4.5 Article

An analysis of top author citations in software engineering and a comparison with other fields

期刊

SCIENTOMETRICS
卷 126, 期 11, 页码 9147-9183

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04144-1

关键词

Software engineering; Author citations; Self-citations; Comparison

资金

  1. Blekinge Institute of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on a science-wide database provided by Ioannidis et al., this research analyzed the citation behavior in the field of software engineering and compared it with other fields, identifying discrepancies in researchers' actual fields of study and the inclusion of top authors from other rankings in the database.
Ioannidis et al. provided a science-wide database of author citations. The data offers an opportunity to researchers in a field to compare the citation behavior of their field with others. In this paper, we conduct a systematic analysis of citations describing the situation in software engineering and compare it with the fields included in the data provided by Ioannidis et al. For comparison, we take the measures used by Ioannidis into consideration. We also report the top-scientists and investigate software engineering researchers' activities in other fields. The data was obtained and provided by Ioannidis et al. based on the Scopus database. Our method for analysis focuses on descriptive statistics. We compared software engineering with other fields and reported demographic information for the top authors. The analysis was done without any modifications to the ranking. In the later analysis, we observed that 37% of researchers listed as software engineers were not in the software engineering field. On the other hand, the database included a large portion of top authors (ca. 60% to 80%) identified in other software engineering rankings. Other fields using the database are advised to review the author lists for their fields. Our research's main risk was that researchers are listed that do not belong to our studied field.

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