Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  bibliometric
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

A Bibliometric Analysis on the Research Trends of Gamification in Higher Education: 2010-2020

100%
Bagher Khatibi M., Badeleh A., Khodabandelou R.
The New Educational Review
|
2021
|
vol. 65
17-28
EN
Research on gamification shows that it has positive impacts on learning, performance, motivation, and engagement. To have a big picture on gamification research in higher education, a combination of bibliometric and thematic analysis was conducted. For this study, a total of 432 documents from 2010 to 2020 which have been indexed in Web of Science database are investigated. Additionally, the researchers analyzed a group of 10 articles to review how much contribution they had to the body of research. General tendencies in the way gamification has been changing or developing in academic literature were scrutinized from the perspective of a variety of different factors including the time the works were published; the areas of the research field; and the authors, organizations, countries, and co-authorship publishing the most number of works in the issue. The possible future applications and results for educational organizations and academicians, top academic decision-makers, and educationists are discussed.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Mapping the Borderline Personality Disorder: A Bibliometric Analysis

88%
Gull M., Husain A.
The New Educational Review
|
2022
|
vol. 67
221-236
EN
Bibliometric analysis is instrumental in analysing and documenting the publication trends of a particular variable over time. In the framework of Bibliometric analysis, this study investigates the trends of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Data were retrieved from the Scopus database between 2010 and 2020. Further, the study was delimited to psychology, social sciences, and arts and humanities subjects only. Publications produced in English were considered for the study. In the backdrop of the selection scheme, a total of 1453 publications were extracted from the database. It is evident from the analysis that there is a significant difference between the number of citations with respect to year of publishing and type of publication. Review papers score a greater number of citations. Both national and international collaborations should be supported to produce quality publications.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Cytowania członków komitetów naukowych Polskiej Akademii Nauk według Google Scholar

51%
Siłka P., Śleszyński P., Jaworska B.
Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa
|
2016
|
vol. 52
|
issue 4(210)
529-560
PL
W artykule przedstawiono kompleksową analizę cytowań polskich naukowców będących członkami komitetów naukowych Polskiej Akademii Nauk. W szczególności zajmowano się, w miarę możliwości, porównaniem różnych dziedzin nauki, ale też wykazaniem, że nie zawsze takie porównania są uprawnione. Na podstawie wyszukiwarki Google Scholar (Publish or Perish 3.0) według stanu na połowę 2013 roku zgromadzono informację o 1,1 mln cytowań dla 3033 osób, będących członkami 95 komitetów naukowych. Analizę przedstawione w trzech aspektach: ogólnej populacji badaczy, poszczególnych komitetów naukowych oraz sześciu podstawowych dziedzin nauki (na podstawie podziału nauk OECD). Wyniki potwierdzają istnienie różnic pomiędzy dziedzinami nauki, wynikających zarówno ze specyfi ki dziedzinowej, jak też różnej kultury i tradycji cytowań badaczy.
EN
The article presents a comprehensive analysis of citations of Polish scientists who are members of the scientifi c committees of the Polish Academy of Sciences. In particular, they dealt with comparing different fi elds of science, but also showing that it is not always such comparisons are legitimate. Based on Google Scholar (Publish or Perish 3.0) in 2013 information about the 1.1 million citations for 3033 people, 95 are members of the scientifi c committees were gathered. The analysis is presented in three aspects: the general population researchers, various scientifi c committees and the six main fi elds of science (on the basis of the OECD division of science). The results confi rm the existence of differences between the fi elds of science, under both the specifi cs of domain, as well as different cultures and traditions citations researchers.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.