Scientometric study of periodical literature with journals "language sciences" and "linguistics and education".
Mohanty, Barada Kanta ; Maharana, Bulu ; Sethi, Bipin Bihari 等
1. Background Study
The examination of the research publication productivity and its
contributions is a buzzing area of research in the field of library and
information science. Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Citation Study, and
Content analysis are the concepts supplementary and complementary to
each other in their respective applications in the domain of research
which are most popular tools extremely and extensively used in the
field. This technique has been applied in the present study to evaluate
research productivity at a global context for obtaining necessary
inferences.
To avoid confusion it would be worthwhile to point out here that,
though the data undertaken from papers indexed in Science Direct
Bibliographic Database top 25 hottest papers of the journal
"Language Sciences", and "Linguistics and
Education", covering time period 2005-2014, but the actual year of
publication of these papers in the source journals as shows in table no.
2 indicates the period 1988-2014 (1st journal), and 19952014 (2nd
journal).This is because, the papers are appeared in the top 25 hottest
papers site under the period 2005-2014 which were actually published in
the 1st journal (LSs) during 1988-2014, while in case of 2nd journal
(L&E) the papers are appeared in the top 25 hottest papers site
under the period 2005-2014 which were actually published within the
period 1995-2014 in the source journal also.
2. Introduction:
Over the years, the Scientometric techniques have become tools to
evaluate the productivity of research institutes, individual researchers
and to map the growth of the respective subject. Publication and
citation counts are being extensively used for evaluation purpose as
expressed and discussed by several earlier studies (Koganuramath et.
al., 2002; Davarpanah, 2009; Bechhofer et. al., 2001; and Thanuskodi,
2010). The studies undertaken by the above researchers comprehensively
focus on the assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the Social
Sciences research performance in an international context and discussed
the identification of patterns of scientific development particularly
the mapping of research activities of varied organizations,
institutions, scholars/researchers, etc. (Quoted by Sethi & Panda,
2014).
Scientometrics is a technique of measuring, evaluating, and
analyzing science, technology and innovation. Key research issues
include the measurement of impact, reference sets of articles to
evaluate the impact of journals and institutes, understanding of
scientific citations, mapping scientific fields and the production of
indicators for use in policy and management contexts. In practice there
is a significant overlap between scientometrics and other scientific
assessment methods such as: bibliometrics, informatrics, and information
science etc. (Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics)
Scientometrics is one of the vital measures for the estimation of
scientific productions. Macias-Chapula asserts that "scientometrics
indicators become essential to the scientific community to profess the
state-of-the-art of a given topic" (quoted In Lolis et. al. 2009).
Scientometrics is concomitant to and has overlapping interests with the
idioms Bibliometrics and Informetrics. The terms Bibliometrics,
Scientometrics, and Informetrics refer to component fields associated
with the study of the dynamics of disciplines as reflected in the
production of their literature (Hood & Wilson, 2001).
"Scientometrics" is the English translation of the word
of Nalimov's classic monograph Naukometriy in 1969, which was
relatively unfamiliar to western scholars even after it translated into
English. Prior to internet to be so pervasive it was rarely used and
cited. However, the term became widely accepted when the journal
Scientometrics once appeared in 1978 (Garfield, 2007).
There are many definitions have been put forward for the term
"Scientometrics" in the literature. However, Scientometrics is
the quantitative evaluation of disciplines of science based on the
scholarly communication of published literature. This could involve
identifying emerging areas of scientific research, examining the
development of research over time, or geographic and organizational
distributions of research (Glossary of Thompson ..., 2008).
Tague-Sutcliffe (1992) explicates Scientometrics as "the study
of the quantitative aspects of science as a discipline or economic
activity. It is an integral part of the sociology of science and has
applications in science policy-making. It involves quantitative studies
of scientific activities, including, among others, publication, and so
overlaps bibliometrics to some extent".
3. Scope & Objective of the Study:
The scope of the study encompasses two international journals viz.,
"Language Sciences (LSs)", and "Linguistics &
Education (L&E)" research outcomes indexed at Science Direct
Database under the heading Top 25 Hottest Articles during the period
2005-2014 in the field of Arts and Humanities a comparative examination.
The study accounts a total 1800 papers adding 900 (Nine hundred) from
each journal. The key objective of the present study holds to determine
the following issues are:
i. Nature of Authorship pattern of publication;
ii. Single Vs Multiple authored papers;
iii. Trace the Geographical Distribution/scattering of research
publication;
iv. Chronological Growth pattern of literature;
v. Most productive authors of top countries;
vi. Degree of collaboration of authors;
vii. Degree of citation of articles;
viii. Study of length of the papers and
ix. Understanding the trends in scholarly research output
4. Methodology adopted
Specifically, the study concentrated on the Scientometric analysis
is one of the most widely used methods in Library and information
science research. It is an examination of the frequency, patterns, and
citations in research works. This study is aimed to discuss about the
analysis of the research output of two international journals indexed
under Science Direct on-line Database. The relevant sources and data are
collected from top 25 hottest Articles site. Based on the available
sources the following discussions were made.
Data on papers published in the two international journals such as:
1st "Language Sciences (LSs) and 2nd "Linguistics &
Education (L&E) were collected from each downloaded articles from
Science Direct on-line Bibliographic Database, and each data were
examined identically to find out the result. All papers included in the
analyses are indexed under the site top twenty five hottest articles for
the period 2005-2014 accounting 900 papers each. Further, each items of
information processed by developing a database of 1800 down loaded
records adding essential categorical variables viz. journal title,
article title, 1st author, number of authors, affiliation with
institutions, country of origin (considering 1st author), year of
publication in source journal, number of citations, length of papers and
ranking pattern, etc. using the MS-Excel spread sheet. Further, the
categorical variables were expressed as frequency and percentage.
Moreover, the Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test is applied over the data in
table 2, 3, 8 and 9 in order to understand the degree of significance in
variation in enlistment of research papers, variation in mean estimation
of research papers, variation in citation pattern as well as variation
in pagination pattern of papers of both journals. Since, reference
counts are not freely available with the abstract site the investigator
did not able to analyze the reference pattern of the papers. Finally,
all relevant data are then sorted, tabulated, and assimilated in a
logical order, tried at their level best to draw inferences for the
present research.
5. Review of Literature
Meadow and Zaborowsk (1979) conducted some statistical analyses on
the citation patterns of the 1978 edition of JASIS and found that most
of JASIS authors (43 out of 54) came from the USA.
Dutt, Garg & Bali (2003) analyzed 1317 papers published in the
first fifty volumes of the international journal of Scientometrics
during 1978 to 2001. They found that the U.S.A share of papers is
constantly declining while that of the Netherlands, India, France and
Japan is on the rise. The research output is highly scattered as
indicated by the average number of papers per institution.
Moin, Mahmoudi & Rezaei (2005) evaluated the scientific
production of Iran during 1967 to 2003 and compared it with 15 selected
countries. They found that Iran has had an increasing growth after the
Iraq-Iran war.
Mukherjee (2008) analyzed the authorship pattern of scientific
productions of the four most productive Indian academic institutions for
the eight-year -period from 2000 to 2007. The results show that among
four universities, the authors of Delhi University contributed the
highest number of articles, followed by Banaras Hindu University. There
is also an increasing tendency toward collaborative research among
Indian authors as well as more frequent collaboration with international
authors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology are two of the most prolific
research areas in these four Indian universities. The average rate of
references per item is 28 and the citations received per item are 3.56.
6. Analysis and Interpretation
The examination of the publications through scientometric analysis
method and its contributions is a buzzing area of research in the arena
of library and information science in order to get appropriate findings.
The present study was intended to portrait the comprehensible picture of
the trend of research output of two international journals namely
"Language Sciences (LSs)", and "Linguistics &
Education (L&E)" respectively. For this purpose the relevant
data were collected from Science Direct Database, top 25 hottest papers
link are analyzed as follows:
7. State of the Art of Study
The present study is an assimilation of papers indexed under
Science Direct Database top 25 hottest articles link during the period
2005-2014 (8 years) of two international journals namely 'Language
Sciences (LS)' and 'Linguistic & Education (L&E)'
collectively accounts a total 1800 papers (900 each) as an assessment
with an objective to measure and find a nuanced approach to the strength
and weakness of scholarly work at the arena of cross national research.
Table 7.1 indicates the year wise distribution of papers published
in the two international journals specifically considering the
publication of papers in source journal, which were later indexed under
Science Direct Database with online link top 25 hottest papers during
the year 2005-2014. As per the data available in the above table it is
determined that 2005 is the most remarkable year during which both the
journals produced the overwhelming & so valuable papers which
accounts 139 (15.44%) and 163 (18.11%) a largest volume those took place
in the top 25 hottest papers database. In the journal 'Language
Sciences' papers published from 1988 to 2014 variably got response
to take place in top 25 hottest papers site under the period 2005-2014,
whereas in journal 'Linguistics and Education' papers
published from 1995 to 2014 placed in the top 25 hottest papers database
during the year 2005-2014. Moreover, during the year 2009 1st journal
contributed 102 (11.33%) papers and 2nd journal added 99 (11%) papers in
the year 2008 to the domain of top 25 hottest papers, got the years 2nd
rank in both journals as the study noticed so far. Further, the study
finds out that, in one side the 1st journal trend indicates that the
later part published papers are versatile enough from the grave concern
of research than the papers published earlier, while 2nd journal trend
denotes middle period published papers are all-round multifaceted rather
than earlier and later period, because major number of papers of both
the journals of the stated period (later part of 1st journal &
middle part of 2nd journal) took place in the top 25 hottest papers
database. For more clarity one may refer and concentrate over 3rd table
to notice the extent of papers participation from both the journals to
the top 25 hottest papers database. Hence, it would be worthwhile to
point out here that, the chronological analysis of papers disclosed that
the scientific and research value of papers in both the journals shows
variability on the basis of their original year of publication in source
journal & out of those quantity of placement over top 25 hottest
papers site.
In this work the researchers have devoted considerable attention to
the time distribution of citations. In this evaluation process, it is
acknowledged that although all the papers are indexed under science
direct database during the year 2005-2014, but original year of
publication in source journal is different on the basis of which the
citations are classified and grouped in table number 7.2. The above
table as evidence establishes that a majority 464 (51.61%) of papers of
the period 2005-2009 of journal LSs took place in top 25 hottest papers
database, while 2nd and 3rd largest period is 2010-2014 and 2000-2004
from which 269 (29.88%) and 152 (16.90%) citations placed in top 25
hottest papers database of journal LSs. In case of journal L&E it is
found that 2005-2009 is the most prolific period, followed by 2nd and
3rd is the 2000-2004, 2010-2014 from which period the number of
citations such as: 475 (52.77%), 222 (24.66%) and 195 (21.66%)
considerably took place in top 25 hottest papers database as the study
discloses. A statistical method Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) Test is applied
over the table 7.2 and results as follows:
Application of Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) Test over table number 7.2
"O" "E" [x.sup.2] Hy:H1: There is no variation in
Table Table Calculated enlistment of research papers
Value (CV) of both the journals.
14 10.99 0.82 Chi-Square ([x.sup.2])
152 186.89 6.51 Formula: [x.sup.2] = [(o-e).sup.2]/e
464 469.23 0.05 Degree of Freedom (V) = 3;
269 231.87 5.94 Calculated Value (CV) = 26.61;
08 11.00 0.81 Tabulated Value (TV) at 0.050 or 95 %
222 187.10 6.50 level of significance is = 7.81
475 469.76 0.05 Chi-Square test applied over the data
195 232.12 5.93 in the t&le no.7.2 with heading
[x.sup.2] "The extent of enlistment of
(CV)=26.61 Papers in top 25 hottest papers list
(considering year of publication in
source journal)". Since, [x.sup.2]
calculated value is 26.61 which is
greater than [x.sup.2] tabulated
value 7.81 the null hypothesis is
false or rejected. Hence, it is
concluded that, the growth pattern of
papers of both the journals are
significantly varied from each other.
Considering the above detailed data characteristics a comparative
estimation of both the journals is viewed applying a statistical method
Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) Test.
The table number 7.4 considers authorship pattern and degree of
collaboration of papers of two international journals such as:
'Language Sciences', and 'Linguistics and
Education'. As far as the both journals outcomes are concerned an
overwhelming majority of papers 77.78% and 75.56% were single authored,
and less than one fourth papers are produced by collaborated
authors'. Since, the degree of authors' collaboration of both
journal papers is 0.22 and 0.24 denotes unilateral authorship is
significantly dominating over collaborated authorship.
Scientists, researchers and scholars produce information, a
significant part of which is often published in refereed sources such
as: journals/periodicals, research reports, conference proceedings,
seminar volumes etc. Publications are information products, whose
essence is to inform and educate the existing and forth coming members
on pioneering, scientific and research interests. Universities and
research centers use publication and citation counts to monitor the
performance of their researchers and give raises and promotions. The
number of publications by a scholar or institution/country is an
indicator of their strength or weakness in research or level of
production of new knowledge. In ranking authors/scholars aggregate
number of publications adds to their credit is one of the most important
measures is discussed in the above table.
The table no. 7.5 (A) connotes that, Yuh-Fang Chang affiliated to
National Chung Hsing University got rank one with highest number of
papers 47 (5.22%), followed by Cliff Goddard, and Lyle Campbell
affiliated to University of New England, and University of Canterbury
adds 42 (4.67%) and 41 (4.56%) papers which cause to rank 2nd and 3rd
among top 15 authors of journal "Language Sciences".
Furthermore, remaining 13 authors contributed 33-14 number of papers in
a descending order and got their respective ranks 4th to 12th. In an
average estimation it is found that, mean papers per author is 4.20 and
mean of papers per institution is 5.88.
Table 7.5 (B) demonstrates the top 15 authors with institutional
affiliation participated in publication with journal 'Linguistics
and Education'. Among top 15 authors 'Angela Creese'
affiliated to University of Birmingham achieved rank one with 27 (3%)
papers, followed by 'Vera F utierrez-Clellen' of San Diego
State University; 'Constant Leung' of King's College
London; 'J.R. Martin' of University of Sydney; and
'Richard Barwell' of University of Bristol produced 25
(2.78%), 24 (2.67%), 22 (2.44%), and 21 (2.33%) papers and got rank 2nd
to 5th considerably on the basis of their frequency of publication of
research papers. Moreover, remaining 10 scholars contributed the number
of papers 20 to 12 to their credit in descending order of cited
frequency of papers, and placed at rank 6th to 11th in ascending order
of cited frequency of rank respectively. Hence, the resultant data of
table 5 (B) illustrates that there is no much variability in production
of papers among top 15 authors.
This above cited table examines the feasibility of establishing a
common approach to evaluating the outputs and outcomes of research
papers of two journals including the possibility of defining robust
benchmarks for cross-national comparison. The cross-national approach to
research publication allows comparing performance and tendencies among
the researchers of different geographical areas of the global village a
powerful motivator for growth and development research activities that
highlights the strength and weakness among nations is the fundamental
and universal research practices in the area of library and information
science study. However, the table number 6 witnessing the geographical
analysis of papers published in two international journals such as:
'Language Sciences', 'Linguistics and
Education' and ascertains that, USA is the leading country in
both the journals which alone shares 139 (15.44%), 220 (24.44%) papers
in 1st and 2nd journal and stands with rank one, followed by Australia
2nd rank as well as UK 3rd rank with 111 (12.33%) and 83 (9.22%) papers
in 1st journal, while in 2nd journal UK and US achieves 2nd and 3rd rank
accounting 164 (18.22%) and 134 (14.89%) papers to their credit
respectively. Moreover, it is most needed to notice here that instead of
first three ranking countries out of top 18 in both the journals all
remaining countries addressing disparities in publication with their
corresponding figures is even found expressive and interesting.
The present table no. 7.7 is evident to highlight and to understand
the aspects which are related to institutional contributors', and
to trace these trends top 20 prolific institutions are ranked on the
basis of their frequency of research productivity in two international
journals. It is found that, 'National Chung Hsing University'
of Taiwan, and 'University of California' of Canada are most
prolific institutions having been contributed 47 (5.40%) and 62 (6.89%)
papers is highest among top 20 institutional contributors' of both
journals. Besides, 'University of New England' of Australia;
'University of Canterbury' of New Zealand became 2nd and 3rd
ranking country with papers 42 (4.83%) and 41 (4.71%) in 1st journal,
while 'University of British Columbia' of US and
'University of Technology' of China got 2nd rank with 36 (4%)
papers each in 2nd journal respectively. Furthermore, from the above
table it is ascertained that all top 20 productive institutions belongs
to 13 countries such as: Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Belgium,
South Africa, France, The Netherlands, Hong Kong, UK, Russia, Spain,
Singapore of 1st journal, whereas in 2nd journal top 20 productive
institutions are belongs to only 7 countries such as: Canada, US, China,
Spain, Australia, USA, UK, as the study explores.
By and large, analyzing the citation pattern of research papers is
a vital part of quantitative study is comprehensively discussed here as
per the data tabulated in table number 7.8. The citation pattern of
papers professes the degree of use/download of papers by the scholars or
researchers for their research work. The papers receive higher or more
citations are accepted a good research work. In this context the table
no. 8 connotes that majority number of papers i. e. in 1st journal
94.78% and 2nd journal 81.56% have received citations up to 25 is found
benchmarking, while remaining a meager number of papers of both the
journals received citations from 26-75 as the study unearths. A
statistical method Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test is applied over the data
and a comparative vision of citation pattern of papers of both the
journals are portrayed as follows:
Application of Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test over table number 7.8
"O" "E" [x.sup.2] Hy: H3: There is no variation among
Table Table Calculated the journals in citation pattern
Value (CV) of their papers.
853 793.5 4.46 Degree of Freedom (V)=3; [x.sup.2]
Calculated Value (CV)=104.66;
37 47 2.12 Tabulated Value (TV) at 0.050 or 95 %
level of significance is 7.81
10 16 2.25
Applying Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test
0 43.5 43.5 using Formula [x.sup.2]
[(o-e).sup.2]/e it is ascertained
734 793.5 4.46 that:
57 47 2.12 At (0.050) 95% level of significance
[x.sup.2] tabulated value is 7.81,
22 16 2.25 while calculated value is 104.66.
As calculated value of [x.sup.2]
87 43.5 43.5 104.66 is greater than tabulated
[x.sup.2] value 7.81 for which the hypothesis
(CV)=104.66 stands false or rejected which means
the citation patterns of papers of
both journals are significantly
varied from each other.
Examining the pagination pattern of research papers is an
inseparable part of scientometrics/bibliometrics study is most prolific
in library and information science research. The table number 7.9 moots
and explore that, the highest number of papers carries most commonly
used pagination pattern 11-15 in both the journals which accounts papers
242 (26.89%) in 1st journal, and 297 (33%) in 2nd journal respectively,
followed by the pagination pattern 16-20, carries 186 (20.66%), and 273
(30.33%) papers which ranked 2nd in both journals LSs and L&E
respectively. Moreover, accounting papers 169 (18.78%) and 140 (15.56%)
having pagination pattern '31 and above'; '21-25'
ranked with 3rd and 4th in journal LSs, whereas in regard to 2nd journal
the pagination pattern '21-25'; '31 and above' got
rank 3rd and 4th with papers 150 (16.67%); 81 (3.44%) shows as reverse
as 1st journal. For more clarity the researchers have applied a
statistical method Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test over the table 10 for
mapping a comparison in pagination pattern of papers of both the
journals 'LSs' and 'L&E' as stated below:
Application of Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test over table number 7.9
"O" "E" [x.sup.2] Hy: H4: Pagination pattern of papers
Table Table Calculated of both journals are not significantly
Value (CV) different.
20 19 0.05 Degree of Freedom (V)=6 ; [x.sup.2]
60 37.5 13.5 Calculated Value (CV)=82.4; Tabulated
242 269.5 2.80 Value (TV) at 0.050 or 95 % level of
186 229.5 8.24 significance is 12.59
140 145 0.17
83 74.5 0.96 Applying Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test
169 125 15.48 using Formula [x.sup.2] [(o-e).sup.2]/
18 19 0.05 e it is ascertained that:
15 37.5 13.5
297 269.5 2.80 At (0.050) 95% level of significance
273 229.5 8.24 [x.sup.2] tabulated value is 12.59,
150 145 0.17 while calculated value is 82.4.
66 74.5 0.96 As calculated value of [x.sup.2] 82.4
81 125 15.48 is greater than tabulated value 12.59
[x.sup.2] for which the hypothesis stands false
(CV)= 82.4 or rejected which means the pagination
pattern of papers of both journals
are significantly varied from each
other.
07. Major Findings
07. i When approaching the task of Chronological Analysis of Papers
on the basis of the Year of Publication in Source Journal the study
explores that, the mean of papers per year is 47.36 and 50 in journals
'Language Sciences', and 'Linguistics and Education'
respectively.
07. ii With respect to the authorship pattern of papers the present
work illustrates that, 'solo authorship' is the principal
pattern which dominates over 'collaborative authorship' in
both the journals.
07. iii Authors' ranking is one of the striking part in a
bibliometric study which is unavoidable and worth publishing. As the
study proves that, 'Yuh-Fang Chang', and 'Angela
Creese' author posed first rank accounting highest number of papers
to their credit such as: 47 and 27 in first and second journal
respectively. 07. iv Nail hypothesis stands true or accepted and it is
concluded that, there is no significant variation in the mean estimation
of research papers of both journals with the application of Chi-Square
([x.sup.2]) test.
07. v It is also interesting to focus over the geographical
contributors as addressed in the present study discloses that, USA is
one of the pride regions of the globe to have largest number of papers
i. e. 139 and 220 contribution to both journals categorically is quite
significant.
07. vi It is a scholarship of excellence to highlight the
institutional contributors as the resultant data discovers in the
present study, 'National Chung Hsing University' of Taiwan,
and 'University of California' of Canada are top ranking
players in terms of their research productivity such as: 47 and 62
number of papers contributed to two different journals.
07. Vii In light of the citation pattern of papers the outcomes
indicates the credibility of degree of usage of papers by different
scholars, researchers, investigators and academics. In this context the
present study connotes that, 853, and 734, a wide number of papers under
two different journals receive 1-25 citations, which accounts
approximately 95, and 82 percent of total citations.
07. Viii Applying Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test using Formula
[x.sup.2] [(o-e).sup.2]/e the citation patterns of papers of both
journals are significantly varied from each other and the hypothesis
stands false or rejected.
07. ix In the investigation of pagination pattern of whole papers
undertaken for the present study unfolds that 242, and 297, both journal
papers page length is preferably 11-15 pages as shown in table 10, which
denotes a sign of narrower opportunity to the authors/researchers for
presenting their research literature with devoid of a wider page limits,
although certain papers are found to have pages range from 31 and above
in both journals.
07. x Applying Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) test using Formula [x.sup.2]
[(o-e).sup.2]/e it is ascertained that, the pagination pattern of papers
of both journals are significantly varied from each other and the
hypothesis stands false.
8. Conclusion
In conclusion, the finding of the present study corroborates and
provides an attractive snapshot of research trend of leading
researchers, scholars, authors, Geographical and institutional
contributors at international arena. The study views that, the
unilateral authorship pattern is significantly dominating over
collaborated authorship found prominence in above two journals. By and
large, the USA claims leadership in competitive positioning among other
geographical contributors with increasing number of research output as
seen in both the journals undertaken for the present work. As those
institutions such as: National Chung Hsing University of Taiwan and
University of California of Canada that achieve top rank among the
most prominent in terms of research productivity hosts 47 and 62 papers
respectively in two different journals which might be expressed as a
prolific nature of scholarship. Conclusively, the researchers are so far
agree and hope the present work findings have important implications for
library practitioners, and must enhance the scholarship of prominence in
the area of research as an opportunity for the forth coming researchers,
scholars and academics as a whole.
Reference
(1.) Dutt, B., Garg, K.C., & Bali, A. (2003).Scientometrics of
the international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics. 56(1): 81-93.
(2.) Moin, M., Mahmoudi, M., & Rezaei, N. (2005).Scientific
output in Iran at the threshold of the 21st century. Scientometrics.62:
239-248.
(3.) Mukherjee, B. (2008).Scholarly literature from selected
universities of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh: A pilot study. LIBRES.18(1).
Retrieved from http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres18n1/Mukherjee_Final_rev.pdf
(4.) Garfield, E. From The Science of Science to Scientometrics:
Visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Presented at
11th ISSI Itnernational Conference, Madrid, 25 June 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/issispain2007.pdf
(5.) Glossary of Thompson scientific terminology. The Thompson
Corporation. 2008. Retrieved from
<http://science.thomsonreuters.com/support/patents/patinf/terms/>
(6.) Hood, W.W. & Wilson, C. (2001). The literature of
bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics. 52 (2):
291-314.
(7.) Lolis, S. F. & et. al. (2009).Scientometrics analysis of
energetic ecology: Primary production of aquatic macrophytes. Maringa.
31 (4): 363-369.
(8.) Meadow, C.A. and Zaorowski, M.A. (1979).Some statistical
aspects of JASIS publications. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science. 30 (6): 368-71.
(9.) Sethi, B B and Panda, K C. (2014).Measuring Research
Excellence with two journals in Social Sciences: A Scientometric sketch.
Library Philosophy and Practice. paper 1051. (Available at:
http://diqitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1051)
(10.) Subramanyam. K. (1982).Bibliometric Study of Research
Collaboration: A Review. Journal of Information Science. 6: 33-38.
(11.) Tague-Sutcliffe, J. M. (1992).An introduction to
Informetrics. Information Processing & Management. 28: 1-3.
(12.) Van Raan, A. F. J. (1997).Scientometrics: State-of-the-art.
Scientometrics. 38: 205 218.(Retrieved from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics)
(13.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics/
(14.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics
Barada Kanta Mohanty
Librarian, KIIMS, Cuttack, Odisha, India
[email protected]
Dr. Bulu Maharana
Sambalpur University, Odisha, India
[email protected]
Bipin Bihari Sethi
Sambalpur University, Odisha, India
[email protected]
* Corresponding Author. 917377136122 (M); E-mail address:
[email protected] (B. B.Sethi)
Table-7.1: Chronological Analysis of Papers
on the basis of Year of Publication in Source Journal
Language Sciences
Sl. No Year No. Of % C. F.
papers
1 1988 1 0.11 1
2 1995 8 0.88 9
3 1996 5 0.55 14
4 1998 1 0.11 15
5 2000 44 4.88 59
6 2001 3 0.33 62
7 2002 10 1.11 72
8 2003 49 5.44 121
9 2004 46 5.11 167
10 2005 139 15.44 306
11 2006 66 7.33 372
12 2007 99 11 471
13 2008 58 6.44 529
14 2009 102 11.33 631
15 2010 94 10.44 725
16 2011 82 9.11 807
17 2012 49 5.44 856
18 2013 38 4.22 894
19 2014 6 0.66 900
Total Year 900 100 900
coverage
(19)
Language Sciences
Sl. No C. P. Mean of Rank
papers
per Year
1 0.11 47.36 17
2 1 13
3 1.55 15
4 1.66 17
5 6.55 10
6 688 16
7 8 12
8 13.44 8
9 18.55 9
10 34 1
11 41.33 6
12 52.33 3
13 58.77 7
14 70.11 2
15 80.55 4
16 89.66 5
17 95.11 8
18 99.33 11
19 100 14
Total 100 *
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No Year No. of C. F.
papers
1 1995 1 0.11 1
2 1996 3 0.33 4
3 1998 4 0.44 8
4 2000 25 2.77 33
5 2001 27 3 60
6 2002 6 6 7.33 126
7 2003 30 3.33 156
8 2004 74 8.22 230
9 2005 163 18.11 393
10 2006 89 9.88 482
11 2007 36 4 518
12 2008 99 11 617
13 2009 88 9.77 705
14 2010 58 6.44 763
15 2011 64 7.11 827
16 2012 36 4 863
17 2013 36 4 899
18 2014 1 0.11 900
Total Year 900 100 900
coverage
(18)
* * * * *
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No C. P. Mean of Rank
papers
per Year
1 0.11 50 15
2 0.44 14
3 0.88 13
4 3.66 12
5 6.66 11
6 14 6
7 17.33 10
8 25.55 5
9 43.66 1
10 53.55 3
11 57.55 9
12 68.55 2
13 78.33 4
14 84.77 8
15 91.88 7
16 95.88 9
17 99.88 9
18 100 15
Total 100 *
* * *
Table-7.2: The extent of enlistment of Papers in top 25 hottest
papers list (considering year of publication in source journal)
Language Sciences
Sl. Frequency No. Of % Growth
No. (Original Year of Papers Rate
Publication in
Source journal)
1 1995-1999 14 1.55 9.85
2 2000-2004 152 16.90 2.05
3 2005-2009 464 51.61 -0.42
4 2010-2014 269 29.88 *
Total 899 100 *
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No. Of % Growth
No. Papers Rate
1 08 0.88 26.75
2 222 24.66 1.13
3 475 52.77 -0.58
4 195 21.66 *
Total 900 100 *
Table-7.3: Mean Estimation
Sl. Factors Journal
No.
Language Linguistics
Sciences and Education
1 Mean of Citations per Paper 08 10.12
2 Mean of Papers per Unique 4.20 4.36
Author
3 Mean of Authors per Paper 1.34 1.36
(All Authors)
4 Mean of Authors per Paper 0.22 0.22
(Unique Author)
5 Mean of Page length per paper 23.70 19.35
6 Mean of Papers per Year 47.36 50
(considering year of
publication of papers
in source journal)
7 Mean of Papers per Institution 5.88 5.92
(Unique)
8 Mean of Papers per Country 23.07 47.36
(Unique)
** 113.77 138.69
Hy: H2: There is no variation in mean
estimation of research papers of both
the journals. Chi-Square ([x.sup.2])
Formula: [x.sup.2] = [(o-e).sup.2]/e
Degree of Freedom (V) = 7 ; Calculated
Value (CV) = 6.735 ; Tabulated Value
(TV) at 0.050 or 95 % level of
significance is = 14.1 Chi-Square test
applied over the data in the table
no.7.3 with heading "Mean Estimation".
Since, [x.sup.2] calculated value is
6.735 which is less than [x.sup.2]
tabulated value 14.1, so the null
hypothesis is true or accepted. Hence,
it is concluded that, there is no
significant variation in the mean
easimation of research papers
of both the journals.
Application of Chi-Square
([x.sup.2]) Test over
Sl. Factors table number 7.3
No.
'O' 'E' [x.sup.2]
Table Table Calculated
Value (CV)
1 Mean of Citations per Paper 08 8.16 0.003
2 Mean of Papers per Unique 4.20 3.85 0.031
Author
3 Mean of Authors per Paper 1.34 1.21 0.013
(All Authors)
4 Mean of Authors per Paper 0.22 0.19 0.004
(Unique Author)
5 Mean of Page length per paper 23.70 19.4 0.953
6 Mean of Papers per Year 47.36 43.87 0.277
(considering year of
publication of papers
in source journal)
7 Mean of Papers per Institution 5.88 5.31 0.061
(Unique)
8 Mean of Papers per Country 23.07 31.73 2.363
(Unique)
** 10.12 9.95 0.002
Hy: H2: There is no variation in mean 4.36 4.7 0.024
estimation of research papers of both
the journals. Chi-Square ([x.sup.2]) 1.36 1.48 0.009
Formula: [x.sup.2] = [(o-e).sup.2]/e
Degree of Freedom (V) = 7 ; Calculated 0.22 0.24 0.001
Value (CV) = 6.735 ; Tabulated Value
(TV) at 0.050 or 95 % level of 19.35 23.64 0.778
significance is = 14.1 Chi-Square test
applied over the data in the table 50 53.48 0.226
no.7.3 with heading "Mean Estimation".
Since, [x.sup.2] calculated value is 5.92 6.48 0.048
6.735 which is less than [x.sup.2]
tabulated value 14.1, so the null 47.36 38.69 1.942
hypothesis is true or accepted. Hence,
it is concluded that, there is no ** [x.sup.2]
significant variation in the mean (CV)=6.735
easimation of research papers
of both the journals.
Table-7.4: Authorship pattern & Degree of Collaboration of papers
Language Sciences
S1 Author ship Total No. No. of
No. pattern of Of Authors papers
papers
1 Single author 700 700
2 Two authors 242 121
3 Three authors 189 63
4 Four authors 20 5
5 Five authors 25 5
6 Six author 38 6
s & More
Grand 1214 900
Total
Language Sciences
S1 Degree of % C. F. C.P
No. collaboration
1 0.22 77.78 700 77.78
2 13.44 821 91.22
3 7 884 98.22
4 0.56 889 98.78
5 0.56 894 99.33
6 0.67 900 100
Grand 100 900 100
Total
Linguistics and Education
S1 Author ship Total No. No. of
No. pattern of Of Authors papers
papers
1 Single author 680 680
2 Two author 272 136
3 Three author 207 69
4 Four author 36 9
5 Five author 25 5
6 Six author 9 1
s & More
Grand 1229 900
Total
Linguistics and Education
S1 Degree of % C. F. C.P
No. collaboration
1 0.24 75.56 680 75.56
2 15.11 816 90.67
3 7.67 885 98.33
4 1 894 99.33
5 0.56 899 99.89
6 0.11 900 100
Grand 100 900 100
Total
Table-7.5 (A): Top 15 Authors with Institutional
Affiliation of Journal "Language Sciences"
Sl. No Name of Author Affiliation to Institution
1 Yuh-Fang Chang National Chung Hsing University
2 Cliff Goddard University of New England
3 Lyle Campbell University of Canterbury
4 Paul Matychu Andrews University
5 Christophe Parisse LEAPLE, UMR
6 Anna Wierzbicka Australian National University
7 Ana Deumert Monash University
8 Christopher S. Butler University of Wales Swansea,
9 Talbot J. Taylor College of William and Mary,
10 Naomi S Baron American University,
11 Ewa Dabrowska University of Sheffield,
12 Fieke Van der Gucht Ghent University,
13 Miguel Casas Gomez Universidad de Cadiz,
14 Nigel Love University of Cape Town
15 Philip Seargeant The Open University
Total 15 Authors 15 Affiliated Institutions
Others 197 Authors 136 Affiliated Institutions
Grand 212+Data not 151+Data &out
Total available Inst. not
02=214 available in 02
*(Unique Authors) papers = 153
Sl. No No. of % C. F.
papers
1 47 5.22 47
2 42 4.67 89
3 41 4.56 130
4 33 3.67 163
5 23 2.55 186
6 20 2.22 206
7 19 2.11 225
8 18 2.00 243
9 17 1.89 260
10 16 1.77 276
11 15 1.66 291
12 15 1.66 306
13 15 1.66 321
14 14 1.55 335
15 14 1.55 349
Total 349 38.77 349
Others 549 61 898
Grand 898+2=900 100 900
Total
Sl. No Rank Mean of Mean of
Papers per Papers per
author Institution
1 1 4.20 5.88
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 11
13 11
14 12
15 12
Total *
Others *
Grand *
Total
Table-7.5 (B): Top 15 Authors with Institutional
Affiliation of Journal "Linguistics and Education"
Sl. No Name of Author Affiliation to Institution No. of
papers
1 Angela Creese University of Birmingham 27
2 Vera Futierrez- San Diego State University 25
Clellen
3 Constant Leung King's College London 24
4 J.R. Martin University of Sydney 22
5 Richard Barwell University of Bristol 21
6 Mary J University of 20
Schleppegrell California
7 Ross Forman University of Technology 20
8 Tina Sharpe Sharpe Consulting (NSW) 19
9 James Paul Gee University of Wisconsin 17
at Madison
10 Tarja Nikula University of Jyvaskyla 17
11 Susan Hood University of Technology 16
12 Valerie Hobbs University of Sheffield, 16
13 Patricia A Duff University of British Columbia 13
14 Aria Razfa University of Illinois 12
15 James Collins State University of New York 12
Total 15 Authors 15 Affiliated Institutions 281
Others 191 Authors 137Affiliated Institutions 619
Grand 206 Authors * 152 Affiliated Institutions 900
Total (Unique Authors)
Sl. No % C. F. Rank Average Average
Papers per Papers per
author Institution
1 3 27 1 4.36 5.92
2 2.78 52 2
3 2.67 76 3
4 2.44 98 4
5 2.33 119 5
6 2.22 139 6
7 2.22 159 6
8 2.11 178 7
9 1.89 195 8
10 1.89 212 8
11 1.78 228 9
12 1.78 244 9
13 1.44 257 10
14 1.33 269 11
15 1.33 281 11
Total 31.22 281 *
Others 68.77 900 *
Grand 100 900 *
Total
Table-7.6: Geographical Analysis of Papers Published in Journal
"Language Sciences" & "Linguistics and Education"
Language Sciences
Sl. No. Name of No. of % C. F. C.P Rank
Country papers
1 USA 139 15.44 139 15.44 1
2 Australia 111 12.33 250 27.78 2
3 UK 83 9.22 333 37 3
4 USA 69 7.75 402 44.67 4
5 Taiwan 55 6.11 457 50.78 5
6 France 47 5.22 504 56 6
7 France 47 5.22 551 61.22 6
8 South Africa 41 4.55 592 65.78 7
9 Belgium 38 4.22 630 70 8
10 Spain 29 3.22 659 73.22 9
11 Hong Kong 24 2.66 683 75.89 10
12 Germany 18 2 701 77.89 11
13 Israel 18 2 719 79.89 11
14 The 16 1.78 735 81.67 12
Netherlands
15 Singapore 16 1.78 751 82.43 12
16 Iran 12 1.33 763 84.78 13
17 The 12 1.33 775 86.11 13
Netherlands
18 Canada 10 1.11 785 87.22 14
Other 19 Countries 88 9.77 873 97 *
collectively
contribute
Total Data on 27 3 900 100 *
country of
origin not
available
Grand * 900 100 900 100 *
Total
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No. Name of No. of % C. F. C.P Rank
Country papers
1 USA 220 24.44 220 24.44 1
2 UK 164 18.22 384 42.67 2
3 USA 134 14.89 518 57.57 3
4 Australia 134 14.89 652 72.44 3
5 Canada 52 5.78 704 5.78 4
6 Spain 37 4.11 741 82.33 5
7 China 32 3.56 773 85.89 6
8 Singapore 26 2.89 799 88.78 7
9 Finland 18 2 817 90.79 8
10 The 14 1.56 831 92.33 9
Netherlands
11 New Zealand 11 1.22 842 93.56 10
12 Hungary 11 1.22 853 94.78 10
13 Hong Kong 10 1.11 863 95.89 11
14 Belgium 8 0.89 871 96.78 12
15 Africa 1 0.11 872 96.89 13
16 England 1 0.11 873 97 13
17 south Africa 1 0.11 874 97.11 13
18 Sweden 1 0.11 875 97.22 13
other Not Available 25 2.78 900 100 *
Grand 900 100 900 100 *
Total
* * * * * *
Table-7.7: Top 20 Productive Institutions/Institutional Contributors'
Language Sciences
Sl. No. Name of Name of
Institution Country
1 National Chung Hsing University Taiwan
2 University of New England Australia
3 University of Canterbury New Zealand
4 Andrews University USA
5 Ghent University Belgium
6 Monash University Australia
7 University of Cape Town South Africa
8 Leaple, UMR. France
9 Max Planck Institute for The Netherlands
Psycholinguistics
10 The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong
11 Australian National University Australia
12 College of William and Mary USA
13 University of Wales Swansea UK
14 American University USA
15 Baikal National Russia
University of Economics and Law
16 University of Sheffield UK
17 The Open University UK
18 Universidad de Cadiz Spain
19 University of California USA
20 National University of Singapore Singapore
Total
Publication
of 20
Institutions
Others 130 Institutions 49 Countries
Total Data not
Available
on Inst.
Grand Total *
Language Sciences
Sl. No. No. Of % C. F.
Papers
1 47 5.40 47
2 42 4.83 89
3 41 4.71 130
4 32 3.68 162
5 28 3.22 190
6 27 3.10 217
7 25 2.87 242
8 23 2.64 265
9 22 2.53 287
10 20 2.30 307
11 19 5.14 326
12 18 3.22 344
13 18 3.22 362
14 16 1.84 378
15 16 1.84 394
16 16 1.84 410
17 14 1.61 424
18 14 1.61 438
19 14 1.61 452
20 13 1.49 4 65
Total 4 65 51.66 4 65
Publication
of 20
Institutions
Others 432 48 897
Total 03 0.33 900
Grand Total 900 100 900
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No. Name of Name of
Institution Country
1 University of California Canada
2 University of British Columbia USA
3 University of Technology China
4 King's College London Canada
5 San Diego State University Spain
6 University of Sydney USA
7 University of Birmingha USA
8 University of Bristol USA
9 University of London Australia
10 University of Sheffield USA
11 Sharpe Consulting (NSW), USA
12 University of Jyvaskyla Spain
13 University of Wisconsin at Madison USA
14 Arizona State University, USA
15 National Institute of Education USA
16 University of Leeds UK
17 University of New England UK
18 Columbia University Canada
19 Northern Arizona University UK
20 Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona USA
Total
Publication
of 20
Institutions
Others 107 Institutions 41 Countries
Total Data not
Available
on Inst.
Grand Total *
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No. No. Of % C. F.
Papers
1 62 6.89 62
2 36 4 98
3 36 4 134
4 35 3.89 169
5 31 3.44 200
6 28 3.11 228
7 27 3 255
8 25 2.78 280
9 23 2.56 303
10 22 2.44 325
11 19 2.11 344
12 18 2 362
13 17 1.89 379
14 14 1.56 393
15 14 1.56 407
16 14 1.56 421
17 14 1.56 435
18 13 1.44 448
19 13 1.44 461
20 13 1.44 474
Total 474 52.66 474
Publication
of 20
Institutions
Others 401 44.55 875
Total 25 2.77 900
Grand Total 900 100 900
Table-7.8: Citation Pattern of Publication
Language Sciences
Sl. No. Citation No. of % C.F. C.P
Pattern papers
1 1-25 853 94.78 853 94.78
2 26-50 37 4.11 890 98.89
3 51-75 10 1.11 900 0.01
Grand 900 100 900 100
Total
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No. Citation No. of % C.F. C.P.
Pattern papers
1 1-25 734 81.56 734 81.56
2 26-50 57 6.33 791 87.89
3 51-75 22 2.44 813 90.33
4 Citation 87 9.67 900 100
Data not
available
Grand 900 100 900 100
Total
Table-7.9: Pagination Pattern of Papers
Language Sciences
Sl. No. Pattern of No. of % C.F C.P Rank
Pagination papers
1 1-5 20 2.22 20 2.22 7
2 6-10 60 6.7 80 8.89 6
3 11-15 242 26.89 322 35.78 1
4 16-20 186 20.66 508 56.11 2
5 21-25 140 15.56 648 72 4
6 26-30 83 9.22 731 81.22 5
7 31 and above 169 18.78 900 100 3
Grand 900 100 900 100 *
Total
Linguistics and Education
Sl. No. Pattern of No. of % C.F C.P Rank
Pagination papers
1 1-5 18 2 18 2 6
2 6-10 15 1.67 33 3.67 7
3 11-15 297 33 330 36.67 1
4 16-20 273 30.33 603 67 2
5 21-25 150 16.67 753 83.67 3
6 26-30 6 6 7.33 819 91 5
7 31 and above 81 3.44 900 100 4
Grand 900 100 900 100 *
Total