4.5 Article

Global Bibliometric Analysis of the 'Mining & Mineral Processing' Subject Category From the Web of Science (1997-2012)

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08827508.2015.1019068

关键词

bibliometrics; journal citation reports; Mining & mineral processing' subject category; science citation index-expanded; scientific production

资金

  1. Research Project of Spanish Plan of Research, Development and Innovation [HAR2012-30723]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main objective of this study is to analyze the evolution of the research in the category Mining & Mineral Processing'. First, we have revised journals that are in this subject category in the database Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) of the Web of Science (WoS).Second, we have analyzed publications for journals between 1997 and 2012, with an analysis from the perspective of both quantity and quality. To do this, we have analyzed various bibliometric indicators for different countries and research centers such as the number of documents (article and review), showing per document, productivity, the average number of citations, authors, research centers, national and international collaboration including their networks, the weighted and relative impact factor, as well as the h-index. Furthermore, we have analyzed the international dissemination of research of countries through journals and the relationship with the impact factor to detect the published journals of each country.We have also shown that English is the most common language of publication, and the United States is the most productive country, although it has a relatively low impact factor due to the dispersion of its publications in low or medium impact journals. We can also see that University of Science and Technology of Beijing and the Russian Academy of Sciences have been the most productive institutions during the period under study, along with the large increase of the Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission of France (CEA).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据