Ilościowa analiza wykorzystania oprogramowania w badaniach bibliometrycznych

• Authors: Jachimczyk Adam

Title variants

EN

Quantitative Analysis of the Use of Software Tools in Bibliometric Studies

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

Cel/Teza: Celem analizy było prześledzenie częstości wykorzystania oprogramowania bibliometrycznego oraz aplikacji do analizy sieci społecznych przez badaczy publikujących teksty o tematyce bibliometrycznej. Koncepcja/Metody badań: Artykuły wraz z danymi bibliograficznymi zostały pobrane z serwisu Public Library of Science (PLoS). Do zidentyfikowania publikacji wykorzystano pakiet rplos. Nazwy aplikacji stosowanych w analizach bibliometrycznych ustalono na podstawie literatury przedmiotu oraz witryn internetowych poświęconych tej problematyce. Ogółem w analizie uwzględniono 52 aplikacje, w tym 38 bibliometrycznych i 14 programów do analizy sieci społecznych. Wyniki i wnioski: Łącznie znaleziono 144 artykuły, w których było wymienione przynajmniej jedno oprogramowanie bibliometryczne lub do analizy sieci społecznych. W publikacjach wymieniono 57.69% aplikacji spośród 52, które stały się przedmiotem analizy. Badacze wykorzystali przynajmniej raz 52.63% aplikacji bibliometrycznych oraz 71.43% programów do analizy sieci społecznych. Wśród oprogramowania wyraźnie dominują dwa programy: Gephi i VOSviewer, z których każdy był wskazywany przez badaczy w ponad 20% artykułów. Oryginalność/Wartość poznawcza: Analiza pokazuje znaczenie określonego oprogramowania w analizach bibliometrycznych. Identyfikuje najczęściej wykorzystywane oprogramowanie oraz ewolucję jego wykorzystania w ostatniej dekadzie.

EN

Purpose/Thesis: The article examines the extent to which researchers used the software in bibliometric analyses published in the Public Library of Science (PLoS). Approach/Methods: The articles and the metadata were downloaded from PLoS. The rplos package was used to select relevant publications. The most popular software tools employed in bibliometric analysis were identified basing research literature and relevant websites. The analysis covered 52 tools: 38 designed specifically for bibliometric analysis and 14 for social network analysis. Results and conclusions: The use of bibliometric and social network analysis software was evidenced in 144 articles. The researchers mentioned 57.69% of analyzed applications. They used 52.63% of bibliometric software tools and 71.43% social network analysis tools at least once. Gephi and VOSviewer were mentioned most ofte. These applications were cited in more than 20% of examined articles. Originality/Value: The results indicate the importance of specific software tools for bibliometric analysis. The article identifies the most often used programs and the patterns of usage from the last decade.

Keywords

PL

Analiza sieci społecznych; Bibliometria; Oprogramowanie; Wykorzystanie oprogramowania

EN

Bibliometrics; Social network analysis; Software; Software usage

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Bibliotekarzy Polskich i Wydział Dziennikarstwa, Informacji i Bibliologii. Uniwersytet Warszawski
• Journal: Zagadnienia Informacji Naukowej - Studia Informacyjne
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 59
• Issue: 2(118)
• Pages: 40-57

Dates

received

2021-10-23

revised

2021-12-17

accepted

2021-12-23

Contributors

author

Jachimczyk Adam

• Katedra Bibliografii i Dokumentacji Wydział Dziennikarstwa, Informacji i Bibliologii Uniwersytet Warszawski

References

• Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained From the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062
• Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
• Bales, M. E., Wright, D. N., Oxley, P. R., Wheeler, T. R. (2020). Bibliometric Visualization and Analysis Software: State of the Art, Workflows, and Best Practices [online] [19.12.2021], https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/69597
• Bouchard, L., Albertini, M., Batista, R., de Montigny, J. (2015). Research on Health Inequalities: A Bibliometric Analysis (1966–2014). Social Science & Medicine, 141, 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.022
• Chamberlain, S., Boettiger, C., Ram, K., rOpenSci (2021). rplos: Interface to the Search API for “PLoS” Journals (Version 1.0.0) [online]. Cran R-Project, [19.12.2021], https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rplos/index.html
• Clarivate (2021). HistCite: No longer in active development or officially supported [online]. Clarivate [19.12.2021], https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/HistCite-Nolonger-in-active-development-or-officially-supported?language=en_US
• Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. (2011). Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study Among Tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
• Cooper, I. D. (2015). Bibliometrics Basics. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 103(4), 217–218. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536–5050.103.4.013
• CRAN (n.d.). The Comprehensive R Archive Network [online], [19.12.2021], https://cran.r-project.org/
• Cronin, B. (2015). Getting Started in Social Network Analysis with NETDRAW [online] [19.12.2021], https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74244341.pdf
• Decan, A., Mens, T., Claes, M., Grosjean, P. (2015). On the Development and Distribution of R Packages [online]. Proceedings of the 2015 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops [19.12.2021], https://doi.org/10.1145/2797433.2797476
• Dembe, A. E., Partridge, J. S., Geist, L. C. (2011). Statistical Software Applications Used in Health Services Research: Analysis of Published Studies in the U.S. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 252. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472–6963-11–252
• Du, C., Cohoon, J., Lopez, P., Howison, J. (2021). Softcite Dataset: A Dataset of Software Mentions in Biomedical and Economic Research Publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(7), 870–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24454
• Du, C., Howison, J., Lopez, P. (n.d.). Softcite: Automatic Extraction of Software Mentions in Research Literature [online] [19.12.2021], https://scinlp.org/history/2020/pdfs/softcite-automaticextraction-of-software-mentions-in-research-literature.pdf
• Elie, L., Granier, C., Rigot, S. (2021). The Different Types of Renewable Energy Finance: A Bibliometric Analysis. Energy Economics, 93, 104997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104997
• Gentleman, R. C., Carey, V. J., Bates, D. M., Bolstad, B., Dettling, M., Dudoit, S., ... Zhang, J. (2004). Bioconductor: Open Software Development for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. Genome Biology, 5(10), R80. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-5-10-r80
• German, D. M., Adams, B., Hassan, A. E. (2013). The Evolution of the R Software Ecosystem. 17th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSMR.2013.33
• Hamid Jamali, R. (n.d.). Scientometric Portal [online] [19.12.2021], https://sites.google.com/site/hjamali/scientometric-portal
• Howison, J., Bullard, J. (2016b). Software in the Scientific Literature: Problems With Seeing, Finding, and Using Software Mentioned in the Biology Literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2137–2155. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23538
• Howison, J., Deelman, E., McLennan, M. J., Ferreira da Silva, R., Herbsleb, J. D. (2015). Understanding the Scientific Software Ecosystem and Its Impact: Current and Future Measures. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv014
• Hutchins, B. I., Baker, K. L., Davis, M. T., Diwersy, M. A., Haque, E., Harriman, R. M., ... Santangelo, G. M. (2019). The NIH Open Citation Collection: A Public Access, Broad Coverage Resource. PLOS Biology, 17(10), e3000385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000385
• Joppa, L., Mcinerny, G., Harper, R., Salido, L., Takeda, K., O’Hara, K., ... Emmott, S. (2013). Troubling Trends in Scientific Software Use. Science (New York, N.Y.), 340, 814–815. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231535
• Kammerer, K., Göster, M., Reichert, M., Pryss, R. (2021). Ambalytics: A Scalable and Distributed System Architecture Concept for Bibliometric Network Analyses. Future Internet, 13(8), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13080203
• Kaur, J., Hoang, D. T., Sun, X., Possamai, L., JafariAsbagh, M., Patil, S., Menczer, F. (2012a). Scholarometer: A Social Framework for Analyzing Impact Across Disciplines. PLOS ONE, 7(9), e43235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043235
• Kaur, J., Hoang, D. T., Sun, X., Possamai, L., JafariAsbagh, M., Patil, S., Menczer, F. (2012b). Scholarometer: A Social Framework for Analyzing Impact Across Disciplines. PLOS ONE, 7(9), e43235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043235
• Li, K., Yan, E. (2018). Co-mention Network of R Packages: Scientific Impact and Clustering Structure. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.001
• Li, L., Catalá-López, F., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Tian, J., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Pieper, D., Yang, K. (2016). The Global Research Collaboration of Network Meta-Analysis: A Social Network Analysis. PLOS ONE, 11(9), e0163239. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163239
• Majeed, S., Uzair, M., Qamar, U., Farooq, A. (2020). Social Network Analysis Visualization Tools: A Comparative Review. 2020 IEEE 23rd International Multitopic Conference (INMIC), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/INMIC50486.2020.9318162
• Mayernik, M. S., Hart, D. L., Maull, K. E., Weber, N. M. (2017). Assessing and Tracing the Outcomes and Impact of Research Infrastructures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(6), 1341–1359. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23721
• Meho, L. I., Yang, K. (2007). Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science Versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
• Microsoft (2021). Microsoft Excel [online] [19.12.2021], https://www.microsoft.com/pl-pl/microsoft-365/excel
• Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software Tools for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Science: An Up-To-Date Review. El Profesional de La Información, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
• Moral-Munoz, J. A., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Cobo, M. J. (2019). Science Mapping Analysis Software Tools: A Review. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 159–185). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_7
• Pajek (2007). WoS2Pajek. Package for Large Network Analysis [online] [19.12.2021], http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/WoS2Pajek/default.htm
• Pan, X., Yan, E., Cui, M., Hua, W. (2018). Examining the Usage, Citation, and Diffusion Patterns of Bibliometric Mapping Software: A Comparative Study of Three Tools. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005
• Pan, X., Yan, E., Cui, M., Hua, W. (2019). How Important Is Software to Library and Information Science Research? A Content Analysis of Full-Text Publications. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.002
• Pan, X., Yan, E., Hua, W. (2016). Disciplinary Differences of Software Use and Impact in Scientific Literature. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1593–1610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2138-4
• Pan, X., Yan, E., Wang, Q., Hua, W. (2015). Assessing the Impact of Software on Science: A Bootstrapped Learning of Software Entities in Full-Text Papers. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.012
• PLOS (n.d.). Text & Data Mining [online] [19.12.2021], https://plos.org/text-and-data-mining/
• PLOS ONE (n.d.). Materials, Softwares, and Code Sharing [online]. Plos One, [19.12.2021], https:// journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-software-and-code-sharing
• Pradhan, P. (2016). Science Mapping and Visualization Tools Used in Bibliometric & Scientometric Studies: An Overview. INFLIBNET Newsletter, 23, 19–33.
• R Foundation (2020). The R project for statistical computing [online]. The R Foundation , [19.12.2021], https://www.R-project.org/
• Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R., Rios, C. (2019). Current Concepts on bibliometrics: A Brief Review About Impact Factor, Eigenfactor Score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and Alternative Metrics. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 188(3), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5
• Schindler, D., Zapilko, B., Krüger, F. (2019). SoftwareKG [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3571350
• Schindler, D., Zapilko, B., Krüger, F. (2020). Investigating Software Usage in the Social Sciences: A Knowledge Graph Approach. The Semantic Web, 271–286. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49461-2_16
• Serrat, O. (2017). Social Network Analysis. In O. Serrat (ed.), Knowledge Solutions (pp. 39–43). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_9
• Slater, L. (2012). PubMed PubReMiner. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association Des Bibliothèques de La Santé Du Canada, 33(2), 106–107. https://doi.org/10.5596/c2012-014
• Smith, A. M., Katz, D. S., Niemeyer, K. E., FORCE11 Software Citation Working Group. (2016). Software Citation Principles. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e86. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86 Social network (2021, December 19). Social network analysis software [online]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia [19.12.2021], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_network_analysis_software&oldid=1041385709
• Starr, J., Castro, E., Crosas, M., Dumontier, M., Downs, R. R., Duerr, R., ... Clark, T. (2015). Achieving Human and Machine Accessibility of Cited Data in Scholarly Publications. PeerJ Computer Science, 1,e1. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1
• Tenner, H., Thurmayr, G. R., Thurmayr, R. (2003). Data Mining With Meva in MEDLINE. In P. Perner, R. Brause, & H.-G. Holzhütter (eds.), Medical Data Analysis (pp. 39–46). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39619-2_6
• Todeschini, R., Baccini, A. (2016). Handbook of Bibliometric Indicators: Quantitative Tools for Studying and Evaluating Research. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527681969
• VOSviewer (1.6.17). (2021). [Windows]. https://www.vosviewer.com/downloads/VOSviewer_1.6.17_exe.zip
• van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau & D. Wolfram (eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact (pp. 285–320). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
• Xu, S., Shu, G., Qiang, S., Lei, C., Xiumei, Z. (2013). Advances in Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery at Home and Abroad – A Bibliometric Analysis. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences [online], 17(20), 2732–2754.

Identifiers

DOI

https://doi.org/10.36702/zin.858