@article{MTMT:32311635, title = {Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/32311635}, author = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Debackere, Koenraad}, doi = {10.1007/s11192-021-04133-4}, journal-iso = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, journal = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, volume = {127}, unique-id = {32311635}, issn = {0138-9130}, abstract = {Interdisciplinary research figures high on today's policy agendas. This short introduction and overview sketches the complexity of defining and mapping the nature of interdisciplinary research (IDR). The paper focuses on the different approaches to IDR and different methods applied in bibliometric studies that allow measuring it. These methods should not only be able to capture quantitative aspects of IDR but also to monitor evolutionary aspects and help answer the question of whether IDR stimulates collaboration and results in larger impact and visibility. Two specific indicators, variety and disparity, are developed, validated and applied to bibliometric data. They enable the visualization of the interdisciplinary nature of research activities at various levels of analysis (both institutional and individual). And, given the longitudinal character of bibliometric data and databases, both indicators allow for mapping time-dependent phenomena and evolutions. Relevant examples based on the literature and recent results from research conducted at the Leuven bibliometrics group of ECOOM (e.g., Glanzel et al., Proceedings of the 18(th) International Conference of the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, 453-464, 2021; Huang et al., Proceedings of the 18(th) International Conference of the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, 533-538, 2021) are given, and concrete proposals for future research are articulated.}, keywords = {SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; CITATION IMPACT; interdisciplinary research; Knowledge integration}, year = {2022}, eissn = {1588-2861}, pages = {5551-5569}, orcid-numbers = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198} } @article{MTMT:34375785, title = {Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: an alternative to Garfield's impact factor}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34375785}, author = {Gorraiz, Juan and Ulrych, Ursula and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao and Torres-Salinas, Daniel}, doi = {10.1007/s11192-022-04295-9}, journal-iso = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, journal = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, volume = {127}, unique-id = {34375785}, issn = {0138-9130}, abstract = {The aim of this study is to analyze to which extent the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) reflects the amount of excellent publications contained in a journal in the corresponding subject category. We are introducing two percentile-based indicators in order to measure the excellence contribution at journal level. Calculations of these indicators have been carried out for twenty different Journal Citation Reports (JCR) subject categories to investigate the correlation with Garfield's Journal Impact Factor. Differences in the ranking according to all three indicators especially in First Quartile (Q1) of each category are shown and discussed. We have also studied the effect of multidisciplinary journals to the excellence contribution at category level and observed considerable differences between the twenty considered categories under analysis. Their omission would lead to neglect a large part of excellent publications, especially in the hard sciences. The introduced excellence indicators are very robust considering the types of documents considered for their calculation. The results of this study show that the journal excellence content is not completely reflected in the JIF measure and affects both Science and Social Science Edition categories. Therefore, the introduction of journal excellence indicators will help to give a more complete picture of the citation impact of a journal, because they are informing directly about the total and normalized excellence contribution of each journal to the corresponding subject category. They are a valuable enrichment and complement of the JIF, and more suitable than the Journal Citation Indicator, recently added to the JCR, because they reflect the inherent skewness of the citation distribution.}, keywords = {CITATION IMPACT; JOURNALS; INDICATORS; journal impact factor; Contribution; excellence}, year = {2022}, eissn = {1588-2861}, pages = {7229-7251}, orcid-numbers = {Ulrych, Ursula/0000-0002-0549-2716; Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198; Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao/0000-0001-9437-8757; Torres-Salinas, Daniel/0000-0001-8790-3314} } @inproceedings{MTMT:34375786, title = {Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: An alternative to Garfield's impact factor}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34375786}, author = {Gorraiz, Juan and Ulrych, Ursula and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao and Torres-Salinas, Daniel}, booktitle = {Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2021}, unique-id = {34375786}, abstract = {The aim of this study is to analyze to which extent the JIF reflects the amount of excellent publications contained in a journal in the corresponding subject category. Therefore, we are introducing two percentile-based indicators in order to measure the excellence contribution at journal level. Calculations of these indicators have been carried out for five different JCR subject categories to investigate the correlation with Garfield's Journal Impact Factor. Differences in the ranking according to all three indicators especially in Quartile 1 of each category are shown and discussed. We have also studied the effect of multidisciplinary journals to the excellence contribution at category level and observed considerable differences between the five categories. In the hard sciences, their omission would lead to neglect a large part of excellent publications. Furthermore, our results hint to the fact that the introduced excellence indicators are very robust considering the types of documents considered for their calculation.This pilot study shows that the introduction of journal excellence indicators will provide a complete and more accurate picture of the citation impact of a journal than the JIF, because they are informing directly about the total and normalized excellence contribution of each journal to the corresponding subject category.}, year = {2021}, pages = {465-476}, orcid-numbers = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198; Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao/0000-0001-9437-8757; Torres-Salinas, Daniel/0000-0001-8790-3314} } @article{MTMT:32311109, title = {Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/32311109}, author = {Huang, Ying and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Zhang, Lin}, doi = {10.1007/s11192-020-03821-x}, journal-iso = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, journal = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, volume = {126}, unique-id = {32311109}, issn = {0138-9130}, abstract = {Prof. Zeyuan Liu was the first to introduce the concept of knowledge-domain mapping to the scientific community in China. Knowledge-domain maps are useful tools for tracking the frontiers of science and technology, facilitating knowledge management, and assisting scientific and technological decision-making. Science overlay mapping as a type of knowledge-domain mapping can visualize the location of research within the sciences from both snapshots at any fixed time and from a dynamic perspective. Most current science overlay maps merely show the basic landscape of a research field during specific periods, but fail to track temporal changes and interactions between different research fields. Applying an individual document-based cross-citation approach to a dataset retrieved in the Web of Science Core Collection for the period 1999-2018, we have built a global science map based on cognitive similarities across the 16 ECOOM major research fields. Using citation-link strength (CLS), we then traced information flows to better understand how the internal structures of these research fields have evolved. The paper concludes with a brief description of the emergence and development of the mapping of knowledge domains in China, in general, and highlights the contribution of Zeyuan Liu to the topic of mapping knowledge domains, in particular.}, keywords = {interdisciplinary research; Zeyuan Liu; mapping knowledge domains; Science overlay mapping}, year = {2021}, eissn = {1588-2861}, pages = {6201-6224}, orcid-numbers = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198; Zhang, Lin/0000-0003-0526-9677} } @article{MTMT:31214368, title = {Comparing capture, usage and citation indicators: an altmetric analysis of journal papers in chemistry disciplines}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/31214368}, author = {Chi, Pei-Shan and Gorraiz, Juan and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim}, doi = {10.1007/s11192-019-03168-y}, journal-iso = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, journal = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, volume = {120}, unique-id = {31214368}, issn = {0138-9130}, abstract = {In this paper we extend the perspective of the scholarly impact from the traditional citations to other forms of scientific communication among scholars in the mirror of the PlumX and Web of Science (WoS) data. There are in total eight indicators out of three categories including Captures, Citations, and Usage analysed in the study. The results of this study shows that Captures and Usage indicators measure very different aspects of research impact, although both of them show some similarity from the perspective of citations. The Characteristic Scores and Scales method was applied to different types of altmetric indicators for the first time and its robustness of the method was proved again.}, keywords = {Citations; Characteristic scores and scales; ALTMETRICS; WoS usage; PlumX metrics}, year = {2019}, eissn = {1588-2861}, pages = {1461-1473}, orcid-numbers = {Gorraiz, Juan/0000-0002-2414-3212; Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198} } @article{MTMT:31214359, title = {Hot topics and trends in cardiovascular research}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/31214359}, author = {Gal, Diane and Thijs, Bart and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Sipido, Karin R.}, doi = {10.1093/eurheartj/ehz282}, journal-iso = {EUR HEART J}, journal = {EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL}, volume = {40}, unique-id = {31214359}, issn = {0195-668X}, abstract = {Aims Comprehensive data on research undertaken in cardiovascular medicine can inform the scientific community and can support policy building. We used the publication output from 2004 to 2013 and the 2014 references to these documents, to identify research topics and trends in the field of cardiovascular disease.Methods and results Text fragments were extracted from the titles and abstracts of 478 000 publications using natural language processing. Through machine-learning algorithms, these text fragments combined to identify specific topics across all publications. A second method, which included cross-references, assigned each publication document to a specific cluster. Experts named the topics and document clusters based on various outputs from these semi-automatic methods. We identified and labelled 175 cardiovascular topics and 20 large document clusters, with concordance between the approaches. Overarching, strongly growing topics in clinical and population sciences are evidence-based guidance for treatment, research on outcomes, prognosis, and risk factors. 'Hot' topics include novel treatments in valve disease and in coronary artery disease, and imaging. Basic research decreases its share over time but sees substantial growth of research on stem cells and tissue engineering, as well as in translational research. Inflammation, biomarkers, metabolic syndrome, obesity, and lipids are hot topics across population, clinical and basic research, supporting integration across the cardiovascular field.Conclusion Growth in clinical and population research emphasizes improving patient outcomes through novel treatments, risk stratification, and prevention. Translation and innovation redefine basic research in cardiovascular disease. Medical need, funding and publishing policies, and scientific opportunities are potential drivers for these evolutions.}, keywords = {innovation; PREVENTION; OUTCOMES; Cardiovascular research; clinical care}, year = {2019}, eissn = {1522-9645}, pages = {2363-2374}, orcid-numbers = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198} } @inproceedings{MTMT:31571123, title = {RESEARCH BEYOND SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION - THE BIG CHALLENGE OF SCIENTOMETRICS 2.0}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/31571123}, author = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Chi, Pei-Shan}, booktitle = {17TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENTOMETRICS & INFORMETRICS (ISSI2019), VOL I-II}, unique-id = {31571123}, abstract = {In the present study we discuss the challenge of "Scientometrics 2.0" as introduced by Priem & Hemminger (2010) in the light of possible applications to research evaluation. We use the Web of Science subject category public, environmental & occupational health to illustrate how indicators similar to those used in traditional scientometrics can be built, and we also discuss their opportunities and limitations. The discipline under study combines life sciences and social sciences in a unique manner and provides usable metrics reflecting both scholarly and wider impact. Nonetheless, metrics reflecting social media attention like tweets, retweets and Facebook likes, shares or comments are still subject to limitations in this research discipline as well. Furthermore, Usage metrics clearly point to the manipulation proneness of this measure. Although the counterparts of important bibliometric indicators proved to work for several altmetrics too, their interpretation and application to research assessment requires proper context analysis.}, year = {2019}, pages = {424-436}, orcid-numbers = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198} } @inproceedings{MTMT:31214386, title = {Institutional research specializations identified by esteem factors and bibliometric means: A case study at the University of Vienna}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/31214386}, author = {Sorz, Johannes and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Ulrych, Ursula and Gorraiz, Juan}, booktitle = {17TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENTOMETRICS & INFORMETRICS (ISSI2019), VOL I-II}, unique-id = {31214386}, abstract = {The identification of one's own research specializations is of crucial importance for research administration at universities. In this case study, two different approaches were applied to the University of Vienna. The first relies on third-party funding and ranking results as well as on other esteem indicators. The second is based on a bibliometric analysis of the publication output. We used the Web of Science subject categories for publications clustering. In addition publications were also clustered for two esteem indicator-based research specializations (one STEM, one SSH) by means of the lists of the researchers associated with the research specializations (RS).Both approaches proved to be useful in identifying research specializations, lead to similar results and are meant to be used in a complementary way. We found that the greatest hindrance lies in the inherent limitations of journals-assignment-based classification systems that does not correspond to university structure and the considerable time and efforts for more accurate researcher-based publication analyses. Further investigation on this subject, including new and alternative metrics, is needed and will be conducted in the future. However, the preliminary results already demonstrate the benefits of bibliometric analyses for the identification of research specializations of universities.}, year = {2019}, pages = {873-884}, orcid-numbers = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198} } @inproceedings{MTMT:31214365, title = {The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: citations, usage, and social attention}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/31214365}, author = {Wang, Zhiqi and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim and Chen, Yue}, booktitle = {17TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENTOMETRICS & INFORMETRICS (ISSI2019), VOL I-II}, unique-id = {31214365}, abstract = {The objective of this paper is to explore the impact of preprints in scholarly and broader scientific communication. in particular, the following four indicators are used to examine the 550 arXiv and 5782 non-arXiv papers in three major journals in Library & Information Science (LIS): citations from Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar, usage counts in WoS, Mendeley readers and Tweets. The results show that arXiv papers have significant citation advantage across WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar in each year. Google Scholar provides statistically significantly larger number of citations and more 'early citations' than Scopus and WoS, but does not reflect greater citation advantage for arXiv papers. The impact advantage of arXiv papers can also be observed in Mendeley, but to a much lesser extent in WoS usage counts and in Tweets, indicating that arXiv papers gain broader attention than non-arXiv papers not only from users of the WoS. Mendeley readership as well as the usage counts in WoS have strong correlations with WoS citations, which are much stronger than those of Tweets. We can also conclude that unlike citations, information derived from statistics on users, readers and social media needs further exploration and in the case of social media also proper context analysis.}, year = {2019}, pages = {459-470}, orcid-numbers = {Wang, Zhiqi/0000-0003-2216-4244; Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198} } @article{MTMT:3396087, title = {Which differences can be expected when two universities in the Leiden Ranking are compared? Some benchmarks for institutional research evaluations}, url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/3396087}, author = {Bornmann, L and Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim}, doi = {10.1007/s11192-018-2700-3}, journal-iso = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, journal = {SCIENTOMETRICS}, volume = {115}, unique-id = {3396087}, issn = {0138-9130}, abstract = {The comparison of two universities in terms of bibliometric indicators frequently faces the problem of assessing the differences as meaningful or not. This Letter to the Editor proposes some benchmarks which can be used for supporting the interpretation of institutional differences.}, keywords = {IMPACT; CSS; Characteristics scores and scales; Score differences; Field-normalized indicator; Leiden Ranking}, year = {2018}, eissn = {1588-2861}, pages = {1101-1105}, orcid-numbers = {Glänzel, Wolfgang Joachim/0000-0001-7529-5198} }