Abstract
The ever-increasing evaluation of science has led to the development of indicators at different levels. Our objective is to describe and analyze the publication output of those countries that were most active in the field between 2011 and 2020 according to the data retrieved for this category in Web of Science Core Collection. To this purpose, we are using Garfield’s Impact Factor and applying this indicator for countries instead of journals. Our results show that the most publication active countries are not those that make the most impact. We also confirm that English-speaking countries dominate the scenario in terms of number of publications and that states such as Spain and the Netherlands benefit from the Emerging Source Citation Index. Furthermore, we have found that at least 30% of most countries’ scientific production involves international collaboration and that the United States of America is the collaborator of choice in “Communication Studies”. Our study corroborates that our “country-based Impact factor” provides a quick and valuable bibliometric picture in good agreement with the results supplied by other indicators such as the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI), the 5-year impact factor, or the Percentage of publications in the top 10%.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z
Arunachalam, S., & Doss, M. J. (2000). Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through coauthorship analysis. Current Science, 79(5), 621–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/24105078
Barnett, G. A., Danowski, J. A., Feeley, T. H., & Stalker, J. (2010). Measuring quality in communication doctoral education using network analysis of faculty-hiring patterns. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 388–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01487.x
Barnett, G. A., & Feeley, T. H. (2011). Comparing the NRC and the faculty hiring network methods of ranking doctoral programs in communication. Communication Education, 60(3), 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.558202
Barnett, G. A., Huh, C., Kim, Y., & Park, H. W. (2011). Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: A network analysis. Scientometrics, 88(2), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0381-2
Batagelj, V. (2008). Analysis of large networks with Pajek. Networks, 94, 22–27
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), 10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Citation impact of papers published from six prolific countries: A national comparison based on InCites data. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0680
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.006
Cervi, L., Simelio, N., & Tejedor Calvo, S. (2020). Analysis of journalism and communication studies in Europe’s top ranked universities: Competencies aims, and courses. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1762505
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
Csajbók, E., Berhidi, A., Vasas, L., & Schubert, A. (2007). Hirsch-index for countries based on essential science indicators data. Scientometrics, 73(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1859-9
De Filippo, D. (2013). Spanish scientific output in communication sciences in WOS. The scientific journals in SSCI (2007–12). Comunicar, 21(41), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-02
De Filippo, D., & Gorraiz, J. (2020). Is the emerging source citation index an aid to assess the citation impact in social science and humanities? Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), 101088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101088
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. Science, 122, 108–111
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.2307/1735096
Garfield, E. (1976). Journal Citation Reports. A Bibliometric Analysis of References. (E. Garfield, Ed.). Institute for Science Information.
Gingras, Y., & Khelfaoui, M. (2018). Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the web of science (WoS) database. Scientometrics, 114(2), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2593-6
Glänzel, W., Chi, P. S., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). Information sources-information targets: Evaluative aspects of the scientists’ publication strategies. In 21st international conference on science and technology indicators-STI 2016. Book of Proceedings (pp. 708–717).
Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014848323806
Gómez Caridad, I., & Bordons, M. (2009). Limitaciones en el uso de los indicadores bibliométricos para la evaluación científica. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/9813
González-Riaño, M. G., Repiso, R., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2014). Repercusión de los rankings universitarios en la prensa española. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 37(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.2.1128
Gorraiz, J., Wieland, M., Ulrych, U., & Gumpenberger, C. (2020). De Profundis: A decade of bibliometric services under scrutiny. In Cinzia Daraio & Wolfgang Glänzel (Eds.), Evaluative informetrics: The art of metrics-based research assessment. (pp. 233–260). Springer.
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Hoeffel, C. (1998). Journal impact factors. Allergy, 53(12), 1225–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03848.x
Huang, Y., Zhu, D., Lv, Q., Porter, A. L., Robinson, D. K. R., & Wang, X. (2017). Early insights on the emerging sources citation index (ESCI): An overlay map-based bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 111(3), 2041–2057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2349-3
Jacsó, P. (2009). The h-index for countries in web of science and scopus. Online Information Review, 33(4), 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910985756
Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1988). A simple method for computing general position in displaying three-dimensional objects. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 41(1), 43–56.
King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311–316
Kwiek, M. (2018). International research collaboration and international research orientation: Comparative findings about European academics. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317747084
Lauf, E. (2005). National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02663.x
Leydesdorff, L., & Probst, C. (2009). The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set: The case of communication studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1709–1718. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21052
Leydesdorff, L., Wouters, P., & Bornmann, L. (2016). Professional and citizen bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators-a state-of-the-art report. Scientometrics, 109, 2129–2150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8
Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. news and world report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032324.46716.f4
Moed, H. F. (2016). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2212-y
Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81(1), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2119-y
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349
Repiso, R., Castillo-Esparcia, A., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2019). Altmetrics, alternative indicators for web of science communication studies journals. Scientometrics, 119(2), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03070-7
Repiso, R., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2016). Características e implicaciones de la base de datos emerging sources citation index (Thomson Reuters): Las revistas en estado transitorio. Anuario ThinkEPI, 10, 234. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2016.46
Schmitz, C. C. (1993). Assessing the validity of higher education indicators. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778445
Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.-M., & Urbano, C. (2018). Journal coverage of the emerging sources citation index. Learned Publishing, 31(3), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1160
Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1849–1857. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23515
Trabadela-Robles, J., Nuño-Moral, M.-V., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & De-Moya-Anegón, F. (2020). Analysis of national scientific domains in the communication field (Scopus, 2003–2018). El Profesional de La Información. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.jul.18
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results: Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458380
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Vice-rectorate for Research of the Universidad Internacional de La Rioja by the financial support.
Funding
The present study has been financed by the Vice-Rectorate for Research, International University of La Rioja, Spain.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AMD: Investigation; Formal Analysis; Visualization; Writing – original draft. JG: Conceptualization; Supervision; Writing – review & editing. RR: Conceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing – review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moreno-Delgado, A., Gorraiz, J. & Repiso, R. Assessing the publication output on country level in the research field communication using Garfield’s Impact Factor. Scientometrics 126, 5983–6000 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04006-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04006-w