A Collaboration Analysis Study of Food Chemistry Journal

Zan , Burcu Umut and Zan, Nuray A Collaboration Analysis Study of Food Chemistry Journal. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology, 2014, vol. 4, n. 1. [Journal article (Unpaginated)]

[thumbnail of IJEIT-4(1).pdf] Text
IJEIT-4(1).pdf - Published version
Download (776kB)

English abstract

In recent years in Turkey, it is identified that article production has increased in the subject category of “Food Science Technology”. Food Chemistry journal is determined to be the most preferred journal among Turkish authors. As a result of this determination, Food Chemistry journal was examined with bibliometric methods between the period of 2007-2012. This study focused on articles produced with collaboration. The co-authorship rate was found to be around 99% with a decrease in the number of articles with single author in years. Most of the co-authored studies originated from the same country with a percentage of 64.1; while 34,8% of them were participated by authors from 2 or more countries. The highest level of collaboration was determined to be between the PRC and the USA. At the same time the most productive authors of the journal was found and collaboration network was made between this productive authors. This study has made certain suggestions as a result of bibliometric examination of Food Chemistry journal.

Item type: Journal article (Unpaginated)
Keywords: bibliometry, collaborative studies, co-authored publications
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HA. Periodicals, Newspapers.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HE. Print materials.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HN. e-journals.
I. Information treatment for information services > IB. Content analysis (A and I, class.)
L. Information technology and library technology > LA. Telecommunications.
Depositing user: Burcu Umut Zan
Date deposited: 15 Dec 2015 16:38
Last modified: 15 Dec 2015 16:38
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/28548

References

REFERENCES

[1] Beaver, D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration: Past,present and future. Scientometrics, 52.

[2] Glanzel, W. (2003). A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Bibliometrics as a research field. içinde Course Handouts.

[3] Katz, J. & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 (1), 118.

[4] De Haan, J. (1997). Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology.Scientometrics, 37 (2), 197-208.

[5] Melin, G. & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorship. Scientometrics, 36 (3),363-377.

[6] Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by c-oauthorship.Research Evaluation, 11 (1), 315.

[7] NSF. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators.URL:http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/?CFID=8529775&CFTOKEN=31016166&jsessionid=f0308475bb6018565e3b13583970b64e437 . Accessed:15.04.2012 .

[8] Glanzel, W. & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific collaboration through co-authorship. F. H. Moed, W. Glanzel & U. Schmoch, Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research içinde (ss. 257-276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[9] Karasözen, B. & Bayram, Ö. (2007). 1997-2006 Analysis of Turkish science indicators. Higher Education Center.URL:www.yok.gov.tr/bilimselgostergeler/bilimselanaliz.pdf. Accessed: 12 .07 2008.

[10] Mali, F., Kronegger, L. & Ferligoj, A. (2010). Co-authorship trends and collaboration patterns in the Slovenian sociological Community. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,1 (2), 29-50.

[11] Rodriguez, M. & Pepe, A. (2008). On the relationship between the structural and socioacademic communities of a co-authorship network. Journal of Infometrics, 2 (3), 195-201.

[12] Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation.Netherlands: Springer.

[13] Wray, K. B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 69 (1), 150-168.

[14]Glanzel, W. & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies.Scientometrics, 60 (3), 421-432.

[15] Wuchty, S., Jones, B. & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039.

[16] Haslam, N. & Simon, L. (2009). Early career scientific achievement and patterns of authorship: The mixed blessing of publication leadership and collaboration. Research Evaluation,18 (5), 405-410.

[17] Van Raan, A. F. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics,42 (3), 423-428.

[18] Kim, M. (1999). Korean international coauthorship in science 1994-1996. Journal of Information Science, 25, 403-412.

[19] Arunachalam, S. & Doss, M. J. (2000). Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through coauthorship analysis.Current Science, 79 (5), 621-628.

[20] Glanzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific coauthorship relations. Scientometrics, 51 (1),69-115.

[21] Basu, A. & Kumar, V. (2000). International collaboration in Indian scientific papers. Scientometrics, 48 (3), 381-402.

[22] Basu, A. & Aggarwal, R. (2001). International collaboration in science in India and its impact on institutional performance. Scientometrics, 52 (3), 379-394.

[23] Leta, J. & Chaimovich, H. (2002). Recognition and international collaboration : The Brazilian case.Scientometrics, 53 (3), 325-335.

[24] Knyazeva, S. & Slashcheva, N. (2008). Bibliometric analysis of Russia - EU co-publications. H. Kretschemer & F.Havemann (Yay. Haz.). International Conference on Webometrics Informetrics and Scientometrics 2008. Berlin:

Humboldt University.

[25] Matthews, M., Biglia, B., Henadeera, K., Hicks, J., Faletic, R.

& Wenholz, O. (2009). A bibliometric analysis of Australia’s international research collaboration in science and technology: Analytical methods and initial findings. FEAST DiscussionPapers .

[26] Osca Lluch, J., Velasco, E., Lopez, M. & Haba, J. (2009). Co-authorship and citation networks in Spanish history of science research.Scientometrics, 80 (2), 373-383.

[27] Gossart, C. & Özman, M. (2009). Co-authorship networks in the social sciences: The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78 (2),323-345.

[28] Zan , B. U.(2012).A comparative bibliometric analysis study in Turkey in the fields of science.(PhD Thesis). University of Ankara Social Science Instittute. Ankara.

[29] Grossman, J. W. (2002). Patterns of collaboration in mathematical research. .35. SIAM news : A Publication of Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 35 (9).

[30] Newman, M. E. (2004). Co-authorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. . Colloquium, 101, 5200-5205.

[31] Wagner, C. S. & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure self organization and growth of internaitonal collaboration in science . Research Policy., 34, 160-168.

[32] Royle, J., Coles, L. & Wiliams, D. (2005). Scientific co-authorship in China: An examination of co-authoring patterns and the impact of Elsevier Journals. The Robert Gordion University, Department of communication and

Languages. Aberdeen: Elsevier.

[33] Haiyan, H. Hildrun, K. & Zeyvan L. (2007). Mapping of scientometrics:50 most influential scientometricians. Studies in Science of Science, 2007 (3).

[34] Thanuskodi, S. (2010). Journal of social sciences: A bibliometric Study. Journal of Social Science, 24(2), 77-80.

[35] Hussain, A. Fatima, N. & Kumar, D. (2011). "Bibliometric analysis of the 'Electronic Library' journal (2000-2010)." Webology, 8(1), Article 87. URL:http://www.webology.org/2011/v8n1/a87.htmlAccessed: 17.05 2013.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS