ArticlePDF Available

Publications of Banaras Hindu University during 1989-2016: A Three-dimensional Bibliometric Study

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

A3-D bibliometric evaluation of Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi is reported in this study. Data was retrieved from Web of Science, Science Citation Index-Expanded for the period 1989-2016. A total 16556 records are included in this study. Exponential growth of publications is seen since 2005. Chemistry has maximum publications, followed by Physics. Current Science published maximum research publications of BHU. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research is the main collaborator of BHU with 443 publications, followed by Defence Research and Development Organisation with 280 publications. BHU’s main collaborator country is USA with 607 publications, followed by Germany with 471 publications. Maximum consistency (0.40) in international collaboration is seen with Nepal, whereas minimum consistency observed with England. Maximum consistency of publications is seen 1995. Highest consistency (0.37) is seen in sub-field electrochemistry. Sepectrochimica acta Part A has highest consistency (0.53), while Astrophysics and Space Science has lowest (0.19) consistency.
Content may be subject to copyright.
403
DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, Vol. 37, No. 6, November 2017, pp. 403-409, DOI : 10.14429/djlit.37.11741
2017, DESIDOC
1. INTRODUCTION
The institutions belonging to the higher education sector
taken together are the biggest contributors to India’s academic
research output. University rankings are now taken seriously.
The rst global university rankings became available in
2003 by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, now known as the
Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). Three
Indian institutions appeared in the world rankings in 2003
were Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru in the 251–
300 bracket and the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) at
Delhi and Kharagpur in the 451–500 bracket. The Shanghai
ARWU rankings are based mainly on research indicators, as
are many other similar rankings, e.g. the Leiden rankings, the
Taiwan Higher Education Accreditation Evaluation Council
University Ranking, and the EU Assessment of University-
Based Research. The European University Association report
conrms that most international rankings focus predominantly
on indicators related to the research function of universities.
It is therefore meaningful in the present exercise to focus on
the research contributions of higher educational institutions
(HEIs) in India1-2.
These research-intensive institutions belonging to the
higher education sector are the biggest contributor to India’s
academic research output. Measuring scientic research
competence of institutions has always been considered a
challenging but useful exercise. It is now generally accepted
that institutions of higher education and research need to be
subjected to some benchmarking process or performance
evaluation time to time which highlighted the strength and
inspire to hold rank nationally and globally3-4.
In India the National Institutional Ranking Framework
(NIRF) approved by Ministry of Human Resource and
Development ranked the universities across the country
based on ‘Teaching, Learning and Resources,’ ‘Research and
Professional Practices,’ ‘Graduation Outcomes,’ ‘Outreach
and Inclusivity,’ and ‘Perception’. Banaras Hindu University
ranked third among top universities in the NIRF.
In recent years, three dimensional (3-D) bibliometric
analysis has been used by Prathap5 to identify the leading
countries, organisations and authors and the most inuential
journals in the area of monsoon research. A bibliometric
proling of Current Science based on quantitative indicators
identied the most productive authors, cities and states that
have published articles and notes in Current Science in the
recent past6. Dwivedi7 evaluated Indian dengue research and
global dengue research8 through the primary 3-D measures of
quality, quantity, consistency and two secondary indicators,
the h index and z index. In the present paper. Author made an
attempt to evaluate research performance of the Banaras Hindu
University using a 3-D method. The data for the study was
retrieved from Web of Science database for the period 1989
to 2016.
Research performance is modelled by a simple heuristic
‘thermodynamic’ model9-11 that complemented the quantity
and quality dimensions with a third dimension, consistency, ƞ,
to allow a better 3-D evaluation of the information-production
process. The parallel used was the ‘3Vs’ metaphor of Laney12
on 3-D data management, in which the number of papers, P,
Publications of Banaras Hindu University during 1989-2016: A Three-dimensional
Bibliometric Study
Sandhya Dwivedi
Department of Library &Information Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi – 221 005, India
E-mail: sandhpandey79@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
A3-D bibliometric evaluation of Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi is reported in this study. Data
was retrieved from Web of Science, Science Citation Index-Expanded for the period 1989-2016. A total 16556
records are included in this study. Exponential growth of publications is seen since 2005. Chemistry has maximum
publications, followed by Physics. Current Science published maximum research publications of BHU. Council
of Scientic & Industrial Research is the main collaborator of BHU with 443 publications, followed by Defence
Research and Development Organisation with 280 publications. BHU’s main collaborator country is USA with 607
publications, followed by Germany with 471 publications. Maximum consistency (0.40) in international collaboration
is seen with Nepal, whereas minimum consistency observed with England. Maximum consistency of publications is
seen 1995. Highest consistency (0.37) is seen in sub-eld electrochemistry. Sepectrochimica acta Part A has highest
consistency (0.53), while Astrophysics and Space Science has lowest (0.19) consistency.
Keywords: Three-dimensional study; Banaras Hindu University; BHU; Collaboration
Received : 09 August 2017, Revised : 03 September 2017
Accepted : 19 September 2017, Online published : 07 November 2017
DJLIT, VOL. 37, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2017
404
indicated volume; the quality (or impact i), as measured
by the ratio C/P, where C is the total number of citations
received by P papers, indicated the velocity with which the
ideas in P papers are communicated through citations C,
and consistency ƞ indicated the variety (variability) in the
quality of the individual papers in the publication set or, in
other words, the shape of the distribution curve. By using all
three components together, a z-index can be computed from
an energy-like term (Z = ƞ X = ƞ2E) as z = Z1/3, which has the
same dimensions as the number of publications. X is energy
and E is energy5-6, so it is possible to imagine a phantom
indicator named zynergy for Z = ƞ X = ƞ2E. This phantom index
combines quantity, quality, and consistency (or efciency) in
the true spirit of 3D evaluation. The accurate calculation of
consistency (ƞ) requires the complete citation sequence, (i.e.
the distribution curve) for country, organisation, author or
journal.
2. THREE-DIMENSIONAL EVALUATION
TOOLS
Several indicators have been used to express performance
of scientic output of an individual, institution, or an entity.
Scientic performance of individual or an entity can be
measured by using different parameters.
2.1 Quantity
Number of papers/articles P published during a
prescribed window will be called publication window (for this
study the window is from 1989 to 2016). A ve-year citation
window is considered for each year.
2.2 Quality and Consistency
Quality denotes citation per paper, calculated as C/P
where C is the number of citations during a prescribed citation
window. The quality measurement needed two separate
windows, the publication window and the citation window. In
3-D evaluation of performance measurement after computing
quantity P and quality i parameters, it is possible to derive other
indicators by following these sequences. P= i0P (zeroth-order
indicator), C= i1P (rst-order indicator), X= i2P = iC (second-
order indicator), where C = Σcj, j = 1 to P.
C is derived from complete citation sequence, cj of the
citation of each paper in a publication portfolio of P papers
as the total number of citations, C=∑cj, for j=1 to P. Both P
and C serve as indicators of performance in their respective
ways. If C=iP may be assumed as the rst-order indicator
for performance, the exergy indicator X= i2P, is an energy
like quantity which serves as a second order indicator of
performance. This model leads to a trinity of energy- like
terms5, 13-14
X = i2P, E = Σcj
2, S = Σ (cj-i)2 = E-X.
The h-index is observed by ordering the citation in a
decreasing sequence15. Highly cited papers are seen to be
concentrated in a small region, possibility of huge variation
in the quality of papers in the publication set. According to
Prathap11, in case of high skews, the product X=iC=i2P, which
is a second-order indicator is a better proxy for performance than
C itself. Apart from X, an additional indicator E also appears
as a second- order indicator as seen above. The existence of
both proxies X and E allows to introduce third proxy named
as consistency (variability) ƞ=X/E. When X=E, i.e., ƞ=1, the
condition indicates for the perfect consistency means uniform
performance (all papers have the same number of citations,
cj=c). The inverse of consistency gives the concentration of
best work in few papers of extraordinary impact. Thus, for a
complete 3-D evaluation of publication activity, one needs P,
i, and ƞ. These are the three primary components of a quantity-
quality-consistency landscape.
3. METHODOLOGY
Data is retrieved from Science Citation Index-Expanded
for Organisation=(Banaras Hindu University) for the period
1989-2016. Data downloaded in Excel sheets on various
parameters that needed to unfold the data three-dimensionally.
From all the related articles P and Citation C are computed for
this study. Then all the indicators quality, quantity, consistency
for various year, various subject eld and collaborative
countries are counted on excel sheets. By using all the three
indicators together, z index can be calculated from an energy
like term (Z=ɳX= ɳ2E). This z index is the combination of
quantity, quality and consistency (or efciency), provide truly
3D evaluation of scholarly publications. It may be assumed P,
i and ɳ as primary indicators and h and z index are secondary,
composite indicators.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A total of 17367 records are retrieved. These records
included all types of documents like articles, article
proceedings, article book chapter, biographical item, book
review, corrections, discussions, editorial materials, letter,
meeting abstract, news items, notes, reprints, review. The total
16556 records covering articles, article proceedings, letter,
and reviews are taken in this assessment. The strategy was
extended with rene selection for various particular disciplines,
collaborative institutions and collaborative countries.
4.1 Growth
Figure 1 shows the yearly publication of BHU. Maximum
(1000) publications are observed in 2013, whereas minimum
(200) publications are seen in 1995.Figure also shows that
publications were nearly constant for the period 1989 to 2005
except the year 1995 where dip was observed. Exponential
growth is seen since the year 2005. The many vacant seats of
faculty members were lled at that time (2004-05) might be
Figure 1. Yearly growth of BHU.
DWIVEDI : THREE-DIMENSIONAL BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY DURING 1989-2016
405
the reason for exponential growth after 2005.
Table 1 describes the yearly distribution of three primary
bibliometric components viz, quantity (P), quality (i) and
consistency (ɳ) with two sub indices h and z-index. Maximum
consistency is seen in the year 1995. The value of h-index is
highest in 2011 while the value of z-index is highest in 2012.
The list with the year 2012, as articles, articles proceedings,
reviews, letter and notes of more recent origin would not have
had enough time to collect a reasonable number of citations. For
this reason, the list has been terminated with the year 2012. A
ve-year citation window is considered to be reasonable from
this point of view. For each year in Table 1, a ve year citation
window is used for calculations of different parameters.
Table 1. Yearly distribution of values of three primary bibliometric
components and the h- and z- indices for BHU
Years P C i ƞh z
1989 428 725 1.69 0.24 10 6.69
1990 412 777 1.89 0.23 11 6.94
1991 440 952 2.16 0.20 13 7.48
1992 448 978 2.18 0.35 10 9.09
1993 360 781 2.17 0.29 11 7.89
1994 389 968 2.49 0.26 12 8.51
1995 200 990 4.95 0.45 13 13.01
1996 410 1005 2.45 0.37 11 9.71
1997 358 921 2.57 0.30 12 8.91
1998 407 1554 3.82 0.13 15 9.12
1999 401 1222 3.05 0.19 14 8.94
2000 383 1191 3.11 0.34 13 10.81
2001 351 1653 4.71 0.12 16 9.82
2002 314 2180 6.94 0.06 17 9.69
2003 350 2998 8.57 0.04 19 10.20
2004 351 2325 6.62 0.11 19 11.98
2005 374 3268 8.74 0.06 23 11.85
2006 462 3824 8.28 0.15 26 16.70
2007 613 5741 9.37 0.20 32 21.91
2008 747 5842 7.82 0.22 32 21.55
2009 839 7622 9.08 0.33 40 28.28
2010 897 10209 11.38 0.12 38 23.94
2011 1038 10424 10.04 0.23 42 28.67
2012 985 10322 10.48 0.32 39 32.74
Figure 2. Distribution of authorship pattern with year.
Figure 3. Distribution of Collaboration Coefcient with years.
4.2 Authorship Pattern
Authorship pattern of BHU is shown in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2
it is clear that multi author published maximum papers in most
years. The two author papers decreases with year, whereas
mega author papers increases with year. In the present study,3
and 4 author is considered as multi author, whereas if number
of author is more than 4 in a paper then it was considered as
mega author.
The value of collaboration coefcient (CC) is shown
in Fig. 3. For calculating the value of CC author follow the
procedure given by Price and Beaver16 and Garg and Dwivedi17.
The Fig. 3 shows that the value of CC above 0.5 in every year
and it is exponentially increasing. According to Ajiferuke18, CC
tends to zero as single authored papers dominate and higher the
value of CC, higher the probability of multi and mega authored
papers. This implies that papers published by BHU are more
in collaboration and collaboration pattern is continually
increasing with years.
4.3 International collaboration
Table 2 lists values of three primary bibliometric
components and the h- and z- indices for BHU collaborating
with leading countries. Table 2 indicates that BHU’s main
collaborator country is USA with 607 publications, followed
by Germany with 471 publications. Maximum consistency
(0.40) in international collaboration is seen with Nepal,
whereas minimum consistency (0.10) observed with England.
Here, the maximum value of consistency is very less than 1,
this indicate that none country has consistent collaborator with
BHU. USA has a highest value (60)of h-index. While Israel
has maximum (60.5) value of z-index. Highest quality (impact)
(70.01) observed with Russia. This shows that quality of papers
with collaboration with Russia is best in comparison to other
papers.
DJLIT, VOL. 37, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2017
406
Figure 4 summarise leading countries collaborating with
BHU in z-h map. From gure it is clear that England, Canada
and Nepal have lower value of z-h indices.
4.4 Institutional Collaboration
Values of three primary bibliometric components along
with the h- and z- indices for BHU collaborating with leading
institutes are listed in Table 3. It is clearly seen from Table 3 that
CSIR is the main collaborator of BHU with 443 publications,
followed by DRDO with 280 publications. CNRS of France
has 169 publications in collaboration with BHU. CSIR has
maximum (0.39) consistency, whereas DRDO has minimum
(0.17) consistency in collaboration with BHU. Here, the
maximum value of consistency is very less than 1, this indicate
that none institution has consistent collaborator with BHU.
Highest quality (impact) (72.84) observed with Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, USA. This shows that quality of papers
with collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA
is best in comparison to other papers written with collaboration
to other institutes.
Figure 5 summarise leading institutions collaborating
with BHU in z-h map. From gure it is clear that IIT and CSIR
have lower value of z-h indices.
CSIR-Council of Scientic & Industrial Research (India);
DRDO-Defence Research and Development Organisation
(India); IIT-Indian Institute of Technology (India); CNRS-
Centre national de la recherché scientique
(France); BARC- Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre; USDOE-US Department of Energy (USA),
UC- University of California System (USA);
UT- University of Tokyo (Japan); ORNL- Oak
Ride National Laboratory (USA); SUSF- State
University system of Florida (USA); TIT- Tokyo
Institute of Technology (Japan);
4.5 Sub-fields of the Study
Sub-eld wise distribution of consistency,
h-index and z-index are given in Table 4.
Chemistry has maximum (2118) publications,
followed by Physics with 1884 publications.
Maximum consistency (0.37) is seen in sub-
eld electrochemistry, whereas minimum (0.09)
consistency is observed in sub-eld of Physics.
The value (57) of h-index is highest for Physics.
The quality (impact) 10.23 is maximum for
Physics.
The number of papers and citations in
Table 1 are more than the number of papers and
citations mentioned in this table, because here
we have considered only major 14 publishing
sub-eld.
Figure 4. A 2-D z-h map of leading countries in collaboration
with BHU.
Table 3. Values of three primary bibliometric components and the h- and
z- indices for BHU collaborating with leading institutes
Organisations P C i ƞh z
Council of Scientic & Industrial
Research, India
443 3426 7.73 0.39 27 21.71
Defence Research and Development
Organisation, India
280 10098 36.06 0.17 53 39.84
Indian Institute of Technology, India 255 1224 4.8 0.33 17 12.51
Centre national de la recherché
scientique, France
169 9706 57.43 0.29 55 54.71
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, India 166 8017 48.3 0.23 49 44.78
State University System of Florida, USA 162 9545 58.92 0.30 53 55.06
University of California System, USA 152 9639 63.41 0.32 55 58.06
US Department of Energy 143 9783 68.41 0.33 55 60.26
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan 141 9418 66.79 0.33 53 59.29
University of Tokyo, Japan 138 9473 68.64 0.34 55 60.53
State University of Newyork Suny
System, USA
133 9313 70.02 0.34 53 60.77
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA 133 9688 72.84 0.35 55 62.47
Columbia University, USA 130 9379 72.15 0.36 55 62.22
Yonsei University, South Korea 130 9307 71.59 0.35 53 61.64
University System of Geargia, USA 130 9318 71.68 0.35 53 61.74
Table 2. Values of three primary bibliometric components
and the h- and z- indices for BHU collaborating with
leading countries
Countries P C i ƞh z
USA 607 15496 25.53 0.18 60 41.07
Germany 471 12949 27.49 0.18 57 39.73
Japan 278 10467 37.65 0.20 55 43.22
France 209 10430 49.9 0.27 55 51.83
South Korea 186 10325 55.51 0.28 55 54.07
P.R. China 182 9690 53.24 0.27 53 51.92
Sweden 175 10716 61.23 0.26 55 55.26
England 166 3562 21.46 0.10 29 19.48
Brazil 147 9499 64.62 0.32 53 58.32
Hungary 143 9344 65.34 0.32 53 58.16
Israel 135 9356 69.30 0.34 53 60.51
Russia 134 9381 70.01 0.35 53 47.73
Taiwan 128 7327 57.24 0.26 46 20.32
Canada 104 2863 27.53 0.11 25 18.45
Nepal 88 1169 13.28 0.40 22 52.36
DWIVEDI : THREE-DIMENSIONAL BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY DURING 1989-2016
407
4.6 Leading Journals
List of leading journals used by BHU for
publication are shown in Table 5. Current Science
published maximum research publications of BHU,
followed by Spectrochimica Acta Part A and Indian
Journal of Chemistry Section A. Sepectrochimica
Acta Part A has highest consistency (0.53), while
Astrophysics and Space Science has lowest (0.19)
consistency. The maximum value of consistency
indicates that paper published by BHU faculty
in journal Spectrochemica Acta Part A is nearly
continuous. The value of impact factor (3.17), h (26)
and z-indices (24.65) are maximum for Physical
Review C. The highest quality (impact) (28) for
papers published in Physical Review C. The
paper published in Physical Review C is better in
comparison to paper published in other journals.
4.7 Prolific and Highly Cited Papers
Table 6 lists the prolic authors of BHU
having publications more than 200. Maximum 346
publications are written by ON Shrivastava of Department
of Physics, whereas maximum citations are received by C.P.
Singh of the same department.
Table 4. Values of three primary bibliometric components and the h- and
z- indices for BHU in different sub-elds
Sub-elds P C i ƞh z
Chemistry 2118 15180 7.17 0.2 42 27.88
Physics 1884 19268 10.23 0.09 57 25.99
Material Science 1367 9064 6.63 0.15 40 20.61
Engineering 1137 5782 5.09 0.16 30 16.92
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 699 4445 6.36 0.33 27 21.01
Pharmacology & Pharmacy 586 4276 7.3 0.24 26 19.49
Metallurgy Metallurgical Engineering 485 2809 5.79 0.17 20 14.00
Plant Sciences 480 2639 5.5 0.36 22 17.38
Environmental Sciences Ecology 443 3471 7.84 0.33 26 20.68
Biotechnology Applied Microbiology 410 3474 8.47 0.32 29 21.09
Agriculture 382 2497 6.54 0.31 23 17.22
Geology 378 1174 3.11 0.22 15 9.36
Mathematics 317 1087 3.43 0.18 15 8.83
Electrochemistry 300 2640 8.8 0.37 23 20.47
Figure 5. A 2-D z-h map of leading institution in collaboration
with BHU.
Table 5. Values of three primary bibliometric components and the h- and z- indices for leading journals of BHU research
Journals IF P C i ƞ h z
Current Science 0.905 255 504 1.98 0.29 10 6.62
Indian Journal of Chemistry Section A 0.787 122 216 1.77 0.43 6 5.48
Spectrochimica Acta Part A- Molecular and Biomoloecular Spectroscopy 1.977 115 620 5.39 0.53 12 12.09
Synthesis and Reactivity in Inorganic and Metal- Organic Chemistry 0.144 103 168 1.63 0.45 6 4.97
Indian Journal of Chemistry Section B 0.689 102 241 2.36 0.4 7 6.12
Journal of theIndian Chemical Society 0.251 98 62 0.63 0.24 4 2.1
Journal of Material Science 2.163 97 375 3.87 0.44 11 8.64
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 3.548 96 761 7.93 0.4 15 13.36
Journal of the Geological Society of India 0.567 84 145 1.73 0.25 6 3.95
Physical Review C 3.715 83 2160 26.02 0.27 26 24.65
Bulletin of Material Science 82 155 1.89 0.36 6 4.73
Microwave and Optical Technology Letters 0.585 81 222 2.74 0.33 8 5.83
Astrophysics and Space Science 2.064 80 147 1.84 0.19 9 3.73
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2.39 60 453 7.55 0.60 12 12.73
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 0.177 58 41 0.71 0.24 4 1.9
Table 6. Prolic Authors having publications more than 200
Name Departments Publications Citations
Shrivastav O.N. Dept of Physics 346 4578
Sundar, Shyam Institute of
Medical Sciences
338 11844
Rai, S.B. Dept of Physics 242 4254
Singh C. P. Dept of Physics 217 18528
DJLIT, VOL. 37, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2017
408
Table 7 lists the top ten highly cited papers of BHU. All of
them are mega-authored and in international collaboration with
other countries. Author from BHU are not in rst authorship.
5. CONCLUSIONS
An attempt of 3-D evaluation on a renowned institution
Banaras Hindu University research output published in scholarly
journal listed by Web of Science database for the period 1989 to
2016 is made. Exponential growth of publications is seen since
the year 2005. Maximum consistency of publications is seen
in the year 1995. The papers published by BHU are more in
collaboration and collaboration pattern is continually increasing
with years. BHU’s main collaborator country is USA with 607
publications, followed by Germany with 471 publications.
Maximum consistency (0.40) in international collaboration is
seen with Nepal, whereas minimum consistency observed with
England. The maximum value of consistency is very less than
1, this indicate that none country has consistent collaborator
with BHU. Highest quality (impact) (70.01) observed with
Russia, which indicates quality of papers with collaboration
with Russia is best in comparison to other papers. CSIR is the
main collaborator of BHU with 443 publications, followed by
DRDO with 280 publications. Chemistry has maximum (2118)
publications, followed by Physics with 1884 publications.
Highest consistency (0.37) is seen in sub-eld electrochemistry.
Current Science published maximum research publications of
BHU. Sepectrochimica Acta Part A has highest consistency
(0.53), while Astrophysics and Space Science has lowest
(0.19) consistency. Maximum 346 publications are written by
ON Shrivastava of Department of Physics, whereas maximum
citations are received by C.P. Singh of same department.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Financial assistance from UGC, New Delhi is thankfully
acknowledged.
Table 7. Ten highly cited papers
Publication details TNC
Adcox, K. et al., Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the
PHENIX Collaboration, Nuclear Physics A 757 (2005) 184-283
1703
Kumarasamy, K.K. et al. Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular, biological,
and epidemiological study, Lancet Infectious Disease 10 (9) (2010) 597-602
1094
Adler, S.S. et al. Elliptic ow of identied hadrons in Au+Au collisions at root s(NN)=200 GeV, Physical Review Letters 91(18)
(2003) 182301
952
Adler, S.S. et al. Scaling properties of proton and antiproton production in root s(NN)=200 GeV Au+Au collisions, Physical Review
Letters 91 (17:17230) (2003)
952
Adler, S.S. et al. Suppressed pi(0) production at large transverse momentum in central Au plus Au collisions at root s(NN)=200 GeV,
Physical Review Letters 91 (7:072301) (2003)
952
Adcox, K. et al. Suppression of hadrons with large transverse momentum in central Au+Au collisions at root s(NN)=130 GeV, Physical
Review Letters 88 (2: 022301) (2002)
809
Croft, S.L.; Sundar, S.; Fairlamb, A.H. Drug resistance in leishmaniasis, Clinical Microbiological Review 19(1) (2006) 111-126 718
Adler, S.S. Identied charged particle spectra and yields in Au plus Au collisions at root(SNN)=200 GeV, Physical Review C 69 (3:
034909) (2004)
586
Yo , J.J. et al. Ultrathin Planar Graphene Supercapacitors, Nano Letters 11(4) (2011) 1423-1427 501
Sharma, Y.C.; Singh, B.; Upadhyay, S.N. Advancements in development and characterization of biodiesel: A review, Fuel 87(12)
(2008) 2355-2373
470
REFERENCES
1. Prathap, G. The performance of research- intensive higher
educational institutions in India. Current Science, 2014,
107(3), 389-396.
2. Rauhvargers, A. Global University Rankings and their
Impact, Report, European University Association, 2011;
http://www.eua. be/pubs/global_university_rankings_
and_their_impact.pdf (Accessed on May 2017))
3. Uddin, A.& Singh, V.K. A quantity- quality composite
ranking of Indian institutions in CS research, IETE
Technical Review, 2015.
doi: 10.1080/02564602.2015.1010614
4. Basu, A.; Banshal, S.K.; Singhal, K. & Singh, V.K.
Designing a composite index for research performance
evaluation at the national or regional level: ranking
central universities in India, Scientometrics, 2016, 107,
1171-1193. DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-1935-0
5. Prathap, G. A bibliometric evaluation of research on the
monsoon. DESIDOC J. Lib. Info. Technol., 2014, 34(3),
191-96.
6. Prathap, G. A bibliometric prole of current science.
Current Science, 2014, 106(7), 958-963
7. Dwivedi, S. Dengue research in India during 1989-2015:
three dimensional bibliometric assessments, Library
Herald, 2017, 55(1), 77-88.
8. Dwivedi, S. Dengue research: three dimensional
bibliometric study of the global research output during
1989-2015, DESIDOC J. Lib. Info. Technol., 2017, 37(3),
180-185.
doi: 10.14429/djlit.37.3.10857
9. Prathap, G. Quasity, when quantity has a quality all ots
own: Toward a theory of performance. Scientometrics,
2011, 88, 555-562.
10. Prathap, G. The energy-exergy-entropy (or EEE)
sequences in bibliometric assesment. Scientometrics,
DWIVEDI : THREE-DIMENSIONAL BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY DURING 1989-2016
409
2011, 87, 515-524.
11. Prathap, G. The zynergy-index and the formula for the
h-index. J. Assoc. Info. Sci. Tech., 2013, 65(2), 426-427.
12. Laney, D. 3D data management: controlling data volume,
velocity and variety. 2011 Retrieved from http://blogs.
gartner.com/doug-laney/les/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-
Management-Controlling-Data-Volume-Velocity-and-
Variety.pdf. (Accessed on: May 2017))
13. Pratap, G. Quantity, quality and consistancy as bibliometric
indicators. J. Assoc. Info. Sci. Tech., 2013, 65, 214.
14. Prathap, G. A three-dimensional bibliometric evaluation
of research in polymer solar cells. Scientometrics, 2014,
101, 889-898.
15. Hirsch, J.E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientic
research output. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA, 2005,
102, 16569-72.
16. De Solla Price, D. & Beaver, D.B. Collaboration in an
invisible college. American Psychologist, 1966, 21(11),
1011-18.
17. Garg, K.C. & Dwivedi S., Pattern of collaboration in the
discipline of Japanese Encephelitis. DESIDOC J. Lib.
Info. Technol., 2014, 34(3), 241-247.
18. Ajiferuke, I. Burrel, Q. & Tague, J. Collaborative
coefcient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration
in research. Scientometrics, 1988, 14(5-6), 421-33.
CONTRIBUTOR
Dr Sandhya Dwivedi has been working as Post Doctoral Fellow
in the Department of Library & Information Science, Banaras
Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi since April 2014. She obtained
MSc (Chemistry) from VBS Purvanchal University, Jaunpur,
and BLIS, MLIS and PhD (LIS) from Dr. H.S. Gour University,
Sagar. She has published several papers in bibliometrics/
scientometrics in leading national journals of repute.
Article
Purpose This study aims to measure the global research landscape of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) of India on a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics in terms of research output toward exploring research trends and give an overview of collaborative practices by researchers of NIPERs. Design/methodology/approach The present study has selected the Scopus database as a tool to retrieve potential publications of studied NIPERs during the last 12 years (2010–2021). NIPER-Mohali, NIPER-Hyderabad, NIPER-Ahmedabad, NIPER-Guwahati and NIPER-Kolkata have been selected for the study. The study has adopted a comprehensive search strategy to extract 3,926 publications data. VOS viewer 1.6.17, BibExcel and Microsoft Excel were used for data analysis and visualization. Findings The global scientific research output of NIPERs accrued 3,926 publications with an average of 327 publications per year. The retrieved publications fetched a total of 67,772 citations with an average citation impact of 17.26. There observed a steady growth of publications from 168 to 509 registered with an average growth rate of 18.44%. The mean relative growth rate and doubling time of research output are 0.26 and 2.94. The authorship patterns explore collaborative trends as most of the publications were published by multiple authors (99.39%). NIPERs have expanded their outreach to collaborate with the USA, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the UK to collaborate on research and regulatory reforms exhibits in the USA as a major contributor. Originality/value The present study is the first effort to evaluate the global research productivity of NIPERs and assess the current research trends on a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics to provide some insights into the complex dynamics of research productivity. The study’s outcome may help to identify the current research progress of NIPERs at the global level.
Article
Purpose This study aims to investigate the research productivity in terms of publications count of the top four premiers Indian Institute of Management (IIM) institutions and to explore the current research trends. Design/methodology/approach Bibliometric techniques were employed to assess the performance in terms of research productivity of authors affiliated with IIMs. The Elsevier Scopus database was selected as a tool to extract the prospective publications data limiting the time frame for 2010–2021. The IIM-Ahmedabad, IIM-Bangalore, IIM-Calcutta and IIM-Lucknow have been selected for the study. The harvested data were analyzed by using the standard bibliometric indicators and scientometric parameters to measure the research landscape such as average growth rate, compound average growth rate, relative growth rate, doubling time, degree of collaboration, collaborative index, collaborative coefficient and modified collaborative coefficient. VOSviewer 1.6.17, BibExcel and Microsoft Excel were used for data analysis and visualization. Findings The research productivity of selected four IIMs has shown an upward trend during the study period from 2010–2021 and accrued 4,397 publications with an average of 366 publications per year. The authorship patterns demonstrate the collaborative trends as most of the publications were produced by the multiple-authors (81.03%). IIM-Ahmedabad has produced the maximum number of publications (32.20%). The research productivity of IIMs has come out in collaboration with the 125 nations across the world and the USA, the UK, Canada, Germany and China are the front runners with IIMs in the collaborative network. The high magnitude and density of collaboration are evident from the calculated mean values of the degree of collaboration (0.82). The mean values of the collaborative index (2.64), collaborative coefficient (0.51) and modified collaborative coefficient (0.51) demonstrated a positive trend, but indicate the fluctuation in the collaborative pattern as time proceeds. Research limitations/implications The study is limited to the publications data indexed in the Scopus database, therefore the outcome may not be generalized across other databases available in the public domain like Web of Science (WoS), PubMed, Dimensions and Google Scholars. Practical implications The findings of the study may aid academics and library professionals in identifying research trends, collaboration networks and evaluating other academic and research institutions by using the current advancement in data analysis. Originality/value The present study is the first effort to evaluate the research productivity of IIMs. The expanding literature will make an important contribution to identifying patterns and evaluating current research trends on a worldwide scale.
Article
Measuring the productivity and output is a common practice for the institutions, when we discuss about research and publications. Keeping this in mind, the bibliometric analysis of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi from the year 2000-2019 is performed in the given paper. This study shows the growth of Bundelkhand University in terms of Primary research output and publicaions in all disciplines. The total number of publications (579) indexed in SCOPUS were retrieved and analyzed to find out the year wise growth, authorship pattern, collaborative coefficient, prolific authors and popular journals for communicating the research work. MS-Excel is used for analyzing and sorting the retrieved data. Collaborative coefficient is calculated by using the formula defined by Price & Beaver. The results of the study show that the year 2019 was the year of maximum publications (57). The highest citations were received in the year 2005 (1091) and ACCP for total number of publications was 10.71. The maximum publications published as journal articles and three-authorship pattern is dominating other patterns. Dr. S.P. Singh from department of Pharmacy was found as the most prolific author.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Currently, the evaluation of scientific performance of universities is one of the important indicators in various ranking systems. One way to evaluate the academic performance of universities is to analyze the scientific documents of universities in reputable international databases. The purpose of this article is to analyze and evaluate the scientific publications of Alzahra University (Iran) as the top 100–200 universities during 1986–2019. Design/methodology/approach This study was performed using bibliometrics and visualization techniques. The Scopus database was used to collect data. Affiliation search and advanced search were used to retrieve the data. Excel, VOSviewer and CRExplorer software were used to analyze the data. Findings The results showed that the scientific publications and received citations by Alzahra University documents during the time have been upward. At the national level, it was the most scientific collaboration with researchers at the University of Tehran. Also at the international level, the most scientific collaboration has been with the United States, Canada and Germany. In total, 80% of scientific publications were published by 20% of authors. Also, 70% of the highly cited articles were published in journals with quartile 1. Finally, clustering results showed that Alzahra University's scientific publications are in five main categories, including “chemistry,” “physics,” “biology,” “psychology and educational sciences” and “accounting sciences, management, and computer science.” Originality/value This study could be a good model for evaluating the performance of scientific productions of universities and scientific institutions with bibliometrics and visualization approaches.
Article
Full-text available
It is now generally accepted that institutions of higher education and research, largely publicly funded, need to be subjected to some benchmarking process or performance evaluation. Currently there are several international ranking exercises that rank institutions at the global level, using a variety of performance criteria such as research publication data, citations, awards and reputation surveys etc. In these ranking exercises, the data are combined in specified ways to create an index which is then used to rank the institutions. These lists are generally limited to the top 500–1000 institutions in the world. Further, some criteria (e.g., the Nobel Prize), used in some of the ranking exercises, are not relevant for the large number of institutions that are in the medium range. In this paper we propose a multidimensional ‘Quality–Quantity’ Composite Index for a group of institutions using bibliometric data, that can be used for ranking and for decision making or policy purposes at the national or regional level. The index is applied here to rank Central Universities in India. The ranks obtained compare well with those obtained with the h-index and partially with the size-dependent Leiden ranking and University Ranking by Academic Performance. A generalized model for the index using other variables and variable weights is proposed.
Article
Full-text available
Leishmaniasis is a complex disease, with visceral and cutaneous manifestations, and is caused by over 15 different species of the protozoan parasite genus Leishmania. There are significant differences in the sensitivity of these species both to the standard drugs, for example, pentavalent antimonials and miltefosine, and those on clinical trial, for example, paromomycin. Over 60% of patients with visceral leishmaniasis in Bihar State, India, do not respond to treatment with pentavalent antimonials. This is now considered to be due to acquired resistance. Although this class of drugs has been used for over 60 years for leishmaniasis treatment, it is only in the past 2 years that the mechanisms of action and resistance have been identified, related to drug metabolism, thiol metabolism, and drug efflux. With the introduction of new therapies, including miltefosine in 2002 and paromomycin in 2005-2006, it is essential that there be a strategy to prevent the emergence of resistance to new drugs; combination therapy, monitoring of therapy, and improved diagnostics could play an essential role in this strategy.
Article
Dengue fever is undoubtedly one of the most rapidly spread mosquito borne re-emerging infection that poses significant threat to about half of the world’s population. People working in this field have taken dengue seriously it is reflected from the continuous increasing number of publications during 1989-2015. This study is an attempt to make a 3D bibliometric portfolio of research on dengue. This 3D bibliometric analysis portray the dengue research through various measures quality, quantity, consistency and two secondary indicators h index and z index. The data retrieved from the Web of Science. Number of publications increases 70 folds in given time span during 1989-2015. Vietnam has the highest impact (quality) while India has the lowest impact among the leading countries. Taiwan has a higher variability 0.41 (consistency ƞ), whereas Germany has a lower consistency. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research WRAIR of USA has the highest impact (quality) while Universidade DE Sao Paulo of Brazil has the lowest impact among the organisations in the list. University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston (USA) has a highest consistency 0.33, whereas University of Massachusetts System (USA) has a lowest consistency (0.03).
Article
The present study is an effort to assess dengue research performance of India based on the publications output indexed by Web of Science during 1989-2015 using three components namely quantity, quality and consistency. The data indicates an exponential growth in publications output during the study period. The most productive authors, organisations, most influential journals and most functional subfield in the area of dengue research have been evaluated. Activity index for world is more than 100 in most years, whereas lots of variation is observed in the activity index for India. Quality/Impact analysis of Indian dengue research gave the first rank to Chaturvedi UC as author, FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology as most preferred journal and King Georg Medical College, Lucknow as the best organisation and Microbiology as most favoured sub-discipline in dengue research.
Article
The institutions belonging to the higher education sector taken together are the biggest contributor to India's academic research output. In this article we use the datasets from the 2013 release of SCImago Institutions Rankings World Reports to evaluate the longitudinal performance of the quality and quantity of research output of select institutions belonging to this sector for the period 2003-2011. All institutions in this elite category have a reasonable to high growth rate in output. However, from the quality angle, we see that the high performers which are mainly the institutions of national importance are now at a relatively low growth level. We also identify a few institutions which are showing promisingly high rates of improvement in quality of research.
Article
We carry out a citation-based bibliometric profiling of the journal Current Science. A three-dimensional approach breaks down scholarly performance into three primary components - quantity, quality and consistency. The citation data are retrieved from the Web of Science. We quantify the evolution of these primary indicators with time, and along with two additional secondary indicators, the h-index and the z-index, identify the most productive authors, cities and states that have published articles and notes in Current Science in the recent past.
Article
The value of the anisotropy parameter (ν2) for identified and inclusive charged particle production at midrapidity was measured using the PHENIX experiment. It was observed that the value of the ν2 for charged particles decreases for both peripheral and central collisions with maximum at about 50% of the geometric cross section. It was found that for charged particles, ν2 increases with pT up to about 2 GeV/c and then starts to saturate or decrease slightly. The quark-coalescence scenario, in which the anisotropy of the final-state hadrons is largely inherited from the anisotropy of quarks in a preceding quark-matter phase was investigated.
Article
The yield of protons and antiprotons, as a function of centrality and transverse momentum, in Au + Au collisions at √SNN = 200 GeV was discussed. PHENIX detector was used for hadron identification over a broad momentum range. The results show a large p and p̄ contribution which increases from peripheral to central collisions and observed in the range 1.5<pT<4.5 GeV. It was also found that in central collisions at intermediate transverse momenta a significant fraction of produced particles are protons and antiprotons.