2020
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sample size in bibliometric analysis

Abstract: While bibliometric analysis is normally able to rely on complete publication sets this is not universally the case. For example, Australia (in ERA) and the UK (in the RAE/REF) use institutional research assessment that may rely on small or fractional parts of researcher output. Using the Category Normalised Citation Impact (CNCI) for the publications of ten universities with similar output (21,000–28,000 articles and reviews) indexed in the Web of Science for 2014–2018, we explore the extent to which a ‘sample… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
47
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
47
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…By virtue of this targeted strategy, this study selected 2003 documents of six types. In order to conduct a bibliometric analysis, 1000 research articles were found good enough for the assessment of various metrics (Rogers et al 2020 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By virtue of this targeted strategy, this study selected 2003 documents of six types. In order to conduct a bibliometric analysis, 1000 research articles were found good enough for the assessment of various metrics (Rogers et al 2020 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note Bibliometric analysis was conducted for only 443 (primary) documents as 73 (secondary) documents lack full data (affiliation, abstract and keywords) bibliometric data was sufficient, but only 443 ECR articles were included in science mapping (e.g., co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, and keyword analyses using VOSviewer [23] and Gephi [24]) as full bibliometric data was required. This collection of articles met the minimum sample size of 200 articles for bibliometric analysis recommended by Rogers, Szomszor, and Adams [25].…”
Section: Network Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is generally accepted that citations should be normalized by year of publication, discipline, and document type, although whether the calculation should be based on the average of ratios (Opthof & Leydesdorff, 2010;Waltman et al, 2011) or ratio of averages (Moed, 2010;Vinkler, 2012) is contentious (Larivière & Gingras, 2011), as is the selection of counting methodology (Potter et al, 2020;Waltman & van Eck, 2015). Suitable sample size is key to providing robust outcomes (Rogers et al, 2020), and any choices made with respect to category scheme used and indicator choice should influence interpretation of results (Szomszor et al, 2021).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%