Document Type : Articles


1 Librarian, Government Law College, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu (Research Scholar - Part Time) Department of Library and Information Science, Alagappa University, Karaikudi)

2 Associate Professor Department of Library and Information Science, Alagappa University Karaikudi - 630003 Tamil Nadu, India

3 Professor and Chairperson, Department of Library & Information Science, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu 42601


This study analyzed the research productivity of Alagappa University (AU), India, in terms of scientometric and social network analysis measures. The primary aim of this study is to construct two types of networks, co-authorship, and citation, with three levels of network measures to divulge the social and intellectual structure of AU and to identify their research hubs, social interactions, the knowledge diffusion pattern, which will help to strengthen their research areas, fund allocation and to formulate appropriate policy strategies. It revealed that AU produced 99.45 % of research articles in collaboration, particularly 88.41% of the articles were the outcome of international scientific collaboration, remaining 11.04% of them have collaborated domestically. It found that the main path of the most cited publications constituted the mainstream of development of the Department of Bio-Technology, AU.


  1. Aksnes, DW. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation. 12(3):159-70.
  2. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of informetrics, 11(4), 959-975.
  3. Baskaran, C. (2018). Research Enrichment of the Faculty Members in Alagappa University, India: The Metrics Based on WoS (Web of Science) and Scopus. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2020 spring,
  4. Batagelj, V. (2014). Understanding large temporal networks and spatial networks exploration, pattern searching, visualization and network evolution [Internet]. Chichester: Wiley; [cited 2020 Aug 8]. Available from: uiCode= sevil &xmlId=9781118915356
  5. Bid, Subhodip (2016). Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur: A Scientometric study of Research Output. Scientific Society of Advanced Research and Social Change. International Journal of Library, Information, Networks and Knowledge. 1;1-15.
  6. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis.Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
  7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). The state of h index research: is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance?. EMBO reports, 10(1), 2-6.
  8. Breznik, K, & Skrbinjek, V. (2017). Citation network analysis of documents on engineering and technology education. Global Journal of Engineering Education. 19(3): 213-218.
  9. Erfanmanesh, M., & Hosseini, E. (2014). 10 Years of the International Journal of Information Science and Management: A Scientometric and Social Network Analysis Study. International Journal of Information Science and Management. 13(1):1-20.
  10. Fang, W., Dai, S., & Tang, L. (2020). The impact of international research collaboration network evolution on Chinese business school research quality. Complexity, 1-20.
  11. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323-335.
  12. Giannakis. M. (2012). The intellectual structure of the supply chain management discipline: A citation and social network analysis. Journal of Entrepreneur Information Management. 10;25(2):136-169.
  13. Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Mead, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 257-276.
  14. Hicks, D. (2016). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy. 41(2):251-561.
  15. Jeyshankar, R. & Nishavathi, E. (2019). Mapping the Research Productivity of Alagappa University During 2009-2018 as Reflected in Scopus and Web of Science Database: A Comparative Network Analysis. In Proceedings of the ICLIS-2019- Linking, Informing and Sharing, held at National Taiwan Normal University on July 11-13, 2019.
  16. Jeyshankar, R., Ramesh Babu, B., & Rajendran, P. (2009). Research output of CSIR-central electro chemical research institute (CECRI): A study. Annals of Library and Information Studies. 58(4): 301-306. 123456789/13479
  17. Jin, B. & Rousseau, R. (2004). Evaluation of Research Performance and Scientometric Indicators in China. In: Moed H.F., Glänzel W., Schmoch U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Springer, Dordrecht, 497-514.
  18. Kleinberg, J. M. Hubs, (1999). Authorities, and Communities. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 31(4es),
  19. Kumar, K. (2012). Alagappa University Research Publications: A Scientometric Analysis (1999-2012). International Journal of Current Research, 4(12):313-317.
  20. Lemarchand, GA. (2012). The long-term dynamics of co-authorship scientific networks: Iberoamerican countries (1973-2010). Research Policy. 41(2):291-305.
  21. Lu, X & Ma C. (201). Mapping research collaboration network of international methane hydrate research. Procedia Computer Science. 122:820-825.
  22. Maltseva, D & Batagelj, V. (2019). Social network analysis as a field of invasions: bibliographic approach to study SNA development. Scientometrics. 121(2):1085–1128.
  23. Mingers J, O’Hanley, JR & Okunola, M. (2017). Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research. Scientometrics. 113(3):1627-1643.
  24. Newman, M. E. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical review E, 64(1), 016131.
  25. Newman, MEJ. (2000). Networks: an introduction [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; [cited 2020 Aug 8]. Available from: 9780199206650. 001.0001
  26. Newman, MEJ. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004 Apr 6;101(Supplement 1):5200–5.
  27. Nishavathi, E., Jeyshankar, R. (2018). Measuring Co- authorship Pattern in Research Output of Chromosome Anomalies. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal). 2018 spring.
  28. Nishavathi, E., & Jeyshankar, R. (2020). A Scientometric Social Network Analysis of International Collaborative Publications of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 8(3), 64-76.
  29. Nooy, W. de, Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
  30. Nundulall, R & Dorasamy, N. (2012). Mentorship and sustainable research output: a case study of the university of johannesburg. Industry and Higher Education, 26(2):127-137.
  31. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. Wiborg (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday, ed. F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, J. Schneider. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, p 9-24.
  32. Pillai, K. G. S., & Priyalakshmi, V. (2013). Research publication trend among the scientists of Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI), Thiruvananthapuram: A scientometric study. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 60(1): 7-14.
  33. Santos, J. A. C. (2014). Co-authorship networks: Collaborative research structures at the journal level. Tourism & Management Studies, (1):5-13.
  34. Scott, J. (2017). Social Network Analysis (4th edition). SAGE Publications.2017
  35. Waltman L, Yan, E, van Eck, NJ. (2011). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, 89(1):301.
  36. Wasserman. S & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press; 825 p. (Structural analysis in the social sciences).