See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318940072

Are Scientometrics, Informetrics, and Bibliometrics different?

Conference Paper · August 2017

CITATIONS READS

54 14,208

1 author:

Siluo Yang
Wuhan University
62 PUBLICATIONS 741 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Siluo Yang on 06 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TYPE：Full Paper

Are Scientometrics, Informetrics, and Bibliometrics different?

Yang Siluo1 and Yuan Qingli2

1
58605025@qq.com
Wuhan University, Wuhan (China)

2
331061947@qq.com
Wuhan University, Wuhan (China)

Abstract
Bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics (also called the three metrics) differ in subject background but
are the same in theories, methods, technologies, and applications. Analyzing their current situation and
relationships can help comprehensively understand the three fields. In this study, we collect the data of the three
metrics through keyword search in 2007–2016. We also compare and visualize the three metrics in terms of the
distribution of publications and cooperation (recognition level), the main research topics (intellectual structure),
and the reference situation (knowledge communication). Results show that the three metrics differ in the degrees
of utilization and recognition but are similar in the general direction. We recommend the addition of
bibliometrics in the title of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.

Keywords
Bibliometrics; Scientometrics; Informetrics; Knowledge Domain Visualization; CiteSpace

Conference Topic
The relationship and development of five metric science concepts: Bibliometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics,
Webometrics, and Knowledgometrics.

Introduction
Bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics (also called the three metrics) are three related
terms in metrology. These terms are used to describe similar and overlapping methodologies;
however, their well-documented historical origins differ, and they are not necessarily
synonymous (Hood & Wilson, 2001). The rapid progress and development of science and
technology have improved the research objects, goals, and methods of the three metrics. New
branches such as webmetrics and altmetrics (Egghe, 2005), and new indexes and evaluation
measures including Citescore and the H index, have also appeared (Hirsch, 2005). Although
these terms differ in disciplinary background and emergence time (Qiu et al., 2017), they are
used in accordance with their own cognition and position, thereby causing significant
confusion. There are many journals with “scientometrics” or “informetrics” in their titles exist,
but few journals with “bibliometrics” in their titles exist. The International Society for
Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) is the most significant conference in the three metrics.
ISSI contains scientometrics and informetrics in its title but has no bibliometrics. Given that
confusion can harm the development and application of the three metrics (Hood & Wilson,
2001), the development of the three terms and their relationships should be examined. This
study explores the current situation and relationships of the three metrics from the following
three aspects: the number of published papers and cooperation (recognition level), the main
research topics (intellectual structure), and the reference situation (knowledge
communication).
 TYPE：Full Paper

Background

Definitions of bibliometrics
Bibliometrics methods have been applied in various forms for more than a century (Hood &
Wilson, 2001). The term “bibliometrics” was first introduced by Pritchard (1969), who
defined it as “the application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other
media of communication.” Fairthorne (1969) expanded the definition scope of bibliometrics
by defining it as the quantitative treatment of the properties of recorded discourse and
behavior appertaining to it. Then, Broadus (1987) defined bibliometrics as the quantitative
study of physically published units, or of bibliographic units, or of alternatives of either.

Definitions of scientometrics
Nalimov and Mulchenko (1971) coined the Russian equivalent of the term “scientometrics” in
1969, and defined it as the quantitative study of various kinds of intelligence process in the
development of science. The term has obtained broad acceptance from the journal
Scientometrics, which was built in 1978. Scientometrics is a discipline that uses mathematical
methods to quantify the scientific research personnel and achievements to reveal the process
of scientific development, and can provide scientific basis for scientific decision making and
management (Qiu et al., 2017). Scientometrics uses citation analysis and other quantitative
methods to evaluate scientific research activities and thus guide the policy of science (Egghe,
2005).

Definitions of informetrics
Nacke first proposed the German term “informetrie.” By the early 1990s, the term
“informetrics” obtained wide recognition. Nacke believed that informetrics is a study applied
in mathematical methods for information science objects (Qiu et al., 2017). This definition is
slightly one sided because it limits the scope of informetrics in information science. Tague-
Sutcliffe extended informetrics to the quantitative study of any form of information; thus,
informetrics is not simply a bibliographic record or any social group, or not limited to
scientists (Fairthorne, 1969). This definition enlarges the research scope and content of
informetrics. Qiu et al. (2017) divided informetrics into two aspects of broad and narrow
senses. The broad sense of informetrics research is very broad, whereas the narrow sense of
informetrics mainly uses mathematical, statistical, and other quantitative methods to study the
characteristics and laws of information quantitatively.

Relationships among the three metrics

The three terms have evolved to share many of the objectives and have many methods and
tools in common (Qiu et al., 2017). The three metrics refer to “component fields related to the
study of the dynamics of disciplines as reflected in the production of their literature” (Hood &
Wilson, 2001). The three terms often appear simultaneously, or used interchangeably by
authors, such as the Second International Conference on Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and
Informetrics (now called “ISSI”). However, the terms differ in their discipline attribute;
specifically, bibliometrics belongs to library and document science, scientometrics belongs to
the science of science, and informetrics belongs to information science (Brookes, 1990; Qiu et
al., 2017; Wang, 1998). Scientometrics and informetrics have been proposed for nearly 50 and
40 years, respectively; however, they lack their own uniform concepts that can be widely
accepted by the public. Different definitions of bibliometrics also exist (Hood & Wilson,
2001).
The relationship among the three metrics has long been investigated. Brooks (1990) explored
the origin and interrelationship of the three metrics. Glänzel and Schoepflin (1994)
 TYPE：Full Paper

emphasized that the authors’ use of “bibliometrics” synonymously for the three metrics has
resulted in chaos. Hood and Wilson (2001) analyzed the differences among the three metrics
by investigating the history of the three terms through analyzing the number of papers and
journals between 1968 and 2000. Wen and Qiu (2006) suggested that the three metrics belong
to different superordinate disciplines; however, they have the same research objects,
indicators, and methods. Some believed that the three metrics present a crossing and partial
overlapping relationship, but others argued that the three metrics exhibit an inclusive
relationship; for example, informetrics has many meanings and includes bibliometrics and
scientometrics (Qiu et al., 2017)

Data and method

A subject or discipline is often analyzed using the literature statistics, which accesses data
samples in two ways: (1) choosing the top journals or core journals in the field as the data
source (Milojevic & Leydesdorff, 2013), and (2) obtaining data source through the retrieval of
representative keywords (Hood & Wilson, 2001). The journals in the three metrics present
great repeatability and are widely distributed. Thus, this study uses keyword research to
obtain data for the comprehensive comparison of the differences among the three metrics.

Method
The current situation and relationships of the three metrics include various aspects. In this
study, we analyze only three major areas: 1) the usage and distribution of the three terms on
the basis of the number of publications and cooperation; 2) the research contents and
intellectual structure on the basis of field topics; and 3) the knowledge communication and
flow on the basis of the citation and reference. We use EXCEL and CiteSpace for data
statistics and network development .

Data
We downloaded data sets comprising articles, reviews, and papers from SCI-Expanded, SSCI,
and A&HCI between 2007 and 2016. Following Hood and Wilson (2001), we retrieve the
literature of the three metrics using “TS = (bibliometric* or bibliometry or bibliometrical* or
bibliometrician* or “statistical bibliography” or bibliometrie),” “TS = (scientometric* or
scientometry or scientometrical* or scientometrician*),” and “TS = (informetric* or
informetry or informetrician* or informetrie).” Finally, we combine the three search strategies
to investigate the overlapping situation of the three metrics.

Result

Overall situation
The retrieval results show that bibliometrics has the largest number of publications, which is
approximately four times of that of scientometrics and 20 times of that of informetrics. A
large difference is found in the number of literature among the three fields in 2007–2016,
possibly because of the difference in their history and degree of social recognition. In the past
10 years, the annual volume of publications on bibliometrics is higher than that on
scientometrics and informetrics, the number of publications on bibliometrics has the largest
increase among the three fields, the increase for scientometrics is at an intermediate level and
informetrics presents the smallest increase .
 TYPE：Full Paper

Figure 1 Search results of combining the three metrics

Distribution of publications and cooperation

Number of publications in different levels
The European countries dominate more than half of the top 10 national rankings of the three
metrics, indicating that Europe is the core area of international research on the three metrics.
Europe is the origin of the three fields and has a long history of research; thus, it is home to
popular research institutions and experts. With regard to American countries, the United
States and Brazil as the main country, the number of publications in the field of bibliometrics
and scientometrics are higher than informetrics. Scientometrics has been widely explored and
is highly recognized and utilized in Asia. In Oceania areas, the degrees of utilization and
recognition of bibliometrics are much higher than those of scientometrics and informetrics.
Regarding African countries, the number of articles on the three areas is few and the level of
scientific research and production is low.
At the institutional level, universities account for the majority of the top 10 institutional
rankings of the three metrics. A total of 6, 7, and 4 European institutions enter the top 10
institutional rankings of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. This finding shows
that European institutions play an important role in the three metrics.The main institutions of
Asia are mostly from China. With regard to American countries, only Indiana Univ enters the
top 10 institutional rankings of bibliometrics and scientometrics, and also ranks at the top in
informetrics. In African countries, South Africa’s Univ S Africa ranks fourth in informetrics.
This finding combined with the number of articles of South Africa shows that South Africa
presents strong research strength in informetrics.
At the author level, the top 10 high-yield authors in bibliometrics mainly include Bornmann,
Abramo, and Ho; those in scientometrics mainly include Groneberg, Ho, and Leydesdorff;
those in informetrics mainly include Egghe, Rousseau, and Burrell. Egghe and Rousseau enter
only the top 10 author rankings in informetrics.

Cooperation network
Author cooperation network
Figure 2 shows that seven large groups are present in the author cooperation network of
bibliometrics in 2007–2016. Notably, the size of the nodes represents the number of
publications of authors. D’Angelo, Abrano, Bornmann, and Ho, and other high-yield authors,
have their own fixed partners and present close cooperation within the group. Some authors
publish few articles but present many partnerships. For example, Waltman is in Ho’s
collaboration group and has a small number of articles but has six cooperative partners in the
threshold range. Moreover, Kostoff publishes few articles but collaborates with every member
 TYPE：Full Paper

of the group. The said authors are inclined to conduct scientific research through cooperation.
In general, many cooperative groups exist in bibliometrics. The internal cooperative
relationship is close, collaborations between only two authors are few, and the degree of
cooperation is high.

Figure 2 Author cooperation network of bibliometrics

Figure 3 shows that scientometrics presents a large cooperation group and that Groneberg is
the center of the group. Leydesdorff and Bornmann are included in this group; however, the
two authors locate in the extension of the group. This group exhibits an intricate connection
and a close relationship. A prominent cooperative group exists, in which Ho of four fixed
partners is the center. Therefore, this group has a stable partnership. Many two- and three-
author groups exist. In general, the scale of the author collaboration network of scientometrics
is sparse.

Figure 3 Author cooperation network of scientometrics

Figure 4 shows that informetrics has a main cooperative group, in which Egghe and Rousseau
are the core, and includes Ye and Liu, among others. Egghe and Rousseau publish the largest
number of articles on informetrics. The rest of the groups is dispersed. Apart from the largest
group, more than 10 three- and two-author groups exist. The scale of the author cooperation
network is small.
 TYPE：Full Paper

Figure 4 Author cooperation network of informetrics

The size of author cooperation depends on two main factors: the total number of articles and
the habit of research. With regard to the first factor, authors with large numbers of articles
have high numbers of cooperative relationships, thereby leading to large-scale cooperation.
For the second factor, some authors prefer to cooperate with other authors, thereby forming
large-scale and stable cooperation. Under the same thresholds, the number of large-scale
cooperative groups (more than five authors) in bibliometrics is more than that in
scientometrics and informetrics; however, the group relationships of the three metrics are tight.
Bibliometrics obtains the maximum number of literature and degrees of utilization and
recognition. The cooperative group with Groneberg as its core in scientometrics is the largest
among the three fields. The cooperative relationships among members are also frequent in the
three metrics. The decentralization degree of the author collaboration network of informetrics
is the sparsest among the three fields. Although its size of cooperative groups is the smallest,
informetrics possesses a major group with Egghe and Rousseau as its core.
Institutional cooperation network
In bibliometrics, the connection among institutions is tight and cooperation between
institutions is close. Europe is home to many research institutions, which attach great
importance to cooperation in bibliometrics. Only the Chinese Acad Sci has a purple aperture
in the cooperative network. Therefore, this institution presents high centrality and is an
important mediator in the entire cooperative group to date. Leiden Univ, Univ Granada, Asia
Univ, and CSIC exhibit many cooperative relations and publish several articles on
bibliometrics. Some institutions are very successful in cooperation even if they do not publish
many articles, such as Univ Amsterdam and Univ Carlos III Madrid.
The institutional collaboration network of scientometrics shows three large cooperative
groups (more than five institutions). In the first group, Asia Univ and Univ Amsterdam and
other high-yield organizations are the core. This group presents the largest number of
cooperative institutions among other groups, but its internal cooperation is sparse. In the
second group, Goethe Univ Frankfurt is the core. In the third and final group, Univ Granada
and CSIC are the core. In general, scientometrics presents a large number of cooperative
groups but in a small scale.
During the study period, informetrics possesses a significantly large cooperative group with
Katholieke Univ Leuven and Univ Antwerp as the core. This group also includes Univ
Hasselt and KHBO Assoc KU Leuven and other institutions. Notably, European institutions
account for the majority of the group. Some Chinese institutions are also present in this group,
such as Zhejiang Univ, Chinese Acad Sci, and Nanjing Univ. Therefore, Chinese and
European institutions exhibit frequent cooperation in informetrics. Indiana Univ (American)
and Dalian Univ Technol (Chinese) assume the role of intermediaries in their respective
groups. Although they are excluded in the main cooperative group, their degree of
cooperation is high.
 TYPE：Full Paper

In general, under the same parameter setting, the degree of cooperation among the institutions
of bibliometrics is the highest, and the cooperative relationship of bibliometrics is close and
of the largest scale among the three metrics. Meanwhile, the cooperative relationship of
scientometrics and informetrics is dispersed. Only one to three large groups exist in
scientometrics and informetrics; thus, the scale of other groups is very small. However, the
scale of institutional cooperation is also affected by the total amount of literature and the habit
of specific authors (Yang et al., 2017).

Subject structure
We choose the co-words analysis to explore the subject structure of the three fields.
Considering the color confusion after clustering, we provide a screenshot of categories
depending on the color of each node prior to labeling the category name. The latter analysis is
based on the cluster name provided by Citespace. The clustering results are shown in Figs. 5,
6, and 7.
Figure 5 shows five main subjects in bibliometrics: 1) research on the general development
trend and influence of bibliometric analysis; 2) research based on bibliometric indicators of
the scientific research output, the ranking of universities, and the evaluation on individual
academic; 3) application of bibliometrics in scientific research management; 4) research on
cooperation network and model, application of text mining, and other new technologies in
other disciplines; 5) the use of the H index and other indicators to analyze the citation of
papers or other publications from various databases and thus evaluate the academic capability
and scientific research achievements.

Figure 5 Subject structure of bibliometrics

Figure 6 shows five main subjects in scientometrics; 1) application of scientometrics methods
in biology, indicating the extensive application of scientometrics methods in other fields; 2)
research on the quality of scientific research output and the research trend of scientometrics as
a branch of science; 3) research on scientometrics methods (such as citation analysis and
impact factors) based on journals and other research outputs, indicators (such as the H index),
and their application; 4) development trend of scientific cooperation, cooperation model, and
academic cooperation network based on scientific research output; 5) ranking or visualization
of discipline contents, personnel, and journals through scientometrics methods, as well as
research on the development trend of disciplines.
 TYPE：Full Paper

Figure 6 Subject structure of scientometrics

Figure 7 shows five main subjects in informetrics; 1) research and application of the H index
and other new metrics in network environment, as well as research on information systems; 2)
research on the influence of articles and authors on the basis of informetrics methods and
citation analysis; 3) research on the distribution and ranking of high-impact articles, authors,
and journals based on the H index, as well as research on the model of informetrics; 4)
research on the development of informetrics and its relationship with bibliometrics and
scientometrics; 5) effect of network environment on the patterns of scientific research
activities.

Figure 7 Subject structure of informetrics

According to the keyword frequency, “science,” “citation,” “impact,” “Journal,” “citation
analysis,” “H index,” and “impact factor” rank among the top 10 keywords in the three areas.
Therefore, the three fields are concerned on the research and evaluation of the influence of
scientific research output. Most studies use the citation analysis method and pay attention to
the innovation and application of indexes.
In summary, the three metrics focus on evaluating scientific research output and investigating
the innovation and application of indexes (such as the H index) and the cooperation mode and
network. Bibliometrics focuses on exploring the development trend and research on the
application of bibliometrics in scientific research management. Scientometrics focuses on
exploring the application of its methods and techniques in other areas, the development of
citation analysis and other methods, and the quality of scientific research output and
development trends. Given that information is highly dependent on computer technology and
 TYPE：Full Paper

mathematics, informetrics focuses on examining information system and the combination of

mathematical models and methods.

Citation situation—Mainly based on document co-citation network

According to the document co-citation network,the knowledge structure of bibliometrics
includes five components. Scientometrics is composed of six knowledge bases. Given that
three of these bases have the same theme (but different direction), we merge the three
identical parts into one. Finally, four components are obtained. The knowledge base of
informetrics consists of five parts . The connection between nodes in the graph represents the
citation relationship between the documents; the node with the purple aperture represents its
high important, and the size of the node represents the cited frequency. We compare the three
metrics on the basis of the cited literature with high centrality and high cited frequency.
According to the specific literature list, Hirsch’s An index to quantify an individual’s scientific
research output and Egghe’s Theory and practice of the G index are important documents in
the three fields. The two articles have been used as the bases for the study on the H index in
bibliometrics and scientometrics. Meanwhile, Hirsch’s article has also been used as the basis
for the study on evaluation and ranking in informetrics. Therefore, the same literature is used
in different angles in dissimilar fields. Hirsch (2005) proposed the H index to evaluate the
academic influence and the research level of researchers; this document is the first of the
branch. Egghe (2006) proposed the G index in 2006 to overcome the shortage of the H index,
and used the former index to measure the overall citation performance of a group of articles.
The H index is the common knowledge base of the three areas, which indicate that the three
metrics have attached importance to research on the innovation and application of evaluation
indicators.
As shown in Figure 7 and Table 1, #0 research trend, #3 scopus, and #4 gender disparity are
peculiar knowledge components of bibliometrics. #0 research trend involves the review on the
history of each specific research direction and the future prediction under the premise of
innovation of indicators and progress of research methods. Alonso et al. (2009) studied the H
index and the subsequent derivative index, and measured the application of the H index in
different fields. Bornmann and Daniel (2008) conducted a review of scientists’ citation
behavior and analyzed the motivations, impact factors, and trends of the citation. #3 scopus
presents diverse data sources in the context of the development of network; in this part,
researchers focus on emerging data search tools and their data coverage, search capabilities,
and the impact of scientific research (Meho & Yang, 2007; Falagas et al., 2008). #4 gender
disparity is the part wherein researchers in medicine evaluate the academic productivity and
influence of researchers using the H index to study whether the gender differences can lead to
differences in academic productivity (Eloy et al., 2012).

Figure 7 Literature citation figure of bibliometrics

 TYPE：Full Paper

Table 1 Important basic literature of bibliometrics

As shown in the document co-citation network and the specific literature list of scientometrics,
#1–4 scientometric approach and #5 scientometric are peculiar knowledge components of
scientometrics. #1–4 scientometric approach is the basis of two research directions. King
measured (2004) the status and influence of national scientific research with scientometrics
methods, and Moed (2005) explored the application of citation analysis in scientific
evaluation. The two documents provided an empirical basis for the application of
scientometrics methods in the scientific evaluation. Konur applied scientometrics methods to
the quantitative research in biochemistry, and this document provided the knowledge base for
the application of scientometrics methods to different fields. #5 scientometric mainly contains
the scientific basis of visualization technology and social network analysis in scientometrics.
Chen (2006, 2010) developed CiteSpace, which is an important visualization tool for studies
on subject topics and trends, and its functions are constantly optimized and improved to date.
As shown in the document co-citation network and the specific literature list of informetrics,
#0 ranking, #2 pagerank, and #4 Lotkas law are peculiar knowledge components of
informetrics. #0 ranking is mainly based on the articles of Hirsch (2005) and Braun et al.
(2006), who studied the assessment and ranking of academic impact on individuals and
journals using the H index, thereby establishing the foundation for the innovation and
application of indicators in ranking and evaluation of scientific research. #2 pagerank is the
part wherein Ding (2009) studied factors that affect the ranking of the PageRank algorithm,
and proposed the weighted PageRank algorithm. The study provided experience for the
further application of the PageRank algorithm in informetrics. #4 Lotkas law is the part
wherein the basic knowledge theory is comprehensively explored and the mathematical model
is applied to the theoretical hypothesis.

Discussion and Conclusion

We retrieve the literature (such as articles, reviews, and proceeding papers) on the three
metrics from SCI-Expanded, SSCI, and A&HCI using the three terms between 2007 and 2016.
The results show that the three metrics differ in the degrees of utilization and recognition but
are similar in the general direction.
1) Recognition. Combining the number of articles in national and institution levels shows that
Europe is the core area of the three fields. The degrees of recognition of bibliometrics and
scientometrics are high in America. The degree of recognition of scientometrics is higher than
that of the two other fields in Asia, and the degree of recognition of bibliometrics is much
higher than that of the two other fields in Oceania. The degrees of recognition of the three
fields are low in Africa, but the degree of recognition of informetrics is high in South Africa.
Bibliometrics is the most frequently used and has the largest degree of increase among the
 TYPE：Full Paper

three terms, so we think that the term "bibliometrics" can be used as a general term for
“scientometrics” and “informetrics” in order to avoid confusion in terms.
2) Cooperation. Universities are the main institutions in the three metrics. The scale of the
cooperative group of bibliometrics is larger than that of scientometrics and informetrics, and
the group relationships of bibliometrics are tight. Many two-author cooperative groups with
scattered scale exist in scientometrics. The author cooperative network of informetrics is the
sparsest and has the smallest scale among the three metrics. Bibliometrics has the highest
degree of institutional cooperation and the largest scale of institutional cooperation network.
On the contrary, the cooperative relationships of scientometrics and informetrics are dispersed,
and the size of the group is small.
3) Subject structure. Bibliometrics attaches great importance to the development of the three
metrics and the application of bibliometric methods in scientific research management. Other
disciplines use scientometrics when applying metrological methods, such as citation analysis.
Scientometrics emphasizes the quality of scientific research output and focuses on research on
scientometrics development trends. In the network environment, researchers prefer to use
informetrics when researching information systems and the combination of mathematical
models and informetrics methods.
4) Knowledge base. A significant difference is found in the knowledge base of the three
metrics. The H index is the common knowledge base of the three fields in focusing on
innovating and improving indicators. The peculiar knowledge bases of bibliometrics include
review on the history of each specific research direction, data coverage and search capabilities
of emerging data search tools, and application of bibliometrics in the medical field. The
peculiar knowledge bases of scientometrics include the application of scientometrics methods
in scientific evaluation and other disciplines, such as visualization techniques and social
network analysis. The peculiar knowledge bases of informetrics include comprehensive
exploration of the basic theory of and research on the PageRank algorithm.
This study presents a few limitations. The overall situation of the three metrics can be
accurately compared using long data period. However, this study uses only the data from
2007 to 2016. Although we carefully refine some terms and construct a document retrieval
formula, the data collection is still incomplete and thus cannot fully represent the data for the
three metrics. The current situation and relationships of the three metrics include various
aspects, but this study focuses on only three major areas. Therefore, the comparative analysis
is insufficient. Future research can conduct interview with experts, extend the data period,
perform in-depth content analysis, and use other methods in comparing the relationships
among the three metrics.

Acknowledgments
This research is funded by the National Social Science Fund Key Project of PR China (17ATQ009).

References
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). H-index: a review focused in
its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics,
3(4), 273-289.
Brookes, B. C. (1990). Biblio-, sciento-, infor-metrics?? what are we talking about?. Elsevier.
Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5), 373-379.
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1),
169-173.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008). What do citation counts measure? a review of studies on citing
behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.
 TYPE：Full Paper

Chen, C. (2006). Citespace ii: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in
scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(3),
359-377.
Chen, C., Ibekwe-Sanjuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a
multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 61(7), 1386-1409.
Ding, Y., Yan, E., Frazho, A., & Caverlee, J. (2009). Pagerank for ranking authors in co-citation
networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2229-2243.
Egghe, L. (2005). Expansion of the field of informetrics: origins and consequences. Information
Processing & Management, 41(6), 1311-1316.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152.
Eloy, J. A., Svider, P., Chandrasekhar, S. S., Husain, Q., Mauro, K. M., & Setzen, M., et al. (2012).
Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments.
Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, 148(2), 215-22.
Elsevier. Journal-of-Informetrics. Retrieved March12, 2017, from
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-informetrics
Fairthorne, R. A. (1969). Empirical hyperbolic distributions (bradford-zipf-mandelbrot) for
bibliometric description and prediction. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 319-343.
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of pubmed, scopus,
web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Faseb Journal Official Publication
of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(22), 338-342.
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics... and beyond?.
Scientometrics, 30(2-3), 375-384.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.
Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics.
Scientometrics, 52(2), 291-314.
King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311-6.
Liu, T. (1994). The relationship and difference between bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics.
Library and Information (in Chinese), (1), 19-24.
Leydesdorff, L. (2001). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-
organization of scientific communications. Universal-Publishers.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of lis faculty:
web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer Netherlands.
Mulchenko, Z. M. (1971). Measurement of science. study of the development of science as an
information process. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 405(4), 210.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of documentation, 25(4), 348-
349.
Qiu, J., Zhao, R., Yang, S., & Dong, K. (2017). Informetrics: Theory, Methods and Applications.
Springer Singapore.
Staša Milojević, & Loet Leydesdorff. (2013). Information metrics (I metrics): a research specialty with
a socio-cognitive identity?. Scientometrics, 95(1), 141-157.
Wang, C., & Pang, X. (1998). Terms of Bibliometrics (1). Information Studies:Theory & Application,
21(1), 61-61.
Yang, S., Wolfram, D., & Wang, F. (2017). The relationship between the author byline and
contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals. Scientometrics, 110(3),
1273-1296.

View publication stats