-
Institutional Shifts in Contribution to Indian Research Output during the last two decades
Authors:
Vivek Kumar Singh,
Mousumi Karmakar,
Anurag Kanaujia
Abstract:
In the past few decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer, with research output being contributed by a diverse set of institutions ranging from centrally funded to state funded, and from public funded to private funded institutions. A significant change has been witnessed in Indian institutional actors during the last two decades, with various new private universities being set up a…
▽ More
In the past few decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer, with research output being contributed by a diverse set of institutions ranging from centrally funded to state funded, and from public funded to private funded institutions. A significant change has been witnessed in Indian institutional actors during the last two decades, with various new private universities being set up and several new IITs, NITs, IISERs being established. Therefore, it is important to identify whether the composition of the list of the top 100 research output producing institutions of India has changed significantly during the recent two decades. This study attempted to analyse the changes during the two 10-year periods (2004-13 and 2014-23). The institutions which retain their position within top 100 during both periods are identified, along with the change in their positions. Similarly, institutions that were there in top 100 list during first time period (2004-13) and go out of top 100 list during second time period (2014-23) are also identified. In the same line, the new entrant institutions in the top 100 list during second time period (2014-23) are identified too. The results obtained indicate towards an institutional shift in the contribution to Indian research output.
△ Less
Submitted 9 December, 2024;
originally announced December 2024.
-
A large-scale comparison of social media coverage and mentions captured by the two altmetric aggregators- Altmetric.com and PlumX
Authors:
Mousumi Karmakar,
Sumit Kumar Banshal,
Vivek Kumar Singh
Abstract:
The increased social media attention to scholarly articles has resulted in efforts to create platforms & services to track and measure the social media transactions around scholarly articles in different social platforms (such as Twitter, Blog, Facebook) and academic social networks (such as Mendeley, Academia and ResearchGate). Altmetric.com and PlumX are two popular aggregators that track social…
▽ More
The increased social media attention to scholarly articles has resulted in efforts to create platforms & services to track and measure the social media transactions around scholarly articles in different social platforms (such as Twitter, Blog, Facebook) and academic social networks (such as Mendeley, Academia and ResearchGate). Altmetric.com and PlumX are two popular aggregators that track social media activity around scholarly articles from a variety of social platforms and provide the coverage and transaction data to researchers for various purposes. However, some previous studies have shown that the social media data captured by the two aggregators have differences in terms of coverage and magnitude of mentions. This paper aims to revisit the question by doing a large-scale analysis of social media mentions of a data sample of 1,785,149 publication records (drawn from multiple disciplines, demographies, publishers). Results obtained show that PlumX tracks more wide sources and more articles as compared to Altmetric.com. However, the coverage and average mentions of the two aggregators vary across different social media platforms, with Altmetric.com recording higher mentions in Twitter and Blog, and PlumX recording higher mentions in Facebook and Mendeley, for the same set of articles. The coverage and average mentions captured by the two aggregators across different document types, disciplines and publishers is also analyzed.
△ Less
Submitted 28 March, 2021; v1 submitted 17 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis
Authors:
Vivek Kumar Singh,
Prashasti Singh,
Mousumi Karmakar,
Jacqueline Leta,
Philipp Mayr
Abstract:
Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article attempts…
▽ More
Traditionally, Web of Science and Scopus have been the two most widely used databases for bibliometric analyses. However, during the last few years some new scholarly databases, such as Dimensions, have come up. Several previous studies have compared different databases, either through a direct comparison of article coverage or by comparing the citations across the databases. This article attempts to compare the journal coverage of the three databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions. The most recent master journal lists of the three databases have been used for the purpose of identifying the overlapping and unique journals covered in the databases. The results indicate that the databases have significantly different journal coverage, with the Web of Science being most selective and Dimensions being the most exhaustive. About 99.11% and 96.61% of the journals indexed in Web of Science are also indexed in Scopus and Dimensions, respectively. Scopus has 96.42% of its indexed journals also covered by Dimensions. Dimensions database has the most exhaustive coverage, with 82.22% more journals covered as compared to Web of Science and 48.17% more journals covered as compared to Scopus. We also analysed the research outputs for 20 highly productive countries for the 2010-2019 period, as indexed in the three databases, and identified database-induced variations in research output volume, rank and global share of different countries. In addition to variations in overall coverage of research output from different countries, the three databases appear to have differential coverage of different disciplines.
△ Less
Submitted 28 March, 2021; v1 submitted 31 October, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
Does presence of social media plugins in a journal website result in higher social media attention of its research publications
Authors:
Mousumi Karmakar,
Sumit Kumar Banshal,
Vivek Kumar Singh
Abstract:
Social media platforms have now emerged as an important medium for wider dissemination of research articles; with authors, readers and publishers creating different kinds of social media activity about the article. Some research studies have even shown that articles that get more social media attention may get higher visibility and citations. These factors are now persuading journal publishers to…
▽ More
Social media platforms have now emerged as an important medium for wider dissemination of research articles; with authors, readers and publishers creating different kinds of social media activity about the article. Some research studies have even shown that articles that get more social media attention may get higher visibility and citations. These factors are now persuading journal publishers to integrate social media plugins in their webpages to facilitate sharing and dissemination of articles in social media platforms. Many past studies have analyzed several factors (like journal impact factor, open access, collaboration etc.) that may impact social media attention of scholarly articles. However, there are no studies to analyze whether the presence of social media plugin in a journal could result in higher social media attention of articles published in the journal. This paper aims to bridge this gap in knowledge by analyzing a sufficiently large-sized sample of 99,749 articles from 100 different journals. Results obtained show that journals that have social media plugins integrated in their webpages get significantly higher social media mentions and shares for their articles as compared to journals that do not provide such plugins. Authors and readers visiting journal webpages appear to be a major contributor to social media activity around articles published in such journals. The results suggest that publishing houses should actively provide social media plugin integration in their journal webpages to increase social media visibility (altmetric impact) of their articles.
△ Less
Submitted 12 July, 2020;
originally announced July 2020.
