1

CHAPTER - 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

The review of literature is an important component of any research

study. It helps the researcher to frame the research study on the chosen topic by

providing new ideas, concepts, methods, techniques and approaches. Review of

literature suggests new avenues of approach to the solution of a chosen

problem. In this chapter, an attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive

review of related literature on the chosen topic.

For this purpose, a retrospective search of literature was carried out by

using LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) Database, Web of

Science database (Science Citation Index), Emerald and Springer e-journals

full-text database. Attempts were also made to trace and collect the relevant

original research papers and related documents, journal articles, conference

papers etc.

Nederhof (1985) analyzed the total number of citations to all previous

publications ("the life work") to evaluate the research output of Dutch

professors of sociology. The study suggested that simple counting of citations

might lead to unreliable results. Dependent upon recency of publication period,

large variations in rankings and citation scores were observed. The percentage

of self-citations varied between 0% and 43%. In conclusion, authors suggest

fine-tuned assessment of research output and longitudinal analysis seems to be

called for.

Folly et al. (1991) on testing some methodological problems in ranking

scientists by citation analysis, carried out a citation analysis study of a sample

of 80 Hungarian scientists, authors or co-authors of a total number of 6273

papers published between 1930-1976. Citation counts were distinguished

with respect to the following categories: (I) the set of cited authors has

element(s) in common with the set of citing authors (self-citation), (II)

condition I is not satisfied, but the cited author under study, and at least

2

one of the citing authors was a co-author prior to the publication of the

cited paper, (III) none of the former criteria is satisfied. Individual

performance has been measured (a) by the sum of the yearly average

type 111 fractional citation frequencies over all papers of the author, (b) by

the sum of the yearly average citation frequency normalized to one

single-authored paper per year over the period of the author's activity, (c)-by

the same as in a, but summed up only over the most highly cited papers

"scattering upwards" from the individual's own average, (d) by the fractional

authorship, and (e) by the number of items in the author's publication list.

The results of this study reveals that the first three parameters seem to be

applicable in measuring the utility of the individual's scientific

contribution with slightly different emphasis on different aspects. These

parameters are uncorrelated to those measuring the output of individuals.

Todorov & Winterhager (1991) analyzed publication activity by a co-

occurrence method on Mike Moravcsik, a well-known physicist, to represent

the subject structure (the main topics and their links), using the INSPEC

bibliographic database. The principle underlying this method is to develop a

network based on common appearances of classification subdivisions

(headings) as well as of controlled terms in Moravcsik's document records.

The publications of Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, world‟s leading biologist

from India were biobibliometrically analyzed by Kalyane (1992). He played a

catalytic role in India's green revolution between 1960 and 1982 from April

1982 to January 1988. In this article, authors provide the in depth biographical

profile of M.S.Swaminathan, highlighting his life and contributions.

Mahapatra (1992) measured the degree of influence of Ranganathan‟s

works on Indian library and information science literature. He analyzed the

references provided in journal articles and found that after death, Ranganathan

continues to be cited frequently, especially for his works on classification and

cataloguing.

The study on long term analysis of citation counts at the micro-level

with the purpose to test the hypothesis of whether variations in the relationship

3

between the population of articles to be cited, and citing papers can affect the

indicator citation counts was carried by Giorgi (1993). He analyzed citation

counts to research papers over a 13 year period (1962-1974) in pursuit of a

new scientific hypothesis on the mechanism of action of oestrogen

hormones, which could be defined at the micro-level, revealed that during a

period of expansion of the field there was an overall fall in mean citation

counts, even to papers by with hindsight still successful groups. This fall

appeared to be related to a relatively greater increase in the number of

papers to be cited rather than in the number of citing papers.

Gupta (1993) analyzed the citations for all the publications of Xavier

LePichon pertaining to sea floor spreading for the period 1965-1979. He found

that, out of the 127 cited publications, 13 items were heavily and consistently

cited. However, the most cited article is “Sea-floor spreading and continental

drift” published in Journal of Geophysical Research (1968) which received a

total of 642 citations at the time of the study.

Kalyane & Kalyane (1993) demonstrated a detailed scientometric

analysis of publication productivity of Dr. Vinodini Reddy, a leading food and

nutrition center in S.E. Asia, with the aim of presenting the women as a "role

model" scientist in an agricultural research to encourage and create

consciousness among young women in the 21st century. The important

outcomes of this study are as follows: Out of total 141 publications during

1960-1993, 41 were single and 100 multi-authored papers. She had main

authorship in 74 papers and co-author in 67 papers. 1978 was the most

productive year with 12 publications at the age of 44. Overall collaboration co-

efficient was 0.71, and she had 67 collaborators in her collaboration team,

among them M. Mohan Ram was the strong collaborator with 17 papers.

Publication density and publication concentration was 3.13 and 20 respectively.

Among the 40 channels of communications, the Bradford's distribution of

scattering journals: the nucleus region had ten journals, linear region had 11-22

journals, and non-linear region had 23-40 Journals.

4

F. W. Lancaster et al. (1993) analyzed publications of Manfred

Kochen, a well-known information scientist with a wide area of interests, and

his influence bibliometrically was done by studying his publications between

1956-1993 and the impact of his work, i.e., citations and the contextual analysis

of citations in different areas of Kochen's influence in the library and

information science field. Kochen earned 456 citations as reflected in the

Science Citation Index and in the Social Sciences Citation Index. The authors

observed that the citations are not concentrated on a few items, but are

scattered over his entire corpus of writings. The authors felt that from the

citations in the literature of the different facets of library and information

science field, Kochen might well have been the most influential of all

information scientists.

Sinha and Ullah (1993) attempted a citation analysis to determine the

citation characteristics of periodical articles and books published by

Ramachandran in the field of cement and concrete chemistry. They found that

he was certainly a highly quoted scientist, and that his books were more cited

than his articles.

Arkhipov (1999) presented studies in which 300,000 reports in Nature

during the period 1869-1998 were reviewed. The distribution of articles by

subfields was determined. Additional sources of information included several

journals on analytical chemistry and papers of the Pittsburg conference series

during 1950-1999. The methodology used was based on the analysis of the

average age of employed instruments. The agreement between scientometric

data from various sources of information depends on the development stage of

the field of science. Calculated and measured scientometric curves were

compared, which reveals one of the key trends in the development of basic

sciences, namely, the increase in articles dealing with instrumental analytical

chemistry in Nature.

Fernandez (1999) examined educational research systems such as the

Spanish one that can be studied using scientometric tools by synthesizing 41

secondary bibliometric studies in a tertiary study, which could illuminate the

5

nature of this research system, revealing at the same time its underlying

framework. A clustering procedure reveals how this system has been

scientometrically approached throughout time.

According to Fu (1999) Unreliability in the peer review system has

made scientometrics widely adopted as an alternative to popular evaluation

tool. Scientometrics is based on citation analysis, especially the journal impact

factor, and Science Citation Index is the key data source for this information.

This presents a comparison of the use of citation as an evaluation method with

peer review. Past studies indicate that the two processes are highly correlated

as objective quantitative indicators: concluded that the use of scientometrics

can be justified as an alternative method in addition to the traditional expert

judgement of research performance.

Macias (1999) issue comprising selected papers was presented at the

Seventh International conference of the International Society for

Scientometrics and Informetrics, Colima, Mexico, 5-8 July 1999. Abstracts of

individual papers appeared in LISA.

Garg (2000) done an analysis of 766 publications by prolific authors in

scientific journals indicated that prolific authors produced about 25 percent of

the total scientific output in periodical literature in laser science and

technology. The average productivity per author is about two. Prolific authors

from most of the countries belonged to either academic or research institutions

except in the USA and Japan. Prolific authors on average made more impact

than non-prolific authors. However, the situation varied from country to

country.

Jansz (2000) contributed to a thematic issue devoted to scientometrics

research in the Benelux countries. In 1988, Le Pair postulated the existence of a

citation gap for technological research. Several case studies confirmed his

hypothesis. In the same period, the use of bibliometric indicators for policy

purposes increased. Now the citation gap was observed to cause a disadvantage

for application oriented research groups. He asserted that, this is not merely an

injustice, it also lead to suboptimum use of available funds, to the detriment of

6

science as a whole. In addition, it may, in the long term, undermine the

reputation of scientometrics as a science in its own right.

Kademani (2000) did an analysis of the citations to the publications of

Vikram A Sarabhai based on the Science Citation Index 1944-91. Among the

facets studied were the extent of citations received in terms of the number of

citations per paper and the categories of citing documents and the distribution

of citations among them; peak periods of citations; types of documents citing

Sarabhai's publications. Citing journals are identified and ranked. The

distribution of citations and citing journals according to disciplines are used to

assess impact on other disciplines. The Bradford Multiplier is calculated and a

Bradford-Zipf citograph is plotted. Ten highly cited papers are highlighted and

the time lag between the publication of a paper and its receipt of a citation is

estimated.

Kyvik (2000) described the issue devoted to scientometric research in

the Nordic countries. Abstracts of individual articles appeared in LISA.

Okubo (2000) described the issue devoted to scientometrics research in

France. Articles represented three types of work: new applications of

scientometric indicators and tools for better understanding of science;

development of measuring tools and the use of new data sources; and research

on electronic networks. Abstracts of individual articles appeared in LISA.

Rinia (2000) reported that the thematic issue was devoted to

scientometrics research in the Benelux countries. Abstracts of individual

articles appeared in LISA.

Rinia (2000) contributed to a thematic issue devoted to scientometrics

research in the Benelux countries. In the past 30 years, various scientometric

analyses have provided input data for research policy objectives of research

institutions in the Netherlands. He discussed several pioneering studies

performed on behalf of the research councils for physics and technical sciences,

which have played an important role in the early development of scientometrics

in this country. He also discussed the motives for these studies, the results and

7

the influence on research policy, and focused on relationships with present

themes in scientometric investigations.

Schubert (2000) presented a bibliography dealing with scientometric

topics of particular interest to researchers or research administrators in the

medical or medicine related fields. The 365 items were drawn from various

sources, mainly those referred in the Medline database. Items were arranged in

alphabetical order of the source journal. Each item had an identification

number to be used in the indexes. The author index contained the names and

initials of the authors (in alphabetical order) together with the identification

number(s) of their contribution. The keyword index included a selected list of

Medline's MESH (MEdical Subject Headings) type keywords as search terms

followed by the identification number(s) of matching items.

Shirabe (2000) introduced an economic method (interindustry relations

analysis) into studies of autopoietic systems and shows its application to

scientometrics, considered as the analysis of autopoietic systems. He discussed

the merits of the application and also presented an outline of a proof of a

related theorem.

Bookstein (2001) contributed to special issue of this journal on

information science argued that although the essence of scientometrics is

precise measurement, the measurement made in scientometric research is

steeped in ambiguity. He explored the nature of ambiguity in measurement,

seeking mechanisms that allow regularities to be discovered in an environment

in which ambiguity is pronounced.

Braun (2001) explained the issue devoted mainly to scientometrics on

the Internet and the Internet in scientometrics. Abstracts of individual articles

appeared in LISA.

Burrell (2001) disputed the views of Abe Bookstein who advocated the

central role of the classical Lotka Bradford Zipf 'laws' in bibliometrics and,

subsequently, scientometrics and informetrics. He contended on the one hand

that Bookstein's development (in a recent JASIST issue) lacked a rigorous

mathematical basis, and on the other that, in general, informetric processes

8

were adequately described within a standard probabilistic framework with

stochastic modelling offering the more productive approach.

Glaser (2001) discussed the methodological problems of integrating

scientometric methods into a qualitative study. Integrative attempts of this kind

were poorly supported by the methodologies of both the sociology of science

and scientometrics. Therefore, it was necessary to develop a project specific

methodological approach that linked scientometric methods to theoretical

considerations. He presented the methodological approach and used it to

discuss general methodological problems concerning the relationship between

(qualitative) theory and scientometric methods. This discussion enabled some

conclusions to be drawn as to the relationships that exist between

scientometrics and the sociology of science.

Granovsky (2001) contributed to an issue dedicated to the memory of

the Russian 'father of scientometrics', Vassily Vassilievich Nalimov (1910-

1997). Revised version of Y. V. Granovsky, Is it possible to measure science?

Nalimov's research in scientometrics, Naukovedenie (Science of Science),

(2000) 1:160-183. Translated from the Russian by Jeanna Drogalina-Nalimov.

Through an overview of his publications, traces Nalimov's contribution to

scientometric research.

Gurjeva (2001) contributed to an issue dedicated to the memory of the

Russian 'father of scientometrics', Vassily Vassilievich Nalimov (1910-1997).

He asserted that although the word 'naukometriya' (first translated as

sciencemetrics) was coined by Nalimov in 1969, this field was not his main

concern. In the work of this multifaceted and intriguing scientist and scholar,

scientometrics was only of central concern for a short period of time.

Nevertheless, it was no coincidence that Nalimov was regarded as one of the

founding fathers of scientometrics. He discussed the development of Nalimov's

style of scientometric research within the context of his distinctive approach to

the sciences, social sciences and humanities in their entirety: his probabilistic

philosophy of science and the world.

9

Hood (2001) contributed to an issue dedicated to the memory of the

Russian 'father of scientometrics', Vassily Vassilievich Nalimov (1910-1997).

Since Nalimov coined the term 'scientometrics' in the 1960s, it had grown in

popularity and was used to describe the study of science - its growth, structure,

interrelationships and productivity. Scientometrics was related to and had

overlapping interests with bibliometrics and informetrics. He presented the

origins and historical development of each of these terms. He also presented

profiles of the usage of each of these terms over time providing various

definitions of each of the terms from an examination of the literature. He

determined the size of the overall literature of these fields and showed the

growth and stabilization of both the dissertation and non-dissertation literature.

Ivancheva (2001) attempted to answer the question: why do most

bibliometric and scientometric laws reveal characters of Non-Gaussian

distributions, i.e. have unduly long 'tails'? He tried to apply the approach of the

'Universal Law' discovered by G. Stankov and used the basic principle of the

reciprocity of energy and space. He propounded a new 'wave concept' of

scientific information for explaining the well-known bibliometric and

scientometric distributions. A corollary was that 'alpha equals 1' was the most

reasonable value for the family of Zipf laws applied to information or social

phenomena.

Kademani (2001) scientometric analysis was conducted of 246 papers

by Ahmed Hassan Zewail, the Nobel laureate in chemistry (1999), published

between 1976 and 1994 in diverse fields: femtochemistry (62), reaction rates

and IVR (56), general reviews (49), coherence and optical dephasing

phenomena (27), solids: magnetic resonance and optical studies (13), liquids

and biological systems (9), local modes in large molecules (9), molecular

structure from rotational coherence (8), solar energy concentrators (7), and

other studies (6). Data was analyzed for authorship pattern with his 103

collaborators. The highest number of collaborators (38) was during 1986-1990,

followed by 30 during 1981-1985. His productivity coefficient was 0.52, which

10

is a clear indication of consistent publication productivity behavior throughout

his 19 years of research.

Marshakova (2001) contributed to an issue dedicated to the memory of

the Russian 'father of scientometrics', Vassily Vassilievich Nalimov (1910-

1997). This aimed to show some possibilities of bibliometric methods applied

to the subject index of Chemical Abstracts and to the permuterm subject index

of Science Citation Index.

Schoepflin (2001) analyzed the development of the field of bibliometric

and scientometric research using quantitative methods to answer the following

questions: Is bibliometrics evolving from a soft science field towards hard

(social) sciences? Can bibliometrics be characterized as a social science

fieldwith stable characteristics? Is bibliometrics a heterogeneous field, the sub

disciplines of which have their own characteristics? Are these sub disciplines

consolidating more and more, and are predominant sub disciplines impressing

their own characteristics upon the whole field?

Schubert (2001) presented a citation based bibliography of

scientometrics covering the period 1996-2000. The bibliography comprised all

SCI (Science Citation Index) and SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) source

items citing at least one 'Scientometrics' article (382 items in all). Papers

published in 'Scientometrics' were omitted from this compilation. The items

were arranged in alphabetical order of the source journal. There was an author

index, a geographical and corporate index, a partially permuted title word

index, and a cited paper index.

Vinkler (2001) discussed in this paper of Glanzel and Schoepflin, 'Little

scientometrics, big scientometrics and beyond?', Scientometrics, 30 (1994)

375-384, urged 'for reinforcing fundamental, methodological and experimental

research programmes in scientometrics.' However, little had been done. He

stated the opinion that under the auspices of the International Society for

Scientometrics and Informetrics, general guidelines (i.e. a manual for good

scientometric practice or a code of professional conduct) should be elaborated

and accepted. He attempted to contribute to a manual for good scientometric

11

practice by introducing definitions of some basic categories. He encouraged

authors interested in the subject to offer suggestions on how to build further the

standardized world of scientometrics.

Garg (2002) explained an analysis of 1223 papers published by India

and China during 1993 and 1997 in the field of laser science and technology

indicated that China's output was twice that of India. However, activity indices

for both the countries were almost the same. Chinese scientists preferred to

publish in domestic journals, while Indian scientists published in foreign

journals. The number of papers by Indian scientists in SCI covered journals and

journals with high normalized impact factors was more than for China; thus

India was better connected to mainstream science compared to China. The

impact made by Indian papers was more than the Chinese papers.

Garg (2002) described an analysis of 952 publications published by

Indian scientists and abstracted by 'Journal of Current Laser Abstracts' during

1970-1994 indicated that laser research in India picked up during 1978-1994

and reached its peak in 1980. The Indian output in the field of laser research

formed an integral part of the mainstream science as reflected by the pattern of

publications and their citations in the international literature. Laser research

performed in India improved considerably during 1985-1994 as compared to

1970-1984 as seen by different impact indicators such as citation per paper,

proportion of high quality papers, and publication effective index.

Gupta (2002) explained International collaboration in science was

particularly important for developing countries and India already collaborated

both at governmental and institutional levels. He studied such collaboration

with Australia on the basis of the number of joint and co-authored publications

produced by scientists of both nations during the period 1995-1999. He

revealed the extent, mode and direction of collaborative research and attempted

to identify and crystallize the priority areas, looking at the involvement of other

nations such as the USA, UK, Russia, New Zealand, France, Switzerland, Italy,

Japan and China.

12

Haritash (2002) explained the Parliament, the highest legislative body

in India, played a significant role in formulating national policies and stated

that it was, therefore, pertinent to discover the concern the Members of

Parliament and different political parties show and the priorities they accord to

science and technology related issues. These can be judged statistically through

the number of questions raised/asked on the floor of the House. He presented

such an analysis taking the example of the science and technology questions

raised in the year 1992 during the Tenth Parliament and suggested that such an

analysis may provide managers and policy makers with an important basis on

which to formulate the science and technology policy of a country.

Jeevan (2002) suggested a methodology for studying the quantitative

profile of a research university with a view to obtaining ideas about the

performance and impact of research produced in each department and a

comparison of the impact of research in various departments.

Jin (2002) described the Chinese Scientometric Indicators (CSI), an

indicator database derived from the Chinese Science Citation Database

(CSCD). Its design was supported by the Natural Sciences Foundation of China

(NSFC). In this indicator database, data of a statistical nature was organized

and categorized leading to ranked lists and providing bases for comparisons

among Chinese institutions and regions.

Kademani (2002) examined as part of the history and sociology of

science, a scientometric and academic portrait of Harold W. Kroto, Nobel

Laureate in chemistry (1996). He analyzed 190 of his publications, from 1985

to 2000 and examined his authorship pattern and collaborators, productivity,

core journals publishing his papers, and the most prolific keywords in the titles

of his articles.

Peritz (2002) examined the extent to which the field of bibliometrics

and scientometrics makes use of sources outside the field. The research was

carried out by examining the references of articles published in 'Scientometrics'

in the course of two calendar years, 1990 and 2000. The results show that in

2000, 56.9 percent (and 47.3 percent in 1990) of the references originated from

13

three fields: scientometrics and bibliometrics; library and information science;

and the sociology, history and philosophy of science. When comparing the two

periods, there was also a considerable increase in journal self-citation (i.e.

references to the journal 'Scientometrics') and in the percentage of references to

journals.

Schubert (2002) gave a statistical overview of the first 50 volumes of

the journal 'Scientometrics' and analyzed authorship and co authorship

characteristics, as well as citation and reference patterns of the journal. He

presented geographic and thematic maps of its papers and attempted a brief

outlook to the future prospects and challenges.

According to Swarna (2002) the technical report is one of the media to

record the scientific information generated by scientists and engineers. Bhabha

Atomic Research Centre (BARC) published 554 technical reports during 1990-

1999 under the categories: External (373) and Internal (181). Engineering and

technology generated 207 technical reports followed by chemistry, materials

and earth sciences (129), while their interdisciplinary interactions resulted in 31

technical reports. Life and environmental sciences produced 42 technical

reports; followed by Physics (16); other aspects of nuclear and non-nuclear

energy (6); Isotopes, isotope and radiation applications (4). Technical reports in

subjects outside the scope of nuclear science and technology were 69.

Scientometric analysis of these reports had been carried out for physical

bibliographic characteristics, authorship collaboration, inter-divisional

collaboration, inter-institutional collaboration activities and content analysis.

Vinkler (2002) defined that scientometric model (ISI-S model) was

introduced for describing the institutionalization process of scientific

information. The central concept of ISI-S was that the scientific information

published may develop with time through permanent evaluation and

modification processes toward a cognitive consensus of distinguished authors

of the respective scientific field or discipline. ISI-S described the information

and knowledge systems of science as a global network of interdependent

information and knowledge clusters that were dynamically changing by their

14

content and size. ISI-S assumed sets of information with short-term or long-

term impact and information integrated into the basic scientific knowledge or

common knowledge.

Uzun (2002) presented a study which surveyed a set of ten scholarly

journals that publish the mainstream of papers in the field of Scientometrics,

Informetrics and Bibliometrics, for the period 1981-2000. Each journal was

examined issue by issue for the institutional affiliations of contributing authors.

Institutional rankings for the total period and the two decade periods 1981-

1990 and 1991-2000 were determined by awarding credit to the authors'

institutions based on authorship.

Dutt (2003) did an analysis of 1,317 papers published in the first fifty

volumes of the international journal 'Scientometrics' between 1978 and 2001

which indicated the heterogeneity of the field with emphasis on scientometric

assessment. The study indicated that the US share of papers was constantly on

the decline while that of the Netherlands, India, France and Japan was on the

rise. The research output was highly scattered as indicated by the average

number of papers per institution. The scientometric output was dominated by

the single authored papers; however, multi-authored papers were gaining

momentum. A similar pattern had been observed for domestic and international

collaboration.

Garg (2003) gave an overview of the studies published in the

international journal 'Scientometrics' between 1978 and 2000 on cross national,

national and institutional scientometric assessment.

Glanzel (2003) proposed a two level hierarchic system of fields and

subfields of the sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities. The system

was specifically designed for scientometric (evaluation) purposes with the

ultimate goal of classifying every single document into a well-defined

category. This goal was achieved using a three step iterative process.

Lee (2003) described results of a scientometric study of the Institute of

Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Singapore. The purpose of the study was

to evaluate the research performance of IMCB in the first ten years since its

15

establishment. He examined research inputs and three research outputs -

publications, graduate students and patents filed. The findings indicate that in

the ten years, IMCB produced 395 research papers, 33 book chapters, 24

conference papers and 4 monographs, graduated 46 PhDs and 14 MScs, and

filed 10 patents. In its quest to become world class, IMCB researchers had been

very selective in what they published - 95.6 percent of the articles were

published in ISI journals. The articles received an average of 25 to 35 citations

per article, and the percentage of uncited articles was 11.6. Four articles

received more than 200 citations, and 18 received between 100 and 200

citations.

A scientometric analysis of publications of Leland H. Hartwell, a Nobel

laureate in Physiology/Medicine (2001) was carried out by Angadi et al.

(2004). The study revealed that Hartwell had 108 publications during 1961-

2001 in different domains, with 101 collaborators, most active collaborators

being Weinert, T.A. (10), Garvik, B. M. (8), etc. His productivity coefficient is

0.76, which clearly indicates that his productivity increased after 50 percentile

age. Highest collaboration coefficient is one. 96 papers out of 108 have been

published in journals. The core journals publishing his papers were: Cell (14),

Genetics (12), etc. The authors suggest it would be interesting if one attempts

to study the sociological aspects and citation studies on Leland H. Hartwell,

which may give many new insights into his scientific career.

Cardona and Marx (2006) analyzed the impact of the works and

citations of Vitaly L. Ginzburg, one of the pioneers of solid-state physics and

received the physics Nobel Prize 2003. Ginzburg had published 424 articles

with an average number of almost 10 articles per annum from 1955 until

present, which is indeed very impressive. The authors have also investigated

the informal citations, the citations involving mentions of Ginzburg‟s name

without a specific formal citation. The authors expressed that because of

Ginzburg's long scientific life is an excellent subject for learning the

capabilities and shortcomings of citation analysis. It was found from the study

that Ginzburg was among the most prominent and influential Russian

16

physicists. According to the Hirsch number (h-index = 40), Ginzburg is one of

the most influential Russian Nobel Laureates, and he occupies the sixth place

based on the total number of citations.

Cardona and Marx (2006) analyzed the work of Georg(e) Placzek with

the aim of illustrating the power and virtues of bibliometric techniques and

their pitfalls.

The analysis of 251 publications by B. N. Koley, an eminent

physiologist of India, published during 1958-2001, was examined by Koley

and Sen (2006). The authors examine year-wise distribution of papers,

research group of the scientist and scattering of papers in different

communication channels. In addition, it finds out author productivity, spectrum

of research activity through analysis of the title keywords, and productivity of

Koley's research group. Finally, it shows that the data set does not follow

Bradford distribution. The authors felt that these studies may prove to be of

great value to the concerned scientist, and might help him to pinpoint his

position amongst his fellow professionals.

Sangam et al. (2006) analyzed publications of N. Rudraiah, a leading

mathematician, from India. He has collaborated with 102 colleagues and

students in his 43 years of productive life. He has published 271 papers

scattered in five different research domains during 1962-2004. His

collaboration co-efficient was 0.51. Highest collaborators were M.

Venkatachalappa (31) and B. C. Chandrasekhara (21). The core journals

publishing his papers were: Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics,

Current Science, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, etc.

In the same year, Sangam et al. (2006) analyzed 337 publications of

Peter John Wyllie, an American geologist during 1951-2004. Of these papers,

144 (42.72%) were single-authored and 193 (57.28%) multi-authored papers.

The results indicate that the highest productivity was in 1983 with the output of

13 papers (age 54); the highest collaboration coefficient (0.64) was during

1970-1974; during the 54 years span of scientific career, Prof. Wyllie has

17

collaborated with 75 researchers Huang was the main collaborator with 25

papers during 1973-2000. Of 337 papers, 241 were published in 68 different

channels of communication, and his most preferred journals were: American

Mineralogy (24) and Journal of Geology (23).

A scientometric study on communication and collaborative research

pattern of G. N. Ramachandran, a pioneer in molecular biophysics from India,

has been analyzed by Sangam et al. (2006). It is interesting to note that in his

49 years of productive life, he has collaborated with 81 colleagues and students

and has published 304 papers during 1942-1990. The highest collaboration

coefficient is 0.86. He has the highest collaboration with V. Sasisekharan (18)

and R. Srinivasan (15). The core journals, which published his papers were:

Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Acta Crystolographica,

Current Science, Nature and Biopolymers. Bradford Multiplier was found

three. Prof. Ramachandran has established a remarkable scientific tradition that

thrives in the world. Ramachandran was in fact one of the most outstanding

scientists of post-Independent India.

Sangam et al. (2007) analyzed 178 papers published by S. Ramaseshan

during 1944-2000. The scientist S. Ramaseshan was a leading crystallographer

from India. His publications were analyzed and classified into four domains.

The work done by S. Ramaseshan has made a mark on the various areas he

dealt with earnestly for the encouragement of science in India. No doubt, he

helped science in the greatest years of the birth of modern physics in India.

Similarly, the biobibliometric study was conducted by Parvathamma

and Gobbur (2008) on T. M. Aminabhavi. In his 36 years of teaching and 28

years of research experience in various fields of polymer science, he has

published 521 research articles, 57 popular articles and 94 conference papers in

eight domains of polymer science. He has three US patents to his credit.

Collaboration Coefficient (CC) was ranged between 0.9 and 1.0 indicating the

interdisciplinary nature of his research. The year 2006 has been the most

productive year in his research career wherein he has published 96 research

papers. The period of international collaboration is significant with W.E.

18

Rudzinski (22 years), Patrick E. Cassidy (15 years), J.D. Ortego (12 years) and

T.H.S. Phayde (05 years). The authors expressed that the study of Prof. T. M.

Aminabhavi‟s research output proves that long time commitment and

sustaining efforts are necessary to achieve excellence in one‟s area of research.

Through high degree of collaboration at national and international levels, he

has shown the importance of team work to younger generation of polymer

scientists.

The scientometric portrait study on Nayana Nanada Borthakur, an

eminent biometeorologist, was carried out by Hazarika et al. (2010). It was

confined to 106 papers published during 1963-2005. The noteworthy results of

this study are as follows: Collaborative authorship pattern is found to be in the

team size of 2.5. Collaborative coefficient was 0.76 and productivity

coefficient was 0.65, and 54 channels of communication were used to publish

his research results of which International Journal of Biometeorology (15) top

the list. The publication concentration was 18.5, and publication density was 2.

The scietometric portrait study carried out by Keshava et al. (2010) to

know the scientific work done by Prof. Kubakaddi and his role for the

achievement of science in India especially in the field of physics. The result of

the study shows that Kubakaddi had 85 papers to his credit during 1974-2008.

Highest productivity was in 1987 with the output of nine publications (age 36)

and the highest collaboration coefficient (0.71) of Prof. Kubakaddi is found at

the age of 44-48 (1995-1999). Kubakaddi‟s h–index was 7.

The scientometric study conducted Varaprasad et al. (2010) highlights

the growth and development of chemical science research by J.S.Yadav during

1986-2009. During this period he has published 722 papers (702 research

articles) in various domains. His papers have been scattered in 56 high impact

factor scientific journals. The percentage of collaborative work (99.7) was

very high. The highest degree of collaboration, i.e. 0.1925 was found during

2002-2003. His h-index was 41 after 24 years of scientific activity is a clear

indication of his consistent publication productivity behavior.

19

2.1 Inferences drawn from the Review of Literature

1. A retrospective search of literature was carried out by using LISA; Web

of Science database (Science Citation Index), Emerald, Springer, and

Science Direct e-journals full-text databases.

2. The relevant literature has been discussed and reviewed year wise on

different aspects viz., scientometric portrait or citation analysis of

individual scientists; scientometric analysis of different subjects and

sources; scientific productivity of institutions or organizations and

research & development organizations.

3. A few studies on scientometric portrait of individual scientists and

scientometric analysis of different subjects and sources are noticed in

the literature.

4. Majority (62%) of the studies are by foreign authors followed by Indian

authors (32%). There are more number of studies on scientometric

portrait of individual scientists‟ viz., biologists; information scientist;

physicist; chemists; Nobel laureates in the field of Medicine and

Physics; physiologist; mathematician; geologist; crystallograher;

biometeorologist and polymer scientist as compared to other studies in

the literature.

5. It is evident from the study that few studies have been conducted on

individual scientists compared to other subjects in India. More

specifically the study of scientometric portraits of Nobel laureates in the

field of Physics is not carried out so far.

6. The source, „Scientometric‟ is the highest referred journal by the authors

which are appeared in the references list.

20

References:

Angadi, M. et al. (Mar 2004). Scientometric Portrait of Nobel Laureate

Lel and Hartwell. International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and

Scientometrics, IIT, Roorkee (India), 2-5, 10-30.

Arkhipov, D B. (Sep 1999). Scientometric analysis of Nature the

journal. Scientometrics, 46 (1), 51-72.

Bookstein, A. (Jan 2001). Implications of ambiguity for scientometric

measurement. Journal-of-the-American-Society-for-Information-Science, 52

(1), 74-9.

Braun, T. (Jan 2001). Scientometrics on the Internet. The Internet in

scientometrics. Scientometrics, 50 (1), 3-198.

Burrell, Q L. (Oct 2001). 'Ambiguity' and scientometric measurement: a

dissenting view. Journal-of-the-American-Society-for-Information-Science-

and-Technology, 52 (12), 1075-80.

Cardona, M. and Marx, W. (2006). Georg(e) Placzek: A bibliometric

study of his scientific production and its impact URL:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601113

Cardona, M. and Marx, W. (2006). Ginzburg, Vitaly, L - A Bibliometric

Study. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism, 19 (3-5), 459-466.

Dutt, B., Garg, K C., and Bali, A. (Jan 2003). Scientometics of the

international journal 'Scientometrics'. Scientometrics, 56 (1), 81-93.

Fernandez Cano, A., and Bueno, A. (Oct 1999). Synthesizing

scientometric patterns in Spanish educational research. Scientometrics, 46 (2),

349-67.

Folly, G. et al. (1981). Some methodological problems in ranking

scientists by citation analysis. Scientometrics, 3(2), 135-147.

Fu, Y H. (Winter 1999). Research evaluation via peer review or

scientometrics. Journal-of-Information,-Communication,-and-Library-Science,

6 (2), 39-48.

21

Garg, K C. (Feb 2003). An overview of cross national, national, and

institutional assessment as reflected in the international journal

'Scientometrics'. Scientometrics, 56 (2), 169-99.

Garg, K C. (Sep 2002). Scientometrics of laser research in India and

China. Scientometrics, 55 (1), 71-85.

Garg, K C., and Padhi, P. (Nov-Dec 2000). Scientometrics of prolific

and non-prolific authors in laser science and technology. Scientometrics, 49

(3), 359-71.

Garg, K C., and Padhi, P. (Oct 2002). Scientometrics of laser research in

India during 1970-1994. Scientometrics, 55 (2), 215-41.

Giorgi, Eleonora P. (1993). Long term analysis of citation counts at the

micro-level. Scientometrics, 28(3), 375-386.

Glanzel, W., and Schubert, A. (Mar-Apr 2003). A new classification

scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation

purposes. Scientometrics, 56 (3), 357-67.

Glaser, J., and Laudel, G. (Nov-Dec 2001). Integrating scientometric

indicators into sociological studies: methodical and methodological problems.

Scientometrics, 52 (3), 411-34.

Granovsky, Y V. (Oct 2001). Is it possible to measure science? V. V.

Nalimov's research in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 52 (2), 127-50.

Gupta, B M., Dhawan, S M., Bose, P R., and Mishra, P K. (Nov 2002).

India's collaboration with Australia in science and technology: a scientometric

study of co-authored papers during 1995-1999. DESIDOC-Bulletin-of-

Information-Technology, 22 (6), 21-35.

Gupta, D K. (1993). Citation analysis: a case study of a most cited

author and most cited article on sea floor spreading. IASLIC Bulletin, 8, 1-12.

Gurjeva, L G., and Wouters, P. (Oct 2001). Scientometrics in the

context of probabilistic philosophy. Scientometrics, 52 (2), 111-26.

Haritash, N., and Gupta, B M. (May 2002). Mapping of SandT issues in

the Indian Parliament: a scientometric analysis of questions raised in both

Houses of the Parliament. Scientometrics, 54 (1), 91-102.

22

Hazarika, T., Sarma, D. and Sen, B.K. (2010). Scientometric portrait of

Nayana Nanda Borthakur: a biometeorologist. Annals of Library and

Information Studies, 57, 21-32.

Hood, W W., and Wilson, C S. (Oct 2001). The literature of

bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52 (2), 291-314.

Ivancheva, L E. (Nov 2001). The Non-Gaussian nature of bibliometric

and scientometric distributions: a new approach to interpretation. Journal-of-

the-American-Society-for-Information-Science-and-Technology, 52 (13), 1100-

5.

Jansz, M C N. (Feb 2000). Some thoughts on the interaction between

scientometrics and science and technology policy. Scientometrics, 47 (2), 253-

64.

Jeevan, V K J., and Gupta, B M. (Jan 2002). A scientometric analysis of

research output from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur.

Scientometrics, 53 (1), 165-8.

Jin, B., Zhang, J., Chen, D., and Zhu, X. (May 2002). Development of

the Chinese Scientometric Indicators (CSI). Scientometrics,54 (1), 145-54.

Kademani, B S., Kalyane, V L., and Kumar, V. (Dec 2001).

Scientometric portrait of Nobel Laureate Ahmed Hassan Zewail.Malaysian-

Journal-of-Library-and-Information-Science, 6 (2), 53-70.

Kademani, B S., Kalyane, V L., and Kumar, V. (Dec 2002).

Scientometric portrait of Nobel Laureate Harold W. Kroto. SRELS-Journal-of-

Information-Management, 39 (4), 409-34.

Kademani, B S., Kalyane, V L., and Kumar, V. (Jun 2000).

Scientometric portrait of Vikram Ambalal Sarabhai: a citation analysis. SRELS-

Journal-of-Information-Management, 37 (2), 107-32.

Kalyane, V L. (1992). Dr. M.S. Swaminathan-Biologist Par Excellence.

Biology Education, 246-248.

Kalyane, V L., and Kalyane, S V. (1993). Scientometric Portrait of

Vinodini Reddy. Journal of Information Sciences, 4 (1) 25-47.

23

Keshava et al. (2010). A Scientometric portrait of Prof. S.S. Kubakaddi.

PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science, 4(1), 21-27.

Koley, S. and Sen, B. K. (2006).A bio-bibliometric study on Prof. B. N.

Koley, an eminent physiologist. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 53,

74-82.

Kyvik, S., and Persson, O. (Sep 2000). Scientometric research in the

Nordic countries. Scientometrics, 49 (1), 3-186.

Lancaster, F W., Bushur, S., and Man Low, Y. (1993). Kochen's

Influence examined Bibliometrically. Library Trends, 549-566.

Lee, C K. (Jan 2003). A scientometric study of the research performance

of the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Singapore. Scientometrics, 56

(1), 95-110.

Macias Chapula, C A., and Glanzel, W. (Nov-Dec 1999). Selected

papers presented at the Seventh international conference of the International

Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Scientometrics, 46 (3), 371-685.

Mahapatra, G. (1992). Post Ranganathan era : a bibliometric analysis of

Ranganathan‟s contribution. IASLIC Bulletin, 37(3), 177-182.

Marshakova Shaikevich, I. (Oct 2001). Scientometric perspectives of the

analysis of chemical terminology. Scientometrics, 52 (2), 323-36.

Nederhof, A J. (1985). Evaluating research output through life work

citation counts. Scientometrics, 7(1-2), 23-28.

Okubo, Y. (Mar-Apr 2000). Scientometrics research in France.

Scientometrics, 47 (3), 451-657.

Parvathamma, N. and Gobbur, D.S. (2008). T.M. Aminabhavi: a

biobibliometric study. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 55, 127-134.

Peritz, B C., and Bar Ilan, J. (Jun 2002). The sources used by

bibliometrics-scientometrics as reflected in references. Scientometrics, 54 (2),

269-84.

Rinia, E J. (Feb 2000). Scientometric studies and their role in research

policy of two research councils in the Netherlands. Scientometrics, 47 (2), 363-

78.

24

Rinia, E J., and Rousseau, R. (Feb 2000). Scientometrics research in the

Benelux countries. Scientometrics, 47 (2), 167-450.

Sangam, S. L. and Savanur, K. (2006). Dr. N. Rudraiah: A

biobibliometric study. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 43 (2),

185-199.

Sangam, S. L. et al. (2006). Communication and collaborative Research

pattern of professor Ramachandran: A Scientometric portrait. Journal of

Information Management and Scientometrics, 3 (1), 9-15.

Sangam, S. L. et al. (2006). Communication and collaborative Research

pattern of Shivraj Ramaseshan: A scientometric portrait. Scientometrics, 71 (2),

217-230.

Sangam, S. L. et al. (2006). Scientometric portrait of Prof. Peter John

Wyllie. Scientometrics, 69 (1), 43-53.

Schoepflin, U., and Glanzel, W. (Feb 2001). Two decades of

'Scientometrics'. An interdisciplinary field represented by its leading journal.

Scientometrics, 50 (2), 301-12.

Schubert, A. (Jan 2001). Scientometrics: a citation based bibliography

1997-2000. Scientometrics, 50 (1), 99-198.

Schubert, A. (Jan 2002). The Web of Scientometrics. A statistical

overview of the first 50 volumes of the journal. Scientometrics, 53 (1), 3-20.

Schubert, A. (Jun 2000). Scientometrics in medicine related fields 1990-

1999. Scientometrics, 48 (2), 251-84.

Shirabe, M., and Fujigaki, Y. (Jan 2000). The introduction of economic

methods to scientometrics: the citing-cited table and the autopoietic systems of

citations. Scientometrics, 47 (1), 117-30.

Sinha, SC.,andUllah, M F. (1993).Citation profile of Dr. V.S.

Ramachandran– A bibliometric analysis of his highly cited articles and books

in the area of cement and concrete chemistry. Annals of Library Science and

Documentation, 40, 21-31.

25

Swarna, T., Kalyane, V L., and Kumar, V. (Jul 2002). Scientometric

dimensions of technical reports from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.

Malaysian-Journal-of-Library-and-Information-Science, 7 (1), 17-30.

Todorov, R., and Winterhager, M. (1991). An overview of Mike

Moravcsik's publication activity in physics. Scientometrics, 20(1), 163-172.

Uzun, A. (Mar-Apr 2002). Productivity ratings of institutions based on

publication in scientometrics, informetrics, and bibliometrics, 1981-2000.

Scientometrics, 53 (3), 297-307.

Varaprasad, S. J. D. et al. (2010). Research contributions of J.S. Yadav

to chemical sciences: a scientometric study. Malaysian Journal of Library &

Information Science, 15 (2), 41-55.

Vinkler, P. (2002). The institutionalization of scientific information: a

scientometric model (ISI-S Model). Library-Trends, 50 (3), 553-69.

Vinkler, P. (Mar-Apr 2001). An attempt for defining some basic

categories of scientometrics and classifying the indicators of evaluative

scientometrics. Scientometrics, 50 (3), 539-44.