The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?
Open accessAbstract
Bibliometric methods or "analysis" are now firmly established as scientific specialties and are an integral part of research evaluation methodology especially within the scientific and applied fields. The methods are used increasingly when studying various aspects of science and also in the way institutions and universities are ranked worldwide. A sufficient number of studies have been completed, and with the resulting literature, it is now possible to analyse the bibliometric method by using its own methodology. The bibliometric literature in this study, which was extracted from Web of Science, is divided into two parts using a method comparable to the method of Jonkers et al. (Characteristics of bibliometrics articles in library and information sciences (LIS) and other journals, pp. 449-551, 2012: The publications either lie within the Information and Library Science (ILS) category or within the non-ILS category which includes more applied, "subject" based studies. The impact in the different groupings is judged by means of citation analysis using normalized data and an almost linear increase can be observed from 1994 onwards in the non-ILS category. The implication for the dissemination and use of the bibliometric methods in the different contexts is discussed. A keyword analysis identifies the most popular subjects covered by bibliometric analysis, and multidisciplinary articles are shown to have the highest impact. A noticeable shift is observed in those countries which contribute to the pool of bibliometric analysis, as well as a self-perpetuating effect in giving and taking references.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937 · Cited by 11,675
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output
Hirsch, J. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · Cited by 11,669
Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books
Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1199644 · Cited by 3,077
Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/520429a · Cited by 2,828
Visualizing a discipline: An author co‐citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995
White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(19980401)49:4<327::aid-asi4>3.0.co;2-w · Cited by 1,257
A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS
van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & van den Berg, J. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21421 · Cited by 888
Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities
Wallin, J. A. (2005) · Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology · doi:10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x · Cited by 884
Self-citationJournal of the American Society for Information Science
(1984) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630350221 · Cited by 768
An introduction to informetrics
Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-g · Cited by 758
Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?
Weingart, P. (2005) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7 · Cited by 602
Cited by
How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 · Cited by 14,329
Bibliometric analysis: The main steps
Passas, I. (2024) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia4020065 · Cited by 842
How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal
Öztürk, O., Kocaman, R., & Kanbach, D. K. (2024) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0 · Cited by 719
Moosavi, J., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., & Dulebenets, M. A. (2022) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102983 · Cited by 451
Kumar, S., Sharma, D., Rao, S., Lim, W. M., & Mangla, S. K. (2025) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-021-04410-8 · Cited by 437
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A.
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2015-07-28
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1809-1831
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W1021000864
- Cited by
- 3,115
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 18.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
- The paper
- Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.