A Scientometric Assessment of Global Publications in E Learning Research during 2003 to 18

Abstract

The paper provides quantitative and qualitative assessment of global publications output in the domain of e-learning research (1809 publications). The data was sourced from Scopus database during 2003-18. The study finds that global e-learning research registered 18.92 per cent annual average growth, averaged 6.90 citations per paper in a 16-year window. The distribution of global research in the subject is highly skewed as 10 out of 94 participating countries account for 62.58 per cent global publications share. A total of 449 authors from 387 organisations contributed to global e-learning research. The top 15 organisations collectively contributed 14.81 per cent global publication share and 24.52 per cent global citation share respectively. The top 15 authors contributed 7.89 per cent global publication share and and 33.45 per cent global citation share respectively during the period. Carnegie Mellon University, USA (49 papers) is the most productive organisations in the world, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan (23.29 and 3.37) is the most cited organisation. M. Vivou (24 papers) is most prolific author in the world and C.M. Chen (103.0 and 14.93) the most cited author in the subject. Computers and Education and Computers in Human Behavior (20 papers) were the leading journals publishing on this theme.

Research Trends in the Field of Emergency Remote Teaching: A Bibliometric Analysis of Open Access Literature

“…The countries that have significantly contributed to studies on ERT are the United States, Spain, the UK, People's Republic of China, and South Africa, respectively. Similarly, there are studies in the literature demonstrating that Spain, the US, the UK, and China are among the top ten countries that produce many publications in this field (Ahmad et al, 2018;Al-Zaman, 2020;Bond et al, 2021;Darsono, et al, 2020;Gupta & Dhawan, 2020;Wang et al, 2017;Yavuz, et al, 2021). Despite the difference in ranking, this result substantially matches the research findings.…”

“…The topic of how online teaching was implemented in the COVID-19 period has been addressed by several studies in the form of systematic literature review (Abu Talib et al, 2021;Turnbull et al, 2021;Bond et al, 2021;Bhuwandeep & Piyusa Das, 2020;Bond, 2020;Sezgin, 2021;Stewart, 2021), yet the analyses mostly included articles and empirical studies published in higher impact journals. Bibliometric studies designed to analyze subjects in the field of online education, trends of the subjects and relations between the subjects within the framework of an extensive literature are numerous in the field of distance education yet limited in number in the field of ERT (Amoozegar et al, 2018;Bozkurt & Zawacki-Richter, 2021;Pinto-López & Montaudon-Tomas, 2021;Yavuz et al, 2021) and e-learning (Cheng et al, 2014;Chiang et al, 2010;Fatima & Abu, 2019;Gupta & Dhawan, 2020;Harande & Ladan, 2013;Hung, 2012;Tibaná-Herrera et al, 2018a;Tibaná-Herrera et al, 2018b).…”

E-learning Research in India: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Production

“…The data set, which included 8181 articles, was analysed using measures such as growth rate, most productive authors, highly productive organisations, highly-cited papers and citation profile. Gupta and Dhawan [1] examined the global production of e-learning publications. They obtained information on 1809 articles from the Scopus database between 2003 and 2018.…”

“…Over time, e-learning terminology has evolved from online, computer-based, web-based, internet-based and virtual classrooms to digital teamwork. [1] The global spread of e-learning systems has been accelerated by advances in computer and internet technologies. E-learning management systems are intended to offer and manage training or educational information to learners, make the learning process more active and efficient, and enable them to study at their own speed in real-time and interactively.…”

“…In the current study, the author employed the bibliometric method to examine the concepts of literature on e-learning from 2010 to 2021, intending to offer a better insight into studies. In contrast, several scholars (Tibaná-Herrera et al [2][3] Fatima and Abu, [4] Gupta and Pandey, [5] Gupta and Dhawan, [1] and Das) [6] have already attempted studies to identify research trends, even though the current study differs from their study objectives, time frame, and method used.…”