Search

ABSTRACTWhat are patterns of gender and authorship in urban land science? Our bibliometric analysis shows that the proportion of women shrinks among highly productive, impactful, and senior authors, akin to a pyramid shape. First, women are only one in ten researchers with an h-index above the 95th percentile. Second, women are first authors on 20% of all influential papers cited more than one hundred times. Third, women publish less frequently (1.6 papers/year) than men (2.2). Fourth, women have shorter career lengths (9.4 years) than men (11.8). Since the 2000s, citation rates for women and men have converged. For the generation starting careers since 2016, the proportion of women with an h-index above the 90th percentile increased to 25%. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a 51% increase in productivity for women. Despite these changes, gender disparities in urban land science are most pronounced among the most productive and impactful authors.

The IEEE Access journal started in 2013, and in a short period, it has attained recognition for being a preferred multidisciplinary journal, with characteristics of rapid and continuous publishing. It is now ranked among the top journals in Engineering and Computer Science (General) by Scopus. Recognizing the distinctive nature of the journal and its contributions in the broader area of Engineering and Computer Science, this article attempts to present a detailed bibliometric analysis of the journal to identify publishing patterns, authorship and collaboration structure, citation impact, funding patterns of the published research, and the thematic structure of the publication. The gender distribution is also computed to identify papers published by male and female authors. The social media visibility of the articles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) connections of articles were also identified. The results indicate that the IA journal can attract novel, high-quality multidisciplinary research, which aligns with the relevant and the most pressing SDGs. Furthermore, the journal has experienced increased multi-authored multidisciplinary research, and it is publishing a more significant percentage of articles with female first authors.

IntroductionStudies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.MethodsIn this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.Results11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3–17) vs. 14 (8–31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19–0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45–1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48–70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53–88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90–3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09–4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153–4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889–9.651, p < 0.001].ConclusionAnalysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers’ citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

This study used bibliometrics to analyze the characteristics of funded papers in the social sciences in Taiwan from 2015 to 2019, including the number of funded papers, funded paper ratio, document types, fields, type of publishing organizations, journal impact, and paper citation impact. The results indicate that the number of funded papers and the funded paper ratio of SSCI papers from Taiwan have both increased. In addition to articles and reviews, conference papers are a major type of funded paper for local SSCI papers. In terms of fields, the nontraditional social sciences, such as environmental sciences, psychiatry, and public/environmental & occupational health, have a particularly high funded paper ratio. However, the number of funded papers and funded paper ratio is the highest in the field of education & educational research. The fields of economics, management, and business have a large number of funded papers but a low funded paper ratio. Universities are the main funded institutions, but hospitals have the highest funded paper ratio. Funded papers tend to have higher paper citation impacts. Therefore, funding positively affects the productivity and impact of SSCI papers from Taiwan. (Article content in Chinese with English extended abstract)

Igor Kissin The Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Igor KissinThe Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, 02115, USATel +1 617-732-5052Email ikissin@bwh.harvard.eduAbstract: The aim of this work is to identify the most influential initial clinical studies that fomented important developments in anesthesiology over the past 50 years. Studies fomenting new development can be selected using vastly different approaches and, therefore, might provide diverse outcomes. In the present work, two basic aspects of study assessments – the stage of development (eg, generation of idea, preclinical studies, clinical trials) and the method of selection (eg, committee vote, various types of citation analysis, method of finding the invention disclosure) – were chosen according to the following model. The stage of development: the initial clinical studies demonstrating the basic advantage of an innovation for providing anesthesia. The method: a combination of two factors – the study priority in terms of the time of its publication and the degree of its acknowledgement in the form of citation impact; the time of study publication was regarded as a primary factor, but only if the study’s citation count was =/> 20. The initial high-impact studies were selected for 16 drug-related topics (ketamine, isoflurane, etomidate, propofol, midazolam in anesthesia, vecuronium, alfentanil, atracurium, sevoflurane, sufentanil, rocuronium, desflurane, ropivacaine, remifentanil, dexmedetomidine in anesthesia, and sugammadex), and 9 technique-related topics (ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block, capnography in anesthesia, target-controlled intravenous anesthesia, pulse oximetry in anesthesia, total intravenous anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography in anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, and bispectral index). Twenty-five studies were designated the first high-impact studies (one for each topic); 16 are drug-related and 9 are technique-related. Half of the first high-impact studies had a citation count of =/> 100, (range: 100 to 555). The citation count of the other half of high-impact studies did not reach the 100-citation threshold (range: 41 to 97). If a selected first high-impact study had a citation count < 100, a next-on-timeline, additional study with citation count =/> 100 was also selected; (range: 100 to 344). The present results show that an initial high-impact clinical study on a new development in anesthesiology can be determined and that related citations usually vary from one hundred to five hundred.Keywords: anesthetic techniques, citation impact, clinical trials, drugs, priority rules, scientometrics

INTRODUCTION: The are many published papers on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia recently. However, there isn’t any study that indicates what kind of issues countries and journals are focusing on this particular subject. The aim of this paper is to determine the countries and journals that contribute the most to the literature on COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia and also to examine the features that make the difference in the total cited count numbers of related papers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search engine of the Web of Science was used for the selection of papers. The search yielded 359 published materials in total. However, 78 (61 Articles, 17 Reviews) of them did not have keywords. Therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. The remaining 196 articles plus 84 reviews, in total 280 papers were examined. In order to examine the differences between published materials in terms of total cited count numbers, independent samples t-tests and one-way Anova test were performed with SPSS. In order to explore the topical differences, the keywords according to country of the first author, and the journal were mapped. KNIME and FactoMiner software were used for the analysis. RESULTS: Results indicated that international papers were cited more compared to domestic papers; multi-centered national papers were cited more compared to single-centered national papers. The largest percentage (34.64%) of the overall publications originated from Anglo-American countries (USA=13.93%; England=12.14%; Canada=6.07%; Australia=2.50%). The keyword mapping showed that COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Pandemic, Anesthesia, Airway, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Critical Care, Intensive Care, Personal Protective Equipment, Infection, Mortality, and Mechanical Ventilation were the main keywords of these published materials. CONCLUSIONS:This paper not only showed the features of papers that are cited more but also showed the ranking of countries that contribute the most to the literature and reflected the hot topics about COVID-19 in the field of anesthesia. Extensive studies about COVID-19 have already begun, and the number of studies keep increasing. Therefore, this study could provide hints for authors who would like their papers to be cited more as well as useful information for further research.

The article’s purpose is an analysis of the citation impact of scientific publications by authors of different gender compositions. The page method was chosen to calculate the citation impact of scientific publications, and the obtained results allowed to estimate the impact of the scientific publications based on the number of citations. The normalized citation impact is calculated according to nine subsets of scientific publications that correspond to patterns of different gender compositions of authors. Also, these estimates were calculated for each country with which the authors of the publications are affiliated. The Citation database, Network Dataset (Ver. 13), was chosen for the scientometric analysis. The dataset includes more than 5 million scientific publications and 48 million citations. Most of the publications in the dataset are from the STEM field. The results indicate that articles with a predominantly male composition are cited more than articles with a mixed or female composition of authors in this direction. Analysis of advantages in dynamics indicates that in the last decade, in developed countries, there has been a decrease in the connection between the citation impact of scientific publications and the gender composition of their authors. However, the obtained results still confirm the presence of gender inequality in science, which may be related to socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, natural homophily, and other factors that contribute to the appearance of gender gaps. An essential consequence of overcoming these gaps, including in science, is ensuring the rights of people in all their diversity.

Purpose This study examined whether article-level publication indicators were related to citation impact indicators in the business, management, and accounting categories listed in Scopus. Article-level publication indicators included the number of authors, countries, and keywords, as well as title length, while citation impact indicators included the field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) at the article level and Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) at the journal level. The optimal values of four article-level publication indicators for maximizing the FWCI and SJR were calculated. Methods All publication and citation impact indicators were gathered for articles and reviews in the business, management, and accounting fields published from 2015 and 2019 and listed in Scopus and SciVal. Correlations between four article-level citation indicators and each citation impact indicator were analyzed. Results The number of authors was positively associated with the FWCI, while the number of countries and keywords was not associated with the FWCI or SJR. Title length was negatively associated with the FWCI and SJR. The optimal publication indicators to maximize the FWCI were four authors, three more countries, six keywords, and a title word count of 14 to 19. The optimal publication indicators to maximize the SJR were three to four coauthors, three to four countries of collaborators, five keywords, and a title word count of two to seven. Conclusion Authors aiming to get higher citations and publish in higher-ranking SJR journals in the business, management, and accounting categories are recommended to pay close attention to design of research team and the number of keywords and impactful title length so that the publication will have a higher likelihood of being accepted and receiving citations.

Systematic literature reviews represent an important methodology in Evidence-Based Software Engineering. To define the methodological route in these type of studies, in which a review of quantitative and qualitative aspects of primary studies is carried out to summarize the existing information regarding a particular topic, researchers use protocols that guide the construction of knowledge from research questions. This article presents a process that uses forward Snowballing, which identifies the articles cited in the paper under study and the number of citations as inclusion criteria to complement systematic literature reviews. A process that relies on software tools was designed to apply the Snowballing strategy and to identify the most cited works and those who cite them. To validate the process, a review identified in the literature was used. After comparing the results, new works that were not taken into account but made contributions to the subject of study emerged. The citation index represents the number of times a publication has been referenced in other documents and is used as a mechanism to analyze, measure, or quantitatively assess the impact of said publication on the scientific community. The present study showed how applying Snowballing along with other strategies enables the emergence of works that may be relevant for an investigation given the citations rate. That is, implementing this proposal will allow updating or expanding systematic literature studies through the new works evidenced.

Abstract Public universities, and science in general, in Brazil, are under attack from key persons of the government in interviews and articles published in non-scientific journals. Here we look at bibliography data from international science metric platforms (Scival® and Incites®) and official Brazilian agencies such as CAPES and CNPq to reach some conclusions based on scientific analysis. Brazilian Science has shown a steady improvement in quantity and quality over the last 20 years but has recently suffered (since 2015) under severe financial restrictions. An increase in international collaboration also increased citation impact, reaching almost five times the world average. While the medical and natural sciences show the highest impact and prominence, social sciences and the humanities also have spotlight areas with international excellence. Different research institutions and universities offer a variety of production profiles and impacts. This diagnosis shows the need for universities and research institutes in Brazil and funding agencies to undergo strategic planning for definition of mission/vision, goals to be reached, and areas for priority development. Continued support of public universities by the government is necessary for Brazilian autonomy in science and technology and its full integration in the world scientific community.

We report results of selection-bias-free approaches to the analysis of the impact of open access (OA) models on citation metrics. We studied reference groups of Gold and Green OA articles and the group of non-OA (Paywall) articles with the new functionality of the Web of Science Core Collection database, the InCites platform of Clarivate Analytics, and the Dimensions database of Digital Science. For each reference group we obtained the values of the percent of cited articles and citation impact and their dependence on the depth of the citation period. Different research fields were analyzed in two schemas of the InCites platform. We report the higher values and growth rates of the citation metrics: citation impact and %Cited, in the OA reference groups over the Paywall group. The Green OA articles demonstrate the highest values of citation metrics among all the OA models. Dependence of the value of citation impact on citation period follows linear law with R2 values close to 0.9–1.0. The overall annual growth rates of citation impact of the Green OA, Gold OA, and the Paywall articles, k equal, respectively, 3.6, 2.4, and 1.4 in Dimensions and 4.6, 3.6, and 2.3 in the Web of Science Core Collection. We suppose that earlier results reported for the articles in pure OA journals vs. articles in Paywall journals were affected by the high citation impact of the Green and Hybrid OA articles that could not be elucidated in the Paywall journals at that time.

Financial constraints to support research in many countries, including Iran, have led to a critical look at methods of measuring the effectiveness of research. Today, relying solely on citation impact to measure research productivity is not justified for funding organizations. Institutions pay more attention on understanding of the extent their research has been able to meet the needs of society and solve existing problems (1). Therefore, organizations seek to find more comprehensive tools and methods to measure the impact of research that is not necessarily the frequency of citation. Because the use of the whole society such as professionals, doctors, educators and the general public from the research work is ignored, at the expense of the limited community of "other researchers" as long as citation impact is used for measuring the impact of the research (2,3). In addition, other proposed methods for measuring impact of research on industry, patent, quality of life, economy and trade market is encountered with suspicion due to delay between research conduction and use of research in products, processes and practices

The aim of this study is to investigate the scholarly impact of knowledge generated as part of doctoral studies in the field of education in South Africa. The transition rate of the 97 doctoral theses completed in the various fields of education in South Africa in 2008 into peer-reviewed articles and chapters in scholarly books, as well as the citation impact of these theses, were studied. It was found that the transition rates of these theses to journal articles and book chapters were low, as was their citation impact. Eighty three of the 97 theses did not transfer into any kind of publication, 70 out of the 97 made no citation impact, and 65 theses neither transferred to an article/a book chapter, nor did they receive any citation. The low scholarly impact of doctoral research in education in South Africa is related to a number of contextual and field-specific factors, identified in the survey of literature. The main recommendation made is the mapping of fields of education scholarship, making possible the identification of lacuna for research with high impact potential.

Background: the aim of the article is to conduct an overview of the impact of OA on the medical articles based on 3-part categorization.Methods: Data were identified by a search strategy with eight combinations of keywords (open access, citation impact, citation advantage, citation count, article download, article usage, social media attention, altmetrics) and searched in three different databases.Results: the analysis was conducted on 107 studies dealing with citations, downloads and social impact. Sixty-seven of them simply employed the counting citations to OA and non-OA articles; nineteen articles compared the downloads and citations counts; and twenty-one articles investigated the social impact of OA articles. Twenty-five articles investigated the citations, download counts, and social impact of medical articles.Conclusions: The studies investigating the citation impact mostly showed citation advantages. Those that employed citation and download counts of medical articles using randomized controlled trials showed that OA articles were downloaded significantly more frequently, but found no evidence of a citation advantage for open access articles. The citation advantage from open access might be caused by other factors. Results of the studies comparing the social media attention and citations/downloads of the medical articles are often diametrically opposed.

In order to improve the citation impact of Chinese journals, relevant Chinese government agencies have launched a program entitled Citation Impact Upgrading Plan (CIUP) with financial support. Only a few journals that perform better have been screened out for CIUP support. This study tries to figure out if the screening results reflect the bibliometric status of the journals. We compare journals being supported by CIUP with unsupported ones. Journals supported by the CIUP have made progress in raising their journal impact factor (JIF) values and perform better in terms of JIF values. Journals citing CIUP journals have a spectrum of higher JIF values. Journals in a cited network of a CIUP journal are better integrated with one another. However, wide gaps still exist between Chinese and leading international journals. A network visualization of being-cited patterns can be used to measure a journal’s citation impact in relation to the JIF values of journals in the network. Policy suggestions on improving citation impact of Chinese journals will be proposed.

Purpose: We have studied in the present research the citation impact of the papers published in Iranian Farsi scientific-research journals in the three fields of medical sciences, agricultural sciences, and human sciences, which have been indexed in SID citation database. Methodology: This study used citation analysis. The population under study included all papers with two or more citations in Farsi scientific-research journals in the three fields of medical sciences, agricultural sciences, and human sciences which were published during 2002-2007 and indexed in SID citation database. To choose the papers, purposeful sampling was used. The bibliographic information of each paper as well as that of its citations was extracted from SID database. Also, SPSS software was utilized to analyze the data. Findings: Considering the results, citation mean value in the three fields under study was calculated to be 3.08 citations. Additionally, based on the results yielded from inference analyses, there is no significant difference among the three mentioned fields regarding the citation impact. In total, findings of the research showed that the citation rate is very low for the papers published in Iranian Farsi scientific-research journals, such that many of these papers have not received any citation. Therefore, care should be taken when using the citations of these papers in evaluation of the researchers’ scientific impact. Originality/Value: The number of citations received by papers in scientific journals is used as a significant index in evaluating the impact of a country’s publications on scientific community; therefore, the present study makes clear the status of citation impact of the papers published in Iranian Farsi scientific-research journals in the three fields of medical sciences, agricultural sciences, and human sciences.

Journal publication is a core avenue for sharing research in the LIS field. Effective scholarly communication is beneficial to the growth of a discipline. Bibliometrics research shows that articles in prestigious international journals are predominantly those of authors based in a few nations, however. Papers from authors outside the established nations are likely to be cited less often. This study analysed the longitudinal changes in geographical patterns of authorship, collaboration types, and factors affecting the citation impact of seven top LIS journals over a period of 29 years. In addition to data from all nations, this paper includes specific findings relating to Asian countries. Analysis of 8,140 papers shows that the internationalisation level in the sample set has increased in terms of number of nations represented and in a decreasing Gini coefficient. The presence of Asian nations such as Taiwan and Singapore as top contributing countries is particularly notable in the past10 years. Domestic collaboration is found to be the dominant type of authorship pattern. In terms of citation impact as measured by citation counts, logistic regression was used to test the effects of author continent, country income level, collaboration type, publication year, and number of authors. Papers from lower-income countries or from Asian or European authors are found less likely to be ‘morecited.' International and domestic collaboration had a positive relation with citation counts. A practical implication is that authors may consider international collaboration as a way to increase the visibility and impact of their research. Nevertheless, the reasons behind such differential citation impact require more exploration. Invisible colleges, the strengths of weak ties, and the geographic scope of a paper are some factors to be further examined. It is hoped that more research can help identify and overcome barriers in scholarly communication so as to achieve a genuine internationalisation of science.

Remote Sensing Open Access Journal (RS OAJ) is an international leading journal in the field of remote sensing science and technology. It was first published in the year 2009 and is currently celebrating tenth year of publications. In this research, a bibliometric analysis of RS OAJ was conducted based on 5588 articles published during the 10-year (2009–2018) time-period. The bibliometric analysis includes a comprehensive set of indicators such as dynamics and trends of publications, journal impact factor, total cites, eigenfactor score, normalized eigenfactor, CiteScore, h-index, h-classic publications, most productive countries (or territories) and institutions, co-authorship collaboration about countries (territories), research themes, citation impact of co-occurrences keywords, intellectual structure, and knowledge commutation. We found that publications of RS OAJ presented an exponential growth in the past ten years. From 2010 to 2017 (for which complete years data were available), the h-index of RS OAJ is 67. From 2009–2018, RS OAJ includes publications from 129 countries (or territories) and 3826 institutions. The leading nations contributing articles, based on 2009–2018 data, and listed based on ranking were: China, United States, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Canada, England, Australia, Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland and Austria. The leading institutions, also for the same period and listed based on ranking were: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan University, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing Normal University, The university of Maryland, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, China University of Geosciences, United States Geological Survey, German Aerospace Centre, University of Twente, and California Institute of Technology. For the year 2017, RS OAJ had an impressive journal impact factor of 3.4060, a CiteScore of 4.03, eigenfactor score of 0.0342, and normalized eigenfactor score of 3.99. In addition, based on 2009–2018, data co-word analysis determined that “remote sensing”, “MODIS”, “Landsat”, “LiDAR” and “NDVI” are the high-frequency of author keywords co-occurrence in RS OAJ. The main themes of RS OAJ are multi-spectral and hyperspectral remote sensing, LiDAR scanning and forestry remote sensing monitoring, MODIS and LAI data applications, Remote sensing applications and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Through author keywords citation impact analysis, we find the most influential keyword is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), followed, forestry, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), terrestrial laser scanning, airborne laser scanning, forestry inventory, urban heat island, monitoring, agriculture, and laser scanning. By analyzing the intellectual structure of RS OAJ, we identify the main reference publications and find that the themes are about Random Forests, MODIS vegetation indices and image analysis, etc. RS OAJ ranks first in cited journals and third in citing, this indicates that RS OAJ has the internal knowledge flow. Our results will bring more benefits to scholars, researchers and graduate students, who hopes to get a quick overview of the RS OAJ. And this article will also be the starting point for communication between scholars and practitioners. Finally, this paper proposed a nuanced h-index (nh-index) to measure productivity and intellectual contribution of authors by considering h-index based on whether the one is first, second, third, or nth author. This nuanced approach to determining h-index of authors is powerful indicator of an academician’s productivity and intellectual contribution.

Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to the following three bibliographic services: (1) Google Scholar, (2) oaDOI by Impact Story, and (3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we found that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, the degrees of openness are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr at 31% and 52%, respectively. Varying degrees of openness are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being the most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the medicine and health sciences at the upper end and the humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using cited-by values in Google Scholar and applying year and subject normalization. We found a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this was not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category of open access journals was by far the lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.

This article attempts to objectively evaluate the scientific wealth of Mongolia as a nation, by analyzing journal publications by Mongolian scientists recorded in the ISI database. Publications by Mongolian authors for the period of 1979-2002 were included for analyses. Although the total number of publications has increased for the given period, there was no significant increase in the relative citation impact or RCI. Changes of publication quality as measured by RCI showed dif ferent trends for various scientific fields. Publications in clinical medicine and biology show most positive trend, whereas publications in mathematics and physics declined in quality. All the fields are well below the world’ s total publication quality for a comparable period. Additionally , percentage of papers by Mongolian senior authors has declined (though the trend is not significant). This is a rather disturbing trend given the fact that the number of researchers with a doctor ’s degree in the country has greatly increased during the same period of time. Quality of publications by Mongolian first authors and only Mongolian authors were significantly lower than collaborative ones. As far as we are aware, this is the first evaluation of scientific wealth of Mongolia as a whole and it is hoped that it would be helpful to policy-making and scientific communities in prioritizing and determining the direction of support and finance.

The authors whose works are openly accessible make a public use of reason. The ones that prefer closed access make a private use of it. They do not address themselves to the citizens of the world through the best media technology available: they talk only to the restricted group of people who can afford to [...]

This exploratory study tries to get insights on one way of exteriorizing the publication activity of bibliometricians and how such activity is taken into consideration within the scientific community. As we thought in advance, the evidence shows that the USA is the most productive, most cited and most collaborative publisher. The neighbourhood is a ground to collaborate, like Canada or Mexico with the USA, and Belgium with the Netherlands. The most visible topics are small-world networks and webometrics.