4.6 Article

Estimates of Arab world research productivity associated with groundwater: a bibliometric analysis

期刊

APPLIED WATER SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 1255-1272

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13201-016-0520-2

关键词

Groundwater; Bibliometric; Scopus; Citation; Impact factor; Arab world

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sustainable management of groundwater resources is a pressing necessity for most countries. As most of the Arab world is facing severe water scarcity, threats of depletion of non-renewable groundwater, and problems of pollution and salt-water intrusions into groundwater aquifers, much effort should be devoted to eliminate these dangers in advance. This work was devoted to bring up insights into Arab world research activities in groundwater, which is a crucial task to identify their status and can help in shaping up and improving future research activities. A bibliometric analysis has been conducted to track these activities. The study identified 1417 documents which represent 3.3% of global research productivity. Egypt was the most productive country (313; 22.1%), followed by Saudi Arabia (254; 17.9%). Total citations were 9720 with an average of 6.9. The h-index of the retrieved documents was 39, and the highest one was 22 for Egypt. The most common subject category was Environmental Science, and the most productive journal was Arabian Journal of Geosciences (99; 7.0%). In international research collaboration, France was the most collaborated country with Arab world (125; 8.8%), followed by the United States (113; 8.0%). The most productive institution was King Abdul-Aziz University, Saudi Arabia (66; 4.7%). The outcomes shows remarkable improvements in groundwater research activities originated from the Arab world. Even though, constructive efforts should be pursued vigorously to bridge the gaps in groundwater-based research. Moreover, promotion of better evaluation tools to assess the risks arising from the mismanagement of groundwater resources is required urgently.

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

4.6
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