapur et al (2011) analyzed articles in Baltic Astronomy

published during the years 2000 to 2008 with regard to distribution of contributions,

authorship pattern of contributions, distribution of references, analysis of length of

papers, etc. Out of 8489 references appended, 1521 (17.92 percent) appeared in the year

2004. The degree of collaboration for the period 2000-2008 was 0.89. Authors have

primarily relied on journals followed by books, conference proceedings and reports.

Authors from USA have contributed maximum number of papers compared to other

countries and India stood 21st in the ranked list. Astrophysical Journal topped the ranked

list of journals cited by the authors followed by Astronomy and Astrophysics. It can be

concluded that top 20 journals cited by the authors cover almost 87.60 percent of

references and also indicates that collaborative research was prevalent in astronomy

research.

Grandjean, et al., (2011) described the environmental research addresses

scientific questions of possible societal relevance; it is unclear to what degree research

focuses on environmental chemicals in need of documentation for risk assessment

purposes. In a bibliometric analysis, we used SciFinder to extract Chemical Abstract

Service (CAS) numbers for chemicals addressed by publications in the 78 major

environmental science journals during 2000-2009. The Web of Science was used to

conduct title searches to determine long-term trends for prominent substances and

substances considered in need of research attention. The 119,636 journal articles found

had 760,056 CAS number links during 2000-2009. The top-20 environmental chemicals

consisted of metals, (chlorinated) biphenyls, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, and

ethanol and contributed 12% toward the total number of links- Each of the top-20

substances were covered by 2,000-10,000 articles during the decade. The numbers for the

53

10-year period were similar to the total numbers of pre-2000 articles on the same

chemicals. However, substances considered a high priority from a regulatory viewpoint,

due to lack of documentation, showed very low publication rates. The persistence in the

scientific literature of the top-20 chemicals was only weakly related to their publication in

journals with a high impact factor, but some substances achieved high citation rates. The

persistence of some environmental chemicals in the scientific literature might be due to a

'Matthew' principle of maintaining prominence for the very reason of having been well

researched. Such bias detracts from the societal needs for documentation on less well

known environmental hazards, and it may also impact negatively on the potentials for

innovation and discovery in research.

AkhtarHussain et al (2011) analyzed a bibliometric study of 578 articles that

were published during the period 2000 to 2010 in the Electronic Library journal. The

paper covers the bibliometric analyses of year-wise distribution of articles, category-wise

classification of papers, subject-wise distribution of articles, authorship patterns, and

institutions-wise distribution of contributions. Special issues of the Electronic Library

brought out during 2000-2010, and prolific authors during 2000 to 2010 have been

analyzed.

Song, et al., (2012) described that the bioinformatics was a fast-growing

interdisciplinary research field that applies advanced computational techniques to

biological data. Bibliometrics analysis has recently been adopted to understand the

knowledge structure of a research field by citation pattern. In this paper, they explore the

knowledge structure of Bioinformatics from the perspective of a core open access

Bioinformatics journal, BMC Bioinformatics with trend analysis, the content and co-

54

Authorship network similarity, and principal component analysis. The experimental

results showed that Bioinformatics was fast-growing, dynamic and diversified. The

content analysis showed that there was an increasing overlap among Bioinformatics

journals in terms of topics and more research groups participate in researching

Bioinformatics according to the co-Authorship network similarity.

Tang, et al., (2012) revealed the research output and impact metrics derived from

commercial citation databases such as Web of Science and Scopus had become

commonly used indicators of predominantly English language scholarly performance. Yet

it had been pointed out that existing metrics were largely inadequate to reflect scholars'

overall peer-mediated performance, especially in the social sciences and humanities

(SSH) where publication forms were more diverse. In this paper alternative metrics

exploring a variety of communication sources were explored, with the aim of better

reflecting SSH scholarship. Data for a group of 16 SSH scholars resident on Taiwan were

collected, along with the number of grants and awards received from the chief public

grant making body for the sciences on the island. Principle component analysis revealed

four underlying dimensions represented by the 18 metrics. Multiple-regression analyses

were performed to examine how well each of the metrics and dimensions predicted the

number of public grants awarded the study cohorts. Differences in the significance of the

predictors were found between the social sciences and humanities. The results suggest the

need to consider disciplinary differences when evaluating scholarly performance.

Peymani, et al., (2012) has carried out to investigate the trends in stem cell

research in Iran from 1995 to 2010. Original research and review articles were considered

and publications were identified with the keyword "stem cell" and an affiliation to an

55

Iranian institution. Data were obtained from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)

Web of Science databases and Scopus. Since 1995, 491 articles were published. The

mean number of citations per publication was3.928 and the most frequently cited paper

received 76 citations. Articles were published in journals with impact factor that ranged

from 0.46 to 8.1. There was an increasing trend in stem cell publications based on

research done in Iran, although the rate of citations of these papers was low.

Abramo, D'Angelo, and Murgia, (2013) described about the debate on the role

of women in the academic world. They had focused on various phenomena that could be

at the root of the gender gap seen in many nations. However, in spite of the ever more

collaborative character of scientific research, the issue of gender aspects in research

collaborations had been treated in a marginal manner. In this article they applied an

innovative bibliometric approach based on the propensity for collaboration by individual

academics, which permits measurement of gender differences in the propensity to

collaborate by fields, disciplines and forms of collaboration: intramural, extramural

domestic and international. The analysis of the scientific production of Italian academics

showed that women researchers register a greater capacity to collaborate in all the forms

analyzed, with the exception of international collaboration, where there is still a gap in

comparison to male colleagues.

Galloway, Pease, and Rauh, (2013) examined the quantifying scholarly output

via citation metrics is the time-honored method to gauge academic success. Altmetrics, or

alternative citation metrics, provide researchers and scholars with new ways to track

influence across evolving modes of scholarly communication. This article dealt with

librarians an overview of new trends in measuring scholarly influence, introduce them to

56

altmetrics tools, and encourage them to engage with researchers in discussion of these

new metrics.

Chen, et al., (2013) studies about the bibliometric study of cholinesterase

inhibitors was used to find the trend of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and the order

of drugs which was most tolerated or more effective in AD treatment. 4,982 articles and

reviews from the Science Citation Index Expanded during 1993-2012 were analyzed. The

main results were as follows: The publication of cholinesterase inhibitor research

increased overall during 1993-2012. Chinese Academy of Science had most publications,

University of California, San Diego and Hebrew University of Jerusalem won first place

with the highest average citation per paper and the highest h-index respectively.

Neurosciences, pharmacology and chemistry were "raising" subject categories in

cholinesterase inhibitors research. With the comprehensive analysis of distribution and

change of author keywords in two 10-year-time periods, it can be concluded as follows:

(i) the order of drugs which was most tolerated or more effective in AD treatment might

be donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, tacrine, memantine and huperzine A, and

memantine attracted increasing interest recently and might be used more frequently now,

especially for moderate to severe dementia. (ii) The pathogenesis of oxidative stress

hypothesis attracted extensive attention. The interest to - amyloid cascade hypothesis

increased slightly but that of the cholinergic hypothesis decreased during the past decade.

(iii) "Oxidative stress", "-amyloid", "neuroprotection", "memory" and "cognition" are the

main orientations in the AD research in the future.

Bhupendra Radha et al (2012) discussed Bibliometric Analysis of the

Information Research: an International Electronic Journal (IRIEJ) The study was an

57

interacting research topic in the field of library and information science, in various fields

for the collection development of different subject in their libraries. The study included

form of documents, authorship pattern, ranking of authors, year wise distribution of

references and articles, ranking of cited journals, cited publishers and research

contributors of IRIEJ.

Parveen Kumar (2013) Identified the number of articles published in the ‘Journal

of Indian Library Association’ from the year 2007 to 2011. The research method adopted

was Bibliometrics. The study coverd the number of papers published, the number of

references made, the authorship patterns and average length of paper published etc. All

the points discussed in the study was helpful for its further development. The analysis

showed that only 2(2.81%) research paper were contributed by more than four authors. It

also revealed that out of 71 research papers, only 3(4.22%) research papers had no

citation. Only single author from foreign country contributed in the journal during the

period.

Roy, Sanku Bilas and Basak, Moutusi (2013) Bibliometrics was the discipline

where quantitative methods were employed to probe scientific communication process by

measuring and analyzing various aspects of written documents. It helped to monitor

growth of literature and patterns of research. This paper examined the articles published

in Journal of Documentation for authorship pattern, degree of collaboration, geographical

distribution of papers and citation analysis. The studies carried out for this paper found

that majority of papers are multi- authored. The degree of collaboration was found to be

0.51. The geographical distribution revealed that the contribution by United Kingdom is

the highest. The average citations per paper were 43.

58

Inferences

While reviewing the above studies, it was observed that there were a few studies

found exclusively for the analysis of research productivity of universities in foreign

countries, but not in India. There were some studies in India on the evaluation of

university’s research performance at state levels or a part of the national level study. This

phenomenon motivated the researcher to ascertain the research performance there is no

specific study on anthropology.

REFERENCES

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., Murgia, G. (2013) Introduction to Altmetrics for

Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Librarians, Journal of

Informetrics 7 (4) , pp. 811-822

2. AkhtarHussain et al (2011) Bibliometric Analysis of the Electronic Library journal:

2000-2010; Webology, 8(1).

3. Arunachalam, Subbiah and Gunasekaran, Subbiah (2002). Tuberculosis Research in

India and China: From Bibliometrics to Research Policy. Current Science, 82: 933-

947.

4. Arunachalam, Subbiah., Jayshree Balaji (2001). Fish Science Research in China: How

does it compare with Fish Research in India. Scientometrics, 52(3): 13-28.

59

AryatiBakri and Peter Willett (2008) The Malaysian Journal of Library and

Information Science 2001-2006: A Bibliometric Study; Malaysian Journal of Library

and Information Science, 13 (1) 103-116.

5. Bandyopadhyay, Amit Kumar (2001). Authorship Pattern in Different Disciplines.

Annals of Library and Information Studies, 48: 139-147.

6. Batcha, Sadik (2003). Research Productivity of Cancer Disease in the SAARC

Countries with Special Reference to India: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis:

Annamalai University.

7. Benito, Juana Gomez [et al] (2005). A Bibliometric Study of Differential Item

Functioning. Scientometrics, 64(1): 3 – 16.

8. BhupendraRadhaet al (2012) Information Research: An International Electronic

Journal: A Bibliometric study. International Journal of Digital Library Services, vol 2

(1).

9. Braun T. (1994). World Science in the Eighties, National Performance in publication

output and Citation Impact Part 1. All Science Fields Combined Physics and

Chemistry. Scientometrics, 29: 299-334.

10. Braun, T., Glanzel, W. (2000). Chemistry Research in Central Europe (1992-1997):

Facts and Figures on Publication Output and Citation Impact. Scientometrics, 49:

187-213.

60

11. Cano V. (1999). Bibliometric Overview of Library and Information Science Research

in Spain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50: 675-680.

12. Chen, H., Wan, Y., Jiang, S., Cheng, Y. (2013) � Alzheimer's disease research in the

future: bibliometric analysis of cholinesterase inhibitors from 1993 to 2012

Scientometrics , pp. 1-13

13. Cherchye, L and Vanden Abeele, P. (2005). On research efficiency: A micro analysis

of Dutch Universities Research in Economics and Business management. Research

Policy, 34: 495 – 516.

14. Clarke, L Beverly (1964). Multiple Authorship Trends in Scientific Paper. Science,

143: 822-824.

15. Dalpe, Robert (2002). Bibliometric Analysis of Biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55(2):

243-258.

16. Dillip K Swain,Chandrakanta Swain and Bijayalaxmi Rautaray (2014) Bibliometric

Analysis of the Journal of Educational Media and Library Science from 2008 to 2012

PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science Vol. 8, No. 1, January-

March 2014: 9–1

17. Dhawan, S.M. (2000). Comparative Study of Physics Research in India and China

based on INSPEC Physics for 1990 and 1995, Scientometrics, 49: 423-441.

61

18. Dhawan, S.M. and Gupta, B.M. (2007). Role and Contribution of High Productivity

Institutions in Different Sub-fields of India Physics. In Proceedings of Third

International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics (ed. by Divya

Srivastava, Ramesh Kundra and Hildrun Kretshmer), 148 – 163.

19. Dhruv, Raina, Gupta, B.M., and Rohith Kandhari (1995). Collaboration in Physics: A

Case study of the Macro and Micro Parameterisation of Sub-Disciplines (1800-1950).

Scientometrics, 33: 295-314.

20. Dutt, Bharvi, Suresh Kumar, Garg, K.C. (2007). Traditional System of Medicine: A

Scientometric Profile of Herbal Mediine Research in India and China. In Proceedings

of Third International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics (ed.

by Divya Srivastava, Ramesh Kundra and Hildrun Kretshmer), 105 – 118.

21. Galloway, L.M., Pease, J.L., Rauh, A.E. (2013) Science and Technology Libraries ,

Alzheimer's disease research in the future: bibliometric analysis of cholinesterase

inhibitors from 1993 to 2012

22. Garcia – Garcia, Pilar [et al] (2005). Evolution of Spanish Scientific Production in

International Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals during the Period 1986 – 2002.

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 123: 150

– 156.

23. Garg, K.C., Padhi, P. (2001). A Study of Collaboration in Laser Science and

Technology. Scientometrics, 51(3): 415-427.

62

24. Ghose Modin N.Mamdapur et al (2011) Baltic Astronomy 2000 -2008: A

Bibliometric Study; Annals of Library and Information Science, vol58:34-40.

25. Goel, Kamelesh (2001). Bibliometrics of Social Science Research in India. University

News, 39: 9-11.

26. Grandjean, P., Eriksen, M.L., Ellegaard, O., Wallin, J.A. (2011) , The Matthew effect

in environmental science publication: A bibliometric analysis of chemical substances

in journal articles, Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 10 (1) ,

art. no. 96

27. Gu, Yinian (2004). Global Knowledge Management Research: A Bibliometric

Analysis. Scientometrics, 61(2): 171 – 190.

28. Gupta, B.M., Dhawan, S.M. (2003). India’s Collaboration with People’s Republic of

China in Science and Technology: A Scientometric Analysis of Coauthored Papers

during 1994-1999. Scientometrics, 57(1): 59-74.

29. Harsanyi, Martha A. (1993). Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems-Bibliometrics and

the Study of Scholarly Collaboration: A Literature review. Library and Information

Science Review, 15: 325-354.

63

30. He, Tianwei, Zhang, Jinglin, and Teng, Lirong (2005). Basic Research in

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in China: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Scientometrics, 62 (2): 249 – 259.

31. Jacobs, Daisy and Ingwersen, Peter A (2000). Bibliometric Study of the Publication

Patterns in the Sciences of South African Scholars 1981-1996. Scientometrics,

47(1):75-93.

32. Kabir, Humayoon, S. (1995). Bibliometrics of Bibliometrics. Library Science, 32: 13-

24.

33. Kannappanavar, B.U., Vijayakumar, M. (2001). Authorship Trend and Solla vs Team

Research in International Monetary Fund Literature: A Bibliometric Study. Annals of

Library and Information Studies, 48: 117-120.

34. Karisiddappa, C.R., Gupta, B.M., and Suresh Kumar (2002). Scientific Productivity

of Authors in Theoretical Population Genetics. Scientometrics, 53(1): 73-93.

35. Karki, M.M.S. and Garg, K.C. (1997). Bibliometrics of Alkaloid Chemistry Research

in India. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Science, 37: 157 – 161.

36. Kim , Mee-Jean (2001). A Bibliometric Analysis of physics publications in Korea,

1994 – 1998. Scientometrics, 50(3): 503 – 521).

64

37. Kim, Mee-Jean (2003). Citation Patterns of Korean Physicists and Mechanical

Engineers: Differences by Type of Publication Source and Type of Authorship.

Scientometrics, 55(3): 421-436.

38. Klaic B. (1990). Scientometrics Analysis of the Research Activities of Chemists from

the Rugjier Boskovic Institute, Yugoslavia, 1976-1985. Scientometrics, 19: 11-24.

39. Koehler, Wallace (2001). Information Science as Little Science: The Implications of a

Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of the American Society for Information

Science. Scientometrics, 51(2): 117-132.

40. Kundra R. (1996). Investigation of Collaborative Research Trends in Indian Medical

Sciences 1900-1945. Scientometrics, 36: 69-80.

41. Kyvik, Svein (2003). Changing Trends in Publishing Behaviour among University

Faculty, 1980-2000: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher

Education. Scientometrics, 58(1): 35.48.

42. Leta, Jacqueline, Glanzel, Wolfgang, Thijs, Bart (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2:

Sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67( 1): 87–105.

43. Lopez-Munoz, Francisco [et al] (2006). Bipolar Disorder as an Emerging Pathology

in the Scientific Literature: A Bibliometric Approach. Journal of Affective Disorders,

92: 161 – 170.

65

44. Low, W.Y., Ng, K.H., Kabir, M.A., Koh, A.P., Sinnasamy, J. (2013) , Trend and

impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in

Malaysia ,Scientometrics , pp. 1-13

45. Lundberg, Jonas [et al] (2006). Collaboration Uncovered: Exploring the Adequacy of

Measuring University-Industry Collaboration through Co-authorship and Funding.

Scientometrics, 69(3): 575 – 589.

46. Macias-Chapula and Cesar, A. (2002). Bibliometric and Webometric Analysis of

Health System Reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean. Scientometrics, 53:

407-427.

47. Manten, A.A. (1968). Multiple Authorship in Earth Science. Atlas (4A): 149A-152A.

48. ManishaGawde and Devendra Kumar Mishra (2012). Information Research: An

International ElectronicJournal: A Bibliometric Study (2007-2011). International

Journal of Librarianship and Administration, vol 3(1) 31-47.

49. Meadows, A.J. (1974). Communication in Science. London: Butterworths.

50. Melin, G. and Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-

authorship, scientometrics, 36: 363 – 377.

51. Merton, R.K., Garfield, E. (1963). Forward to Little Science, Big Science and Beyond

by D.J. De Solla Price. New York: Columbia University.

66

52. Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (2006). University Bibliometrics: An

Analysis of Publication Outputs, 1997 – 2003. Report, M R S T: Wellington, 1 – 19.

53. Nagarajan, M. (1995). Evaluation of Research Productivity of Marine Science in

India: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis, Annamalai University.

54. Nagpaul, P.S., Sharma, L. (1994). Research Output and Trans-National Cooperation

in Physics Sub-Fields: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Scientometrics, 31: 97-122.

55. Naranan, S. (1970). Bradford’s Law of Bibliography of Science: An Interpretation.

Nature 227: 631-632.

56. NeerjaVerma, RajnishTamrakar"and PriyankaSharmab (2007).Analysis of

contributions in Annals of Library and Information Studies. Annals of Library and

Information Studies, vol. 54(2)106-111.

57. Okubo, Y. et al. (1998). A Multivariate Analysis of Publication Trends in the 1980s

with Special Reference to South East Asia. Scientometrics, 41: 273-289.

58. Ozinonu K. (1970). Growth in Turkish Positive Basic Science 1933-1936. Ankara:

Middle East Technical University.

59. Parameshwaran, M., Smitha, K.G. (2001). Bibliometric Analysis of LISA. Annals of

Library and Information Studies, 4:149-153.

67

60. Parveen Kumar (2013) A Bibliometric Analysis of Journals of Indian Library

Association (2007-2011) www.indian journals.com Vol. 19, No. 3, July 2013 .

61. Patra and Chand (2005). Biotechnology Research Profile in India. Scientometrics,

63(3): 583 – 597.

62. Peymani, P., Zahiri, Z., Heydari, S.T., Khoshsima, M., Lankarani, K.B. (2012) ,

Iranian stem cell research trends: Bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping trends

from 1995 to 2010 , World Journal of Medical Sciences 7 (3) , pp. 159-162

63. Ponzi, Leonard J. (2002). The Intellectual Structure and Interdisciplinary Breadth of

Knowledge Management: A Bibliometric Study of its Early Stage of Development.

Scientometrics, 55(2): 259-272.

64. Price, D.J.Solla (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University.

65. Ramesh Babu, D. B. and Ramakrishnan, J. (2007). Indian Contributions to the Field

of Hepatitis (1984 – 2003): A Scientometric Study. In Proceedings of Third

International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics (ed. by Divya

Srivastava, Ramesh Kundra and Hildrun Kretshmer), 22 – 31.

66. Ramesh, [et al] (2000). Publication Pattern in Oryza (Oryza Sativa L.) from 1986-

1995: A Bibliometric Study. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 37: 215-

227.

68

67. Ramesh, L.S.R.V., Nagaraju, A.V.S.S. (2003). Publication Pattern in International

Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 1991-2000: A Bibliometric Study. SRELS journal of

Information Management, 39(4): 457-465.

68. Ramos, Raul, Royuela, Vicente and Surinach, Jordi (2007). An Analysis of the

determinants in economics and business publications by Spanish Universities

between 1994 and 2004. Scientometrics, 71 (1): 117 – 144.\

69. Ranganathan, S.R. (1963). Prolegomena to Library Classification, Bombay: Columbia

University.

70. Rao, I.K.R., Suma, A. (1999). Qualitative Study Indian of Engineering Literature,

Scientometrics, 46: 605-619.

71. Ravi, S. (1996). Nuclear Science Research Productivity of Indian Scientists: A

Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis, Annamalai University.

72. Roy, Sanku Bilas and Basak, Moutusi (2013) Journal of Documentation: A

Bibliometric Study (2013). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 945.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/945

73. Sanz-Casado, E [et al] (2007). Bibliometric Mapping of Scientific Research on Prion

Diseases, 1973 – 2002. Information Processing and Management, 43: 273 – 284.

69

74. Santosh Kumar Tunga (2014) Authorship pattern and degree of collaboration in

journal articles: A citation study of doctoral dissertations 1991-2010 .Information

Studies Vol. 20(2,).

75. Saravanan, T. (2000). Research Productivity in Astronomy Science in G7 Countries

with special Reference to India: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis, Annamalai

University.

76. Schubert, A.S. and Zsindley, T. Braun (1985). Scientometric Indicators for Evaluating

the Medical Research Output of Mid-Size Countries. Scientometrics 7: 215-239.

77. Sivaraman, P. (2004). Research Productivity of Faculty Members in the Universities

of Tamilnadu: A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis: Annamalai University.

78. Song, M., Yang, C.C., Tang, X., Han, W.-S. (2012), Mapping the field of

Bioinformatics with a content and co-Authorship analysis, Proceedings - 2012 IEEE

International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops, BIBMW

2012 , art. no. 6470238 , pp. 774-781

79. Stumpf, I.R.C., Vanz, S.A.S., Gastaud, N., Vargas, R., Bentancourt, S.M.P. (2011) ,

Neotropical ichthyology: Trajectory and bibliometric index (2003 - 2010) ,

Neotropical Ichthyology 9 (4) , pp. 921-926

70

80. Suresh, B. (2002). Growth and Collaboration Trends in Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome Research Literature. A Bibliometric Analysis. PhD Thesis: Annamalai

University.

81. Suryanarayana, Y.V. (2002). Tobacco Research Publications: Global Scenario.

SRELS Journal of Information Management, 39(2): 183-194.

82. Tang, M.-C., Wang, C.-M., Chen, K.-H., Hsiang, J. (2012) , Exploring alternative

cyberbibliometrics for evaluation of scholarly performance in the social sciences and

humanities in Taiwan, Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting 49 (1)

83. Tombazos (2005). Ranking of Spanish Universities in Article Publications.

Scientometrics, 69: 141 – 154.

84. Tonta, Y. (2000). Contribution of Turkish researchers to the world’s biomedical

literature (1988-1997), Scientometrics, 48: 71–84.

85. Turkeli, A. (1973). Doctoral Training Environment and Post Doctorate Productivity

among Turkish Physicist. Science Studies, 3: 311-318.

86. Uma Devi L.N (2010) A Study on Bibliometric Analysis of Gender Research in Asian

Countries. IJISS vol 4(2): 1-6

87. Ugolini, D.S. Parodi and Santi, L. (1997). Analysis of Publication Quality in a Cancer

Research Institute. Scientometrics, 38: 265-274.

71

88. Velloso, Andrea, Lannes, Denise, and Leopoldo, De Meis (2004). Concentration of

Science in Brazilian Governmental Universities. Scientometrics, 61 (2): 207 – 220.

89. Vijayakumar, Kalyane, V.L., and Kademani. (2002). Research Collaborator Par

Excellence. Scientometrics, 53(1): 113-121.

90. Vijayakumar, M. Shehbaz, H., and Naqvi (2003). Authorship Trend in Azadirachta

Indica Literature: A Bibliometric Study. SRLES Journal of Information Management,

39(4): 445-455.

91. White, Emilie C. (1985). Bibliometrics: From Curiosity to Convention. Special

Libraries,35- 42.

92. Zuckerman, Harriet A. (1968). Pattern of Name Ordering among Authors of Scientific

Papers: A study of Social Symbolism and its Ambiguity. American Journal of

Sociology, 7: 276-271.