Scientometric analysis of Nature Nanotechnology

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study is to examine the bibliometric characteristics of literature published in Nature Nanotechnology in the first 10 years (2006-2015). Yearly output, impact factor (IF) changes, document type, top authors, institutes and countries, most cited articles were examined. Design/methodology/approach The bibliographic records related to Nature Nanotechnology were retrieved from SCIE of Web of Science. Various software tools such as HistCite, Sci2 tool, intcoll.exe and CitNetExplorer were used. Findings The results reveals that 55 per cent of publications were citable articles; average number of authors per article was 4.57; 136 per cent increase in impact factor and reviews received highest citations per paper. Harvard University had most number of publications, whereas University of Cambridge had highest CPP among the most productive institutes. Almost 50 per cent of publications were contributed by authors from the USA; 1 per cent of total publications received more than 1,000 citations. Originality/value Scientometric analysis of high impact journals has been carried out in very few. Hence, the results of the present study will be useful to compare with low impact journals.

Publication trends in a high impact journal: the case of World Psychiatry

“…Very few publications were published as reviews, news items, etc. This large percentage of papers published as editorials contrasts with that reported in an earlier study also on a high impact journal Nature Nanotechnology where more than 50 per cent of publications were published as articles (Elango, 2017). As the journal is an organ of an international professional association, the journal expects to publish commentaries or similar items on specific themes to educate their members or the purpose to create awareness.…”

“…College London with 50 papers, followed by the University of Naples (28) and Harvard University (24). In contrast to this, Harvard University was the top most productive institution in the high impact journal Nature Nanotechnology (Elango 2017). Indeed, the top most productive institution in the field of psychiatry is Harvard University (Igoumenou et al 2014) and Harvard University also ranks first for psychology (Ho and Hartley, 2016).…”

“…Other papers by editorial board members Kallivayalil, Lieh-Mak, Lolas, Lopez-Ibor, Munk-Jorgensen and Okasha also Morgan et al (2006) First episode psychosis and ethnicity: initial findings from the AESOP study 58 Institutional Article 50 papers, followed by the University of Naples ( 28) and Harvard University (24). In contrast to this, Harvard University was the top most productive institution in the high impact journal Nature Nanotechnology (Elango, 2017). Indeed, the top most productive institution in the field of psychiatry is Harvard University (Igoumenou et al, 2014), and it also ranks first for psychology (Ho and Hartley, 2016).…”

A bibliometric analysis of literature on engineering research among BRIC countries

“…Among the top countries, China was ranked 1st in the world in terms of number of articles in the field of engineering research, India was at 8th rank, Russia was at 12th rank and Brazil was at 18th rank; Russia slipped three positions from being at the 7th rank in 1996 to being at the 10th rank in 2016, while others improved their ranks. Even though China ranked first, it has poor contribution in the high impact journals (Elango, 2017). Among the BRIC countries, China registered the highest average annual growth with 17 per cent, and the lowest average annual growth was registered by Russia with 5 per cent.…”

A grey zone for bibliometrics: publications indexed in Web of Science as anonymous

“…Baskaran (2020) has analyzed publication trends in the Information Management domain and identified that anonymous authors held most publications. By using the WoSCC, Elango (2017) has investigated the bibliometric characteristics of literature published in Nature Nanotechnology journal between 2006 and 2015 and identified that anonymous authors published 4.6%. Some studies excluded anonymous publications from their data source or search query.…”