Quo vadis Web of Science? The expansion and selection criteria of the Social Science Citation Index

Bibliographic Databases: Some Critical Points

Introduction Impact Factor (IF) developed by Eugene Garfield is a grading system whose original purpose is to evaluate scientific journals and identify important journal articles (Monastersky, 2005). After Thomson Reuters Corporation intensively employs the IF to promote its products, such as Science Citation Index (SCI) or Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), the IF effect dramatically influences the academic world. For example, two indicators for academic ranking of world universities conducted by Jiao Tong University are SCI and SSCI (ARWU, 2011). To make tenure decisions, some American universities even use the IF to evaluate faculty's publications (Gary & Hodkinson, 2008). However, due to the heavy use of the IF in research, several scholars proposed warnings on the value of the IF. Seglen (1997) summarized many problems associated with the IF and suggested that the IF should not be used to evaluate research. Coleman (1999) strongly criticized the IF for its abuse in research and contented that using the IF to quantify journals' scientific impact was inappropriate. Therefore, whether or not the IF can be a reliable tool to judge researchers' works remains questionable. Currently, researchers can obtain journals' IFs by using online tools in two databases. One database called Web of Science (WoS), Thomson Reuters's product, annually analyzes and pub lishes indexed journals' IFs (Thomson Reuters, 2011a). Another database called Scopus, Elsevier publisher's product, records the information of journal citations, but does not report indexed journals' IFs, which can be obtained by manual calculation for journal citations or other websites' provided tools (SCImago, 2011). Recently, since WoS's reported IFs is commercial-orientated (i.e. payment-based Journal Citation Report), several scholars began to question its objectivity by comparing other databases' reported IFs. Pislyakov (2009) reported that the IF ranking of those indexed journals between Scopus and WoS was partially different. Grady and Hodkinson's (2008) study revealed that no significant difference on journals' IF ranking between WoS and Scopus existed. However, abovementioned studies only focus on the field of business and science. Little was known about engineering and education. In order to add knowledge base regarding the IF issue in the field of engineering and education, the current study aims to explore the difference of the IF between WoS and Scopus for engineering education and educational technology journals. The study analyzes six engineering educational journals and seven educational technology journals which are indexed both in WoS and Scopus. One research assumption is that journals' IF ranking in two databases is related since one previous study yielded a similar finding in other academic fields (Gary & Hodkinson, 2008). The research hypothesis of the study is: No significant difference exists for indexed journals' IF ranking in WoS and Scopus. Literature Discussion Concept of Impact Factor According to Thomson Reuters's official website (Thomson Reuters, 2011b), the definition of IF is calculated by dividing the number of current year citations to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. For example, if researchers attempt to obtain the IF of year 2011 for one specific journal, the calculation procedure is listed in Table 1. Currently, Thomson Reuters's WoS annually publishes one report called Journal Citation Report (JCR) in which indexed journals' IF (SSCI or SCI) is reported. In contrast with JCR, Elsevier's Scopus does not produce any IF data each year. However, Scimago Lab (2011) freely provides a web-based ranking tool which allows users to obtain IF information in Scopus database. Criticism of Impact Factor Opth of (1997) strongly criticized the use of IF in evaluating researchers' academic works. …

Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing: Introduction to the special issue

ObjectiveTo synthesise and appraise the design and impact of peer-reviewed evaluations of Indigenous cultural safety training programmes and workshops for healthcare workers in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and/or the United...

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a bibliometric analysis of scientific output of the knowledge management (KM), the aim being to offer an overview of research activity in this field and characterize its most significant aspects. In addition, this study aims to quantitatively analyze KM research trends, forecasts, and citations from 1993 to 2012 in Web of Science (WOS). Design/methodology/approach – A total of 12,925 documents related to KM research were collected from following databases: Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. These documents were carefully reviewed and subjected to bibliometric data analysis techniques. Findings – A number of research questions pertaining to patterns in scientific outputs, subject categories and major journals, author keywords frequencies, characteristics of the international collaboration, most cited papers and significant papers distribution of KM research were proposed and answered. In addition, there are five research sights on KM research are as follows: management science, computer science, information science, business, and engineering. Based on these findings, many implications emerged that improve one's understanding of the identity of KM as a distinct multi-discipline scientific field. Research limitations/implications – Comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of the analyzed KM-related data set in WOS because of some KM-centric journals are not indexed by Thomson Reuters. Originality/value – The paper offers an overview and evaluation of research activity into the KM viewed through the WOS during 1993-2012.

Dyslexia is a disorder characterized by an impaired ability to understand written and printed words or phrases. Epidemiological longitudinal data show that dyslexia is highly prevalent, affecting 10–20% of the population regardless of gender. This study aims to provide a detailed overview of research status and development characteristics of dyslexia from types of articles, years, countries, institutions, journals, authors, author keywords, and highly cited papers. A total of 9,166 publications have been retrieved from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) from 2000 to 2021. The United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany were the top three most productive countries in terms of the number of publications. China, Israel, and Japan led the Asia research on dyslexia. University of Oxford had the most publications and won first place in terms of h-index. Dyslexia was the most productive journal in this field and Psychology was the most used subject category. Keywords analysis indicated that “developmental dyslexia,” “phonological awareness,” children and fMRI were still the main research topics. “Literacy,” “rapid automatized naming (RAN),” “assessment,” “intervention,” “meta-analysis,” “Chinese,” “executive function,” “morphological awareness,” “decoding,” “dyscalculia,” “EEG,” “Eye tracking,” “rhythm,” “bilingualism,” and “functional connectivity” might become the new research hotspots.

Purpose This study aims to explore the geography of editors-in-chief to demonstrate which countries exercise the highest-level decision-making in scholarly communication. In addition, the study seeks to investigate the potential relationships between the origin and nationality of academic publishers and the geography of editors-in-chief. Design/methodology/approach The analysis involves 11,915 journals listed in Web of Science’s Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). These journals employ 15,795 scholars as editors-in-chief. The geographical locations of the institutions the editors-in-chief are affiliated with were identified; then, the data were aggregated at the country level. Findings The results show that most editors-in-chief are located in countries of the Anglosphere, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition, most academic publishers and professional organizations that publish academic journals were found to be based in the United States and the United Kingdom, where most editors-in-chief are also based. Research limitations The analysis involves journals indexed in the Web of Science’s SCIE/SSCI databases, which are demonstrably biased toward the English language. Furthermore, the study only takes a snapshot of the geography of editors-in-chief for the year 2022, but it does not investigate trends. Research implications The study maps the highest-level decision-making in scholarly communication. Originality/value The study explores and maps the geography of editors-in-chief by using a massive dataset.

Non-English languages are widely used, but their roles in scholarly communication are relatively under-explored. By using Web of Science's Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE, 1900–2015), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI, 1900–2015), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI, 1975–2015), this study probes the patterns and dynamics of non-English papers by year, citation index, and discipline using bibliometric analysis. The analyses show that English is increasingly being used as the dominating language from natural sciences and social sciences to arts and humanities. Around 97% of the papers in SCIE, 95% of the papers in SSCI, and 73% of the papers in A&HCI during the past decade were in English. However, other languages such as German and French were also used as important academic languages in sciences and social sciences during the first half of the 20th century, 1970s, and 1980s. Unlike natural science and social science disciplines, non-English papers have consistently played important role in arts and humanities disciplines from the beginning of 1975. Although the shares of non-English papers in SCIE and SSCI databases have been limited during the past decade, a large number of non-English papers can be found in some applied disciplines of sciences and social sciences.

Despite the surge of publication of chatbots in the recent years in the field of education, we have little to know how this area has been researched so far, and the metrics of this type of research is still not known. To address such gap, this article offers a descriptive bibliometric study of chatbot research in education, aiming at presenting bibliometric analysis on articles on chatbots in education that were published in journals indexed in the Web of Science (WOS) database specifically Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) between 2016 and 2023. Descriptive bibliometric analysis was used to examine the data gathered from the chosen publications. including the annual number of articles and citations, the most productive author, countries with the highest publication output, productive affiliations, funding organizations, and publication sources. The bulk of the articles on chatbots in education, according to our dataset, were published between 2016 and 2023. The United States of America tops the list of countries regarding research productivity. The United Kingdom and China were ranked as most second and third productive countries, in terms of publication outputs. “Luke Kutszik Fryer emerged as the most productive author in this research domain in terms of the number of publications.” The University of Hong Kong had the highest number of publications among affiliations, indicating their significant contribution to the field. Additionally, the journal “Computers in Human Behavior” stood out with the highest number of publications per year, highlighting its relevance in publishing research on chatbots in education. This research offers valuable insights and a roadmap for prospective researchers, pinpointing critical areas where success can be attained in the study of chatbots in education.

This paper deals with the multi-perspective bibliometric analysis of Central European scientific journals indexed in the Web of Science database and covered in the Journal Citation Reports – Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). The analysis focuses on the evaluation of the (inter) national orientation of Central European Social Science journals indexed in the period 2012 – 2015. Data were obtained from the Web of Science database on October 20, 2016. The journals are divided in two groups in favour of the scientific discipline identifying the journal in the Web of Science. The first group consists of journals belonged to public health and psychology. The second group includes all social related scientific journals covered in both the SSCI and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) databases. Journals were chosen by language versions of journals in the Web of Science, language versions of articles, authors’ most important institutional affiliations; and other statistically significant indicators provided by Clarivate Analytics. Assessment of the “openness of Central European journals” to foreign authors was analyzed on the basis of the “INO indicator” (Index of National Orientation). Statistical analyses were conducted on the articles which carry the relevant scientific information. Descriptive statistics was used for the data analysis, using frequencies, percentages and means. The results of this research showed a strong orientation towards Slovakian and Czech authors regardless of the two analyzed groups.  Based on INO, most of the Central European journals quality and impact were comparatively low.  A competitive environment has been created for journals in the social science disciplines, especially for those with competitors in neighboring countries in fields such as psychology, economics, geography and sociology. &nbsp

Communication and Teamwork in Patient Care: How Much Can We Learn From Aviation?

Construction of a pragmatic base line for journal classifications and maps based on aggregated journal-journal citation relations

This paper deals with the bibliometric study of the research concerning the San Andreas Fault System (SAFS), an extraordinary example of a complex boundary between the North of America and the Pacific plates that can be seen, followed and studied on land for hundreds of kilometers through California, in the USA. The bibliometric analysis discussed here considers the time span of 23 years, from 1991 to 2013. The bibliographic databases taken as a reference are the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) accessed via Web of Science Core Collection. After having selected the proper search terms to fix the query and extracting the useful information from the two Web of Science (WoS) databases, we performed the analysis of the outputs paying attention to the document typology and languages, journals, subject categories, authors, articles, countries, institutions, and keywords. The results of this study can (1) contribute to see how the research on SAFS has changed over the time and suggest clues about the future investigation trends, (2) help scientists or institutions to build a research network and find strategic partners, (3) suggest scientists and institutions the dissemination strategies, and (4) provide helpful information to researchers wishing to embark on work in this area.

ObjectivesTo estimate the frequency of data and code availability statements in a random sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data, summarize the content of the statements and investigate how often data and code files were shared. MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data on the effects of a health, social, behavioral, or educational intervention that were indexed in PubMed, Education Collection via ProQuest, Scopus via Elsevier, or Social Sciences Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded via Web of Science during a 4-week period (between November 2, and December 2, 2020). Records were randomly sorted and screened independently by two authors until our target sample of 300 systematic reviews was reached. Two authors independently recorded whether a data or code availability statement (or both) appeared in each review and coded the content of the statements using an inductive approach. ResultsOf the 300 included systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 86 (29%) had a data availability statement, and seven (2%) had both a data and code availability statement. In 12/93 (13%) data availability statements, authors stated that data files were available for download from the journal website or a data repository, which we verified as being true. While 39/93 (42%) authors stated data were available upon request, 37/93 (40%) implied that sharing of data files was not necessary or applicable to them, most often because “all data appear in the article” or “no datasets were generated or analyzed”. DiscussionData and code availability statements appear infrequently in systematic review manuscripts. Authors who do provide a data availability statement often incorrectly imply that data sharing is not applicable to systematic reviews. Our results suggest the need for various interventions to increase data and code sharing by systematic reviewers.

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the associations between financial debt burden and suicidal behaviours (suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts, death by suicide and attempts or death by suicide). In addition to this, this study considers various influential factors, including cultural distinctions (comparing Western and non-Western countries), work-related stressors (such as the weekly working hours and the percentage of individuals with more than 49 working hours a week), income disparities (evaluating gross domestic product [GDP] and the differences between developed and developing nations) and the potential impact of lifestyle changes (considering the year of data collection). Design/methodology/approach This meta-analysis synthesizes findings from 15 studies published from 2010 to 2023 and indexed in the Web of Science’s social sciences citation index and science citation index expanded databases to illuminate these dynamics. Findings This study reveals that roughly 12 out of every 100 debtors had suicidal ideation. At the same time, approximately 13 out of every 100 attempted suicides and about 21 out of every 100 individuals burdened by debt died from suicides. A deeper dive into cultural contexts shows that non-Western cultures exhibit higher rates of suicidal behaviours than Western cultures. Notwithstanding, the comparison between developed and developing countries shows no significant differences in suicide behaviour rates. Research limitations/implications The data is derived from a single database (Web of Science). Originality/value This study used meta-analysis as a method to investigate the associations between financial debt burden and suicidal behaviours.