JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A Ten-year Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends in Three Leading Ecology Journals during 2003-2012
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
A Ten-year Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends in Three Leading Ecology Journals during 2003-2012
Saravanan, G.; Dominic, J.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This paper attempts to highlight quantitatively the growth and development of literature in the field of ecology in terms of publication output using the resource Web of Science. The focus of this analysis was to study the literature on ecology published in three journals, viz., Ecology Letters, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, and Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics. 2946 records were retrieved for 10 years (2003-2012). The study revealed that multiple authorship in the field with collaborations of two (30.31%) and three authors (19.89%) was dominant. The Degree of collaboration, Collaborative coefficient, and Collaborative index were calculated and the applicability of Lotka's law was tested. The study identified five-year patterns in research trends, using the three studied journals, to see if the subjects of focus changed within a decade. The most productive institution was University Calif. Davis, USA, followed by University Calif. Santa Barbara, USA, and University Queensland, Australia, and the most productive countries were the USA followed by UK and Canada.
 Keywords
Ecology;Bibliometrics;Ecology literature;Author productivity;Collaboration pattern;Lotka's Law;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Ajiferuke, I., Burrel, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degrees of co-authorship in research. Scientometrics, 14(5-6), 421-433. crossref(new window)

2.
Arunachalam, S., & Manorama, K. (1988). How good are Indian ecology journals? Journal of Information Science, 14(3), 175-179. crossref(new window)

3.
Biradar, B. S., & Mathad, S. (2000). Bibliometric analysis of ecological literature. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 199-214.

4.
Borgman, C. (1989). Bibliometrics and scholarly communication: Editor's introduction. Communication Research, 16(5), 583-599. crossref(new window)

5.
Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal, 137, 85-86.

6.
Budilova, E. V., Drogalina, J. A., & Teriokhin, A. T. (1997). Principal trends in modern ecology and its mathematical tools: An analysis of publications. Scientometrics, 39(2), 147-157. crossref(new window)

7.
Dhiman, A. K. (2012). h-index - A superior tool over Impact Factor to assess individual contribution. Paper presented at the Metrics Based Research Assessment and Evaluation: Proceedings of the National Workshop on Using Different Metrics for Assessing Research Productivity, New Delhi.

8.
Feather, J., & Sturges, P. (Eds.). (1997). International encyclopedia of Information and Library Science. London: Routledge.

9.
Garfield, E., Paris, S., & Stock, W. (2006). HistCite: A software tool for informetric analysis of citation linkage. Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis, 57(8), 391-400.

10.
Goodland, R. J. (1975). The tropical origin of ecology: Eugen Warming's Jubilee. Oikos, 26(2), 240-245. crossref(new window)

11.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572. crossref(new window)

12.
Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Babu, B. R., & Natarajan, M. (2012). Scientometric analysis of stem cell research : A comparative study of India and other countries. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 6(2), 229-252. crossref(new window)

13.
Lawani, S. M. (1980). Quality collaboration and citations in cancer research: A bibliometric study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Florida State University, USA.

14.
Liao, J., & Huang, Y. (2014). Global trend in aquatic ecosystem research from 1992 to 2011. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1203-1219. crossref(new window)

15.
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-325.

16.
Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka's law: A testing procedure. Information Processing and Management, 21, 305-320. crossref(new window)

17.
Parker, J., Allesina, S., & Lortie, C. (2013). Characterizing a scientific elite (B): Publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 94(2), 469-480. crossref(new window)

18.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography: An interim bibliography. London: New Western Polytechnic School of Librarianship.

19.
Rowlands, I. (2005). Emerald authorship data, Lotka's law and research productivity. Aslib Proceedings, 57(1), 5-10. crossref(new window)

20.
Saravanan, G., Dominic, J., & Savithry, T. K. (2013). Research trends in tropical ecology 2007-2011: A bibliometric analysis. Paper presented at the Libraries in the Changing Dimensions of Digital Technology Festschrift in Honour of Prof. D. Chandran, Professor & Head, Department of Library and Information Science, S.V. University, Tirupati, New Delhi.

21.
Sengupta, I. N. (1985). Bibliometrics: A bird's eye view. IASLIC Bulletin, 30(4), 167-174.

22.
Stiling, P. (1999). Ecology: Theories and application. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

23.
Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33-38. crossref(new window)

24.
Thanuskodi, S., & Venkatalakshmi, V. (2010). The growth and development of research on ecology in India: A bibliometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 359. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/359.