International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM)

OPEC countries: research performance across nations in Library and Information Science

Document Type : Articles

Authors

Sanjay Kumar Maurya
Akhandanand Shukla
R K Ngurtinkhuma

Department of Library & Information Science Mizoram University, Aizawl, India

Abstract
Study analyses scientometric assessment of LIS research performance of OPEC member countries. The research publication data indexed in Scopus for the OPEC member countries were extracted and used for the analysis. The data are analyzed to identify quantitative research performance of OPEC member countries in terms of total documents, citable documents, and non-citable documents. The citation impact is measured by different parameters, like total citations, citations per document, Relative Citation Impact, self-citations, and self-citations per document. Finally, the quality of the document is assessed by means of h-index. Nigeria has been found to be most productive country in LIS research and Iran is receiving highest citations and also in h-index performance amongst OPEC member countries. Iraq, Libya, and Ecuador are far away in LIS research productivity and needs strong steps to improve LIS research productivity for future endeavor.

Keywords

LIS Research
OPEC
Research Productivity
Research Performance
Scientometrics
citation analysis
H-index
  1. Barbaro, A., Gentili, D., & Rebuffi, C. (2014). Altmetrics as new indicators of scientific
  2. impact. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries,
  3. (1), 4.
  4. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2005). Bibliometric indicators at the micro-level: Some results in
  5. the area of natural resources at the Spanish CSIC. Research Evaluation, 14(2), 110-
  6. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with
  7. other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193-
  8. Davarpanah, M. R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS
  9. journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 77(1), 21-39.
  10. Ding, Z. Q., Ge, J. P., Wu, X. M., & Zheng, X. N. (2013). Bibliometrics evaluation of
  11. research performance in pharmacology/pharmacy: China relative to ten representative
  12. countries. Scientometrics, 96(3), 829–844. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0968-x.
  13. Dutt, B., Garg, K., & Bali, A. (2003). Scientometrics of the international journal
  14. Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 56(1), 81-93.
  15. Elango, B., Rajendran, P., & Manickraj, J. (2013). Tribology research output in BRIC
  16. countries: A scientometric dimension. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1-11. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/935. Accessed 25 May 2017.
  17. Gauffriau, M., & Larsen, P. (2005). Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on
  18. publication and citation studies. Scientometrics, 64(1), 85-93.
  19. Gonzalez-Brambilaa, C., & Velosob, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and
  20. impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36(7), 1035–1051.
  21. Gul, S., Nisa, T. N., Shah, A. T., Gupta, S., Jan, A., & Ahmad, S. (2015). Middle East:
  22. Research productivity and performance across nations. Scientometrics, 105(1), 1157-1166.
  23. Hazelkorn, E. (2013). Reflections on a decade of global rankings: What we’ve learned and
  24. outstanding issues. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 35(2), 8–33.
  25. Member Countries. (n.d.). Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Retrieved on
  26. th June, 2017 from http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/25.htm
  27. Meo, S. A., Usmani, A. M., Vohra, M. S., & Bukhari, I. A. (2013). Impact of GDP, spending
  28. on R&D, number of universities and scientific journals on research publications in
  29. pharmacological sciences in Middle East. European Review for Medical and
  30. Pharmacological Sciences, 17(20), 2697–2705.
  31. Moed, H. F. (2016). Iran’s scientific dominance and the emergence of South-East Asian
  32. countries as scientific collaborators in the Persian Gulf Region. Scientometrics,
  33. (1), 305-314.
  34. Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of
  35. Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277.
  36. Moin, M., Mahmoudi, M., & Rezai, N. (2005). Scientific output of Iran at the threshold of the
  37. st century. Scientometrics, 62(2), 239-248.
  38. Navarrete, I. A., & Asio, V. B. (2014). Research productivity in soil science in the
  39. Philippines. Scientometrics, 100(1), 261–272.
  40. Onyancha, B. O. (2007). LIS research in Africa: How much is it worth? A citation analysis of
  41. the literature, 1986-2006. South African Journal of Libraries and Information
  42. Science, 73(2), 95-108.
  43. Pouris, A. (2011). Scientometric research in South Africa and successful policy instruments.
  44. Scientometrics, 91(2), 1-11.
  45. Rajendran, P., Jeyshankar, R., & Elango, B. (2011). Scientometric analysis of contributions
  46. to journal of scientific and industrial research. International Journal of Digital
  47. Library Services, 1(2), 79-89.
  48. Tsay, M.-Y., & Ma, S. S. (2003). The nature and relationship between the productivity of
  49. journals and their citations in semiconductor literature. Scientometrics, 56(2), 201–
  50. Uzun, A. (1996). A bibliometric analysis of physics publications from Middle-Eastern
  51. countries. Scientometrics, 36(2), 259-269.
  52. Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabasi, A. L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact.
  53. Science (New York), 342(6154), 127–132. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092745.
  54. Accessed 15 May 2017
  55. World Bank Group. (2017). Global economic prospects: Weak investment in uncertain times.
  56. Washington DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/
  57. /25823/9781464810169.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y. Accessed 28 June 2017

  • Receive Date 14 August 2017
  • Accept Date 03 December 2022

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us

Copyright Ownership