BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS IN INFORMATION SCIENCE: ANALYSIS OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE RESEARCHERS ABOUT METRIC STUDIES IN THE SCOPUS BASIS
This research aims at analyzing the indicators of impact and relevance – total of published articles, average of citations, total number of citations and index h of the most productive researchers in the “Metric Studies” field, within periods of the Scopus base by means of a correlation study, deter...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2011 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
| Repositorio: | Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:periodicos.ufmg.br:article/22742 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/pci/article/view/22742 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | estudos métricos indicadores bibliométricos produção científica indicadores de citação índice h. |
| Sumario: | This research aims at analyzing the indicators of impact and relevance – total of published articles, average of citations, total number of citations and index h of the most productive researchers in the “Metric Studies” field, within periods of the Scopus base by means of a correlation study, determining the best equation of regression of index h due to the total of citations, as well as to all other indicators under analysis. As research procedure, we used the search terms “bibliometr* OR scientometr* OR infometr* OR webometr* OR informetr* OR webmemetr* OR paentometr*”, obtaining 36 researchers as the most productive ones. For each indicator, the following descriptive statistics were calculated: maximum, minimum, average, standard deviation and coefficient of variation. The coefficient of correlation of Pearson was calculated and adjusted to the equation of regression of index h due to the total of citations. The equation of multiple regression was identified, from index h due to the other indicators. Concluding, we highlight the need for a matching of such indicators to broadly describe a researcher’s multifaceted profile, seeing the complementarity of information provided by the indicators of productivity and impact, from distinctive nature. |
|---|