This paper reports on a bibliometric study of the characteristics and impact of research in the library and information science
(LIS) field which was funded through research grant programs, and compares it with research that received no extra funding.
Seven core LIS journals were examined to identify articles published in 1998 that acknowledge research grant funding. The
distribution of these articles by various criteria (e.g., topic, affiliation, funding agency) was determined. Their impact
as indicated by citation counts during 1998–2008 was evaluated against that of articles without acknowledging extra funding
and published in the same journals in the same year using citation data collected from Scopus’ Citation Tracker. The impact
of grant-funded research as measured by citation counts was substantially higher than that of other research, both overall
and in each journal individually. Scholars from outside LIS core institutions contributed heavily to grant-funded research.
The two highest-impact publications by far reported non-grant-based research, and grant-based funding of research reported
in core LIS journals was biased towards the information retrieval (IR) area, particularly towards research on IR systems.
The percentage of articles reporting grant-funded research was substantially higher in information-oriented journals than
in library-focused ones.
With the primary goal of exploring whether citation analysis using scientific papers found on the Web as a data source is
a worthwhile means of studying scholarly communication in the new digital environment, the present case study examines the
scholarly communication patterns in XML research revealed by citation analysis of ResearchIndex data and SCI data. Results
suggest that citation analysis using scientific papers found on the Web as a data source has both advantages and disadvantages
when compared with citation analysis of SCI data, but is nonetheless a valid method for evaluating scholarly contributions
and for studying the intellectual structure in XML research.
This study is an attempt to approach the intellectual structure of the stem cell research field 2004–2009 through a comprehensive author co-citation analysis (ACA), and to contribute to a better understanding of a field that has been brought to the forefront of research, therapy and political and public debates, which, hopefully, will in turn better inform research and policy. Based on a nearly complete and clean dataset of stem cell literature compiled from PubMed and Scopus, and using automatic author disambiguation to further improve results, we perform an exclusive all-author ACA of the 200 top-ranked researchers of the field by fractional citation count. We find that, despite the theoretically highly interdisciplinary nature of the field, stem cell research has been dominated by a few central medical research areas—cancer and regenerative medicine of the brain, the blood, the skin, and the heart—and a core of cell biologists trying to understand the nature and the molecular biology of stem cells along with biotechnology researchers investigating the practical identification, isolation, creation, and culturing of stem cells. It is also remarkably self-contained, drawing only on a few related areas of cell biology. This study also serves as a baseline against which the effectiveness of a range of author-based bibliometric methods and indicators can be tested, especially when based on less comprehensive datasets using less optimal analysis methods.