A leading bibliometric author does not have a dominant contribution to research based on the CJAL score: Bibliometric analysis

Abstract

Background: A total of 22,367 bibliometric articles have been indexed by Web of Science (WoS). The most significant contribution to the field has not yet been identified through bibliometric analysis. A comparison of individual research achievements (IRAs) and trend analysis of article citations are required after extracting bibliometric articles. The study aimed to confirm whether the leading author has a dominant RA and which articles are worth reading for readers using trend analysis. Methods: We identified authors with at least 100 articles related to bibliometrics in the WoS core collection. A total of 399 articles were collected to cluster author collaborations. Co-word analysis and chord diagrams were used to match chief authors in clusters with Keywords Plus in WoS core collection. The category, journal impact factor, authorship, and L-index (CJAL) score and the absolute advantage coefficient (AAC) were used to compare IRAs and identify the leading author who dominated the field significantly beyond the next 2 authors. In addition to network charts and chord diagrams, 4 visualizations were used to report study results, including a Sankey diagram, a dot plot, a temporal trend graph, and a radar plot. The temporal bubble graph was used to select articles that deserve to be read. Results: The top 3 authors were Lutz Bornmann, Yuh-Shan Ho, and Giovanni Abramo, with CJAL scores of 176.22, 176.02, and 112.06, respectively, from Germany, Italy, and Taiwan. Based on the weak dominance coefficient (AAC = 0.20 < 0.70), it is evident that the leading bibliometric author has no such significant power beyond the next 2 leading authors in IRAs. A trend analysis of the last 4 years was used to illustrate the 2 articles that deserve to be read. Conclusion: Three leading authors were identified through a co-word analysis of bibliometrics. There was no evidence of an author who possessed a dominant position due to a lower AAC on the leading author. The CJAL score and the AAC can be applied to many bibliographical studies in the future rather than being limited to bibliometric studies that evaluate the leading authors in a field, as we did in this study.

Analysis of citation trends to identify articles on delirium worth reading using DDPP model with temporal heatmaps (THM): A bibliometric analysis

“…Third, this study requires considerable computation to calculate the CJAL score. [18,26] In the future, dedicated software will be required for development.…”

“…Fourth, although the radar plot combined with the CJAL score [18,26] was recommended to simplify article spaces when compared to other traditional bibliographical studies with many tables and graphs, the RAs are determined by many other factors that should be considered when drawing the radar plot in the future.…”

Classification and citation analysis of the 100 top-cited articles on nurse resilience using chord diagrams: A bibliometric analysis

“…The themes mapped for each of the T100NurserR articles and country-based author collaborations using their Keywords Plus in WoS were represented through chord diagrams. [36,[38][39][40]…”

“…Moreover, many articles include many tables and graphs in bibliometrics without utilizing radar plots and chord diagrams to condense information that is of interest to readers, as we did in Figures 1 and 2, especially using the dot plot in Figure 5 to display all those T100NurseR articles on a dashboard and save space compared to those with 100 and 50 articles listed in their studies [67,68] or 42 tables and graphs in an article. [69] To visualize dynamics related to contraceptive use and to apply data, chord diagrams [36,[38][39][40] were used. A dashboard (such as those shown in Figs.…”

A Comparative Analysis of Spine-Related Research Achievements between Authors in Neurology and Orthopedics: Differences in Productivity and Collaboration Patterns

“…To compare the research activities (RAs) of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, a CJAL score [21,22] that considers article category, journal impact factors (JIFs), authorships, and L-indices (on article citation) [23] is necessary. The second research question focuses on this RA comparison, which was based on the total CJAL scores and mean citations.…”