A Comparative Study of the Bibliometric Characteristics of COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management and Journal of Scientometric Research

Abstract

The study compared the bibliometric parameters of scholarly communications published in COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics & Information Management (CJSIM) and Journal of Scientometric Research (JSR) from 2012 to 2021. Different bibliometric parameters examined in the study are pattern of output during 2012 to 2021, identification of most prolific countries and their citation impact in terms of Citation Per Paper (CPP), i-10 index and Papers not Cited (PnC). Study also identified prolific institutions and authors and their citation impact besides examining pattern of citation. The study also examined the pattern of domestic and international collaboration. Findings of the study indicate that the pattern of output is inconsistent in both the journals. The output is scattered among 39 countries in CJSIM and 50 countries in JSR. India followed by Iran contributed the highest number of papers in both the journals. Most of the prolific institutions and authors were from India in both the journals. More number of papers remained uncited in CJSIM as compared to JSR. More number of papers were published in domestic collaboration in JSR as compared to CJSIM. However, papers published in international collaboration in both the journals was almost equal. Among all the countries, China published the highest number of papers in international collaboration in CJSIM, but no such trend was observed in JSR.

Full text

Journal of Scientometric Research, 2024; 13(2):636-650.
https://www.jscires.org Research Article
Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024636
DOI: 10.5530/jscires.13.2.50
Copyright Information :
Copyright Author (s) 2024 Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
Publishing Partner : EManuscript Tech. [www.emanuscript.in]
A Comparative Study of the Bibliometric Characteristics
of COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information
Management and Journal of Scientometric Research
K.C. Garg1,*, Bebi2, Rahul Kumar Singh3
1CSIR-National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research (CSIR-NIScPR), Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi, INDIA.
2Ramanujan College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, INDIA.
3Prime Ministers Museum & Library, Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India, Teen Murti House, New Delhi, INDIA.
ABSTRACT
The study compared the bibliometric parameters of scholarly communications published in
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics & Information Management (CJSIM) and Journal of Scientometric
Research (JSR) from 2012 to 2021. Dierent bibliometric parameters examined in the study are
pattern of output during 2012 to 2021, identication of most prolic countries and their citation
impact in terms of Citation Per Paper (CPP), i-10 index and Papers not Cited (PnC). Study also
identied prolic institutions and authors and their citation impact besides examining pattern
of citation. The study also examined the pattern of domestic and international collaboration.
Findings of the study indicate that the pattern of output is inconsistent in both the journals. The
output is scattered among 39 countries in CJSIM and 50 countries in JSR. India followed by Iran
contributed the highest number of papers in both the journals. Most of the prolic institutions
and authors were from India in both the journals. More number of papers remained uncited in
CJSIM as compared to JSR. More number of papers were published in domestic collaboration
in JSR as compared to CJSIM. However, papers published in international collaboration in both
the journals was almost equal. Among all the countries, China published the highest number of
papers in international collaboration in CJSIM, but no such trend was observed in JSR.
Keywords: Bibliometric comparison, Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information
Management, Journal of Scientometric Research, Bibliometric indicators, Citation analysis,
Pattern of collaboration.
INTRODUCTION
Primary journals are an important source of new knowledge
in a discipline or a sub-discipline. ese are the most valuable
source of primary communication for researchers, scientists,
and academicians. Primary periodical literature of any discipline
reects the issues of importance to a eld of study. e quantum
of research in a country can be judged through its publications
in primary journals. Analysis of scholarly publications using
bibliometric techniques helps in understanding the trends
of growth in a discipline. India publishes a large number of
periodicals in the discipline of Library and Information Science
(LIS). However, no LIS journal published from India could make
it to Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of the Web of
Science, an international citation database owned by Clarivate
Analytics (USA). However, four journals published from India
are now indexed by Emerging Sources Citation Index of the Web
of Science. ese are Annals of Library and Information Studies,
DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, Journal
of Scientometric Research and COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics
and Information Management. Among these four journals, except
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management
(CJSIM) all are also indexed by Scopus, a leading citation database
published by Elsevier. In 2023, all these journals received ‘Impact
Factor®’ for 2022 given by Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of
Clarivate analytics, a product based on Web of Science database.
Authors have chosen these two journals for comparison because
both these journals dealt with the same discipline of bibliometrics
and scientometrics and have a good track record of publishing
academic articles. e rst issue of JSR was published in the
last quarter (September-December) of 2012, though CJSIM
started publishing in 2007. To keep the study period equal for
both journals, the authors have chosen the period from 2012 to
2021. e details of both the journals can be seen at https://www
.tandfonline.com/loi/tsim20 for CJSIM and at https://jscires.org/
Received: 01-11-2023;
Revised: 20-11-2023;
Accepted: 26-07-2024.
Correspondence:
K.C. Garg
CSIR-National Institute of Science
Communication and Policy Research
(CSIR-NIScPR), Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg,
New Delhi-110012, INDIA.
Email: gargkc022@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0003-4299-2469
ORCID: 0000-0001-9878-8868

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024 637
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
for JSR. Readers can also refer a bibliometric analysis of papers
published in Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information
Management by Garg and Bebi[1] and Giri and Das[2] for a
bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Scientometric Research.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Bibliometric study of a single journal is primarily intended
to create a portrait of the journal that exhibits its productivity,
maturity, impact and its ability in diusing the knowledge
in the specic eld it portrays. In the last two decades several
individual journals in the disciplines of LIS have been the focus
of bibliometric studies. However, only a few studies related to
bibliometric studies for two or more journals have been published
in the literature. Readers can see bibliometric studies related to
individual journals by Dutt, Garg and Bali[3] for papers published
in the international journal Scientometrics from 1978 to 2001,
Mukherjee[4] for Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology (JASIST) from 2000 to 2007, Garg, Lamba
and Singh[5] for DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information
Techno l o gy (DJLIT) from 1992 to 2019, Garg and Singh[6] for the
journal Library and Information Science Research from 1994 to
2020, Gaviria-Marin, Merigo, and Popa[7] for papers published
from 1997 to 2016 in the Journal of Knowledge Management,
Abdi et al.[8] for papers published in Information Processing
& Management, Garg, Kumar and Geeta[9] and Velmurugan
and Radhakrishnan[10] for Malaysian Journal of Library and
Information Science from 2007 to 2018 and 2008-2014 respectively,
and Naseer et al.[11] for papers published from 2012 to 2016 in
Journal of Informetrics respectively. e two journals under study
has also been subjected to bibliometric analysis. Recently Giri and
Das[2] made an analysis of papers published in volume 1 (2012)
to volume 11 (2022) of the Journal of Scientometric Research.
Authors provided a comprehensive picture at the development
and evolution of the journal by utilizing bibliometric techniques
and visualizing soware. According to authors, the journal within
a decade of its origin has attracted considerable interests of the
global research community. Also, publication of leading-edge
research in special issues on important thematic areas have
paved the way for engaging a diverse pool of researchers within
the journal. However, the study have some limitations like the
methodology used for counting of records. Also, some terms used
in the study have not been explained. e study is silent of the
citation impact of output of authors, institutions and countries,
which is an important aspect for bibliometric studies.
Studies comparing two or more journals with one another are
by Garg and Bebi.[12] Authors compared the number of articles
published in Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS)
and DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology
(DJLIT) for papers published from 2010 to 2013 and the citations
obtained by these articles from 2010 to 2014 (April) using Google
Scholar. Findings revealed that “both the journals are more or
less on equal footing in terms of citations per paper as well as
impact factor. However, DJLIT had better immediacy index
than ALIS”. Verma and Brahma[13] compared SRELS Journal
of Information Management and DESIDOC Journal of Library
and Information Technology in terms of distribution of articles,
authorship pattern of articles, geographical distribution of
articles, and major contributors to the two journals. e study
revealed that “SRELS published more articles than DJLIT. SRELS
published less number of foreign authored papers than DJLIT.
DJLIT cited more number of references as compared to SRELS”.
Vazquez, Ardanuy, Lopez-Borrull and Olle et al.[14] compared
Anales de Documentación (AD) and BiD textos universitaris en
Biblioteconomia i Documentació (BID), two journals published
from Spain, for papers published between 2000 and 2013. e study
focused on the “number of articles and authors, and the contents
and thematic study of articles published to determine the level of
similarity between the contents of two journals, the subject areas
they belong to and whether there is any subject continuity during
the period analysed”. e thematic study found that there is little
similarity between the content of the two publications; the study
found that BID is practitioner-focused unlike AD, which gave
preference for academic content. Slutsky and Aytac[15] compared
Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (ISTL) and Science
and Technology Libraries (STL) for papers published from 2005 to
2014. e study analysed a total of 338 research articles; 163 from
STL and 175 from ISTL. e study found that bibliometrics and
citation analysis is the top topic in STL while library resources
is the most common topic in ISTL. Journal articles and web
resources were the most common formats cited in both journals.
e University of Arkansas is the number one institution with
authors publishing in STL while Indiana University topped the
list in ISTL. Furthermore, data from Scopus (2008-2015) showed
that the total number of citations, Source Normalized Impact per
Paper (SNIP), Impact per Publication (IPP) and SCImago journal
rank were higher for STL. Maity and Bhattacharyya Sahu[16] made
a bibliometric study of papers published from 2005 to 2015 in
ve journals published by Emerald group of publications. ese
ve journals included in the study were Journal of Enterprise
Information Management (JEIM), Journal of Intellectual
Capital (JIC), Online Information Review (OIR), Performance
Measurement and Metrics (PMM) and Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society (JICES). e study found
that single-authored papers are predominant followed by
two authored papers in all the ve journals. Authors from UK
contributed maximum numbers of papers and most papers have
been contributed by Brunel University, UK followed by University
of Hawaii, USA. e average article length mostly ranged from
16-20 pages in three journals except PMM and JICES where it
ranged from 11-15 pages. A six-authored paper in JEIM received
most citations followed by a single authored paper in the JIC. e
review of the literature indicates that no study has been reported

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024638
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
in literature which compared dierent bibliometric parameters of
CJSIM with JSR. Hence the authors undertook the present study.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
e basic aim of the present study is to compare dierent
bibliometric parameters of the COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics
and Information Management (CJSIM) and the Journal of
Scientometric Research (JSR) for the scholarly communications
published in these two journals from 2012 to 2021 (10 years).
A comparative study specically of the scientic output and its
impact in terms of citations received by the published articles in
these two journals will be examined for the above-mentioned
period. Bibliometric characteristics examined in the study for the
two journals are type of documents published, pattern of output
from 2012 to 2021, identication of prolic countries, institutions
& authors and their citation impact in terms of Citation Per Paper
(CPP), i-10 index, and papers not cited (PnC), to examine the
pattern of citation and identication of highly cited papers for
the two journals, and pattern of domestic and international
collaboration of published papers.
METHODOLOGY
Authors downloaded the data from the Websites of the two
journals available at https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsim2
0 for CJSIM and https://jscires.org/past-issues/ for JSR. Data
was downloaded for ten years from 2012 to 2021. MS Excel
soware was used for downloading and analysis of the data.
Downloaded data consisted name of all the authors along with
their aliation(s), year of publication of the paper; and citations
received by each paper. Google Scholar was used to obtain the
citation data from January 16, 2024 to February 5, 2024. Title
of the paper was pasted in the search box of Google Scholar
and the number of citations as reected in the search results
was recorded in the MS Excel data sheet. Data was analysed to
examine the pattern of growth of articles published from 2012
to 2021, the most prolic countries, institutions, authors and the
impact of their output. e impact of the papers was examined
using Citation Per Paper (CPP), i-10 index and Papers not Cited
(PnC%). Authors also examined the citation pattern of output
and identied highly cited papers as well as pattern of domestic
and international collaboration of papers published in the two
journals. Authors have used the method of complete count for
analysis of publications output and the citations received by
them. is method is dierent from the rst author count where
only the rst author gets the credit for publication of a paper.
In the complete count method, each country or institution or
author in multi-authored papers are given unit credit for their
contributions which inates the number of contributions and
citations. In the initial study citations for papers published were
examined till May 30, 2023. In the revised version, citations have
been updated from January 16, 2024 to February 5, 2024.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the following paragraphs, authors of the study discuss the
results of the analysis on dierent bibliometric aspects mentioned
under the objectives of the study.
Type of documents published in the two journals
An analysis of records published in the two journals indicates that
Journal of Scientometric Research (JSR) and COLLNET Journal of
Scientometrics and Information Management (CJSIM) published
276 and 236 records respectively from 2012 to 2021 excluding
book reviews, editorial and others as these have not been included
in the nal analysis as these attract a very insignicant number
of citations. Further analysis of data indicates that the number
of research and review articles published in the two journals
was almost equal. However, JSR also published other type of
documents (Table 1) which were not published by CJSIM. Of the
11 editorials published in JSR, four were related to special issues
published in the years 2019 (papers related to machine learning in
scientometrics), 2020 (papers presented at FourthInternational
Conference and IndiaLICS International Training Workshop
held in New Delhi in 2017and 2021), and 2021 (papers in rst
issue dealt with Science, Technology and Innovation in Latin
America and the papers in second special issue dealt with Science,
Technology, Innovation and Development in Africa).
Journal of Scientometric
Research
COLLNET Journal of
Scientometrics and
Information Management
Type of documents Tota l To tal
*Research articles 226 230
Research note 17 -
Perspective papers 10 -
Research in progress 8 -
Commentary 6 -
Review articles 4 6
Scientic
correspondence
2 -
Webliography 2 -
Tota l 276 236
Book Reviews 55 -
**Editorials 11 5
***Others 5 ****10
Grand total 346 241
*Include articles published as invited articles and articles in special issues, **Include
editorials of special issues also, ***Included details about board members, aliation and
support system and issue highlights in the inaugural issue, one conference report and one
acknowledgement, ****Included announcements and report on international conferences
on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and Homage to Eugene Gareld.
Table 1: Type of documents published in the two journals.

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024 639
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
Pattern of publication output from 2012 to 2021 in
CJSIM and JSR
e pattern of output for papers published in CJSIM and JSR from
2012 to 2021 have been depicted graphically in Figure 1 below.
During the period of 10 years, the CJSIM published 236 records
as articles and reviews. us, it published 23.6 articles per year.
e number of records published in CJSIM was less than average
number of records published in the years 2013, 2016 and 2018.
JSR published 276 records as research articles, reviews, research
note, perspective papers, and research in progress, commentary,
scientic correspondence, and Webliography (for details see
Table 1). us, JSR contributed 27.6 records per year. e number
of records published in JSR was less than average number of
records per year in all years except 2020 and 2021. e pattern
of growth of papers published during the study period indicates
an inconsistent pattern of output of papers published in both
the journals. JSR published special issues in the years 2020 and
2021 resulting in a steep increase in the number of publications
during these two years. Possible reason for less number of papers
published in the year 2012 in JSR might be because it was the year
when the journal was launched.
Prolic countries and impact of their output
CJSIM
Table 2A presents the output data and its impact in terms of CPP,
i-10 index and PnC for prolic countries. Based on the complete
count of articles, it is observed that 39 countries including India
contributed 582 articles. Table 2A lists 15 prolic countries
that contributed 10 or more papers. ese 15 prolic countries
contributed 500 (85.9%) papers and the share of remaining 24
non-prolic countries is 82 (14.1%) of the total output. Of these 24
non-prolic countries, seven countries produced one paper only
and the output of the remaining 17 countries varied in the range
of two to nine papers. Of the 15 prolic countries listed in Table
2A, more than one-quarter (31.3%) papers were contributed by
Indian authors followed by contributions from Iran (12.5%) and
China (9.5%). us, these three prolic countries (India, Iran and
China) together contributed more than half (53.3%) of the total
output. e share of output for the remaining 12 prolic countries
Figure 1: Pattern of output in CJSIM and JSR from 2012 to 2021.
# Country TP (%) TC (%) CPP i-10 index
(% of TP)
PnC
(% of TP)
1. India 182 (31.3) 1717 (37.2) 9.4 59 (32.4) 13 (7.1)
2. Iran 73 (12.5) 561 (12.1) 7.7 18 (24.7) 8 (11.0)
3. China 55 (9.5) 299 (6.5) 5.4 6 (10.9) 7 (12.7)
4. Germany 25 (4.3) 257 (5.6) 10.3 8 (32.0) 4 (16.0)
5. Taiwan 25 (4.3) 171 (3.7) 6.8 4 (16.0) 1 (4.0)
6. Brazil 19 (3.3) 142 (3.1) 7.5 6 (31.6) 11 (57.9)
7. Korea 18 (3.1) 105 (2.3) 5.8 4 (22.2) 5 (27.8)
8. Russia 17 (2.9) 128 (2.8) 7.5 8 (47.1) 3 (17.6)
9. Saudi Arabia 17 (2.9) 164 (3.5) 9.6 8 (47.1) 0 (0.00)
10. Canada 13 (2.2) 80 (1.7) 6.2 1 (7.7) 0 (0.00)
11. Indonesia 12 (2.1) 110 (2.4) 9.2 7 (58.3) 5 (41.7)
12. Turk e y 12 (2.1) 81 (1.8) 6.8 5 (41.7) 4 (33.3)
13. France 11 (1.9) 24 (0.5) 2.2 0 (0.0) 8 (72.7)
14. Slovenia 11 (1.9) 89 (1.9) 8.1 3 (27.3) 0 (0.00)
15. Nigeria 10 (1.7) 72 (1.6) 7.2 3 (30.0) 0 (0.00)
Sub-total 500 (85.9) 4000 (86.6) 8.0 140 (28.0) 69 (13.8)
Other 24 countries 82 (14.1) 621 (13.4) 7.6 28 (34.1) 20 (24.4)
Tota l 582 (100.0) 4621 (100.0) 7.9 168 (28.9) 89 (15.3)
Table 2A: Distribution and impact of output for most prolic countries for CJSIM.

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024640
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
listed in Table 2A is about 32.6% and their share of output ranged
between 1.7 to 4.3 percent for dierent countries. e pattern of
output indicates a skewed distribution of output as 24 non prolic
countries contributed 82 papers only. ese ndings are similar
to the pattern of output in DJLIT as has been reported by Garg,
Lamba and Singh.[4] However, the ndings of the present study
are dierent from the bibliometric study of Garg and Bebi[11] for
CJSIM for the period 2007-2019, where Belgium and USA were
found to be among the most prolic countries with high CPP.
However, these two countries could not nd place in the list of
prolic countries in the present study.
e impact of the output of these prolic countries has been
examined using Citation Per Paper (CPP), i-10 index and
proportion of Papers not Cited (PnC%). e value of CPP for
the global output is 7.9. Among all the countries listed in Table
2A, CPP is higher than the global CPP for India, Germany, Saudi
Arabia, Indonesia, and Slovenia. For the remaining countries,
CPP is lower than the global value of CPP. Among all the
countries CPP was the highest (10.3) for Germany followed by
# Country TP (%) TC (%) CPP i-10 index
(% of TP)
PnC
(% of TP)
1. India 282 (42.9) 1953 (41.1) 6.9 64 (22.7) 30 (10.6)
2. Iran 60 (9.1) 307 (6.5) 5.1 16 (26.7) 11 (18.3)
3. Brazil 31 (4.7) 288 (6.1) 9.3 9 (29.0) 0 (0.0)
4. China 24 (3.7) 100 (2.1) 4.2 2 (8.3) 5 (20.8)
5. e Netherlands 20 (3.0) 136 (2.9) 6.8 1 (5.0) 1 (5.0)
6. Turk e y 18 (2.7) 442 (9.3) 24.6 4 (22.2) 0 (0.0)
7. USA 18 (2.7) 91 (1.9) 5.1 2 (11.1) 0 (0.0)
8. Saudi Arabia 16 (2.4) 74 (1.6) 4.6 1 (6.3) 1 (6.3)
9. UK 14 (2.1) 75 (1.6) 5.4 2 (14.3) 0 (0.0)
10. Mexico 12 (1.8) 93 (2.0) 7.8 5 (41.7) 0 (0.0)
11. Malaysia 11 (1.7) 273 (5.7) 24.8 7 (63.6) 0 (0.0)
12. Romania 10 (1.5) 26 (0.5) 2.6 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Sub-total 516 (78.7) 3858 (81.2) 7.5 113 (21.9) 48 (9.3)
Other 38 countries 140 (21.3) 894 (18.8) 6.4 29(20.7) 14(10.0)
Tota l 656 (100.0) 4752 (100.0) 7.2 142 (21.6) 62 (9.5)
Table 2B: Distribution of output and impact of output for most prolic countries for JSR.
# Institute TP (%) TC (%) CPP i-10 index
(% of TP)
PnC
(% of TP)
1. Dalian University of Technology,
China
26 (4.5) 93 (2.0) 3.6 2 (7.7) 6 (23.1)
2. Asia University, Taiwan 20 (3.4) 156 (3.4) 7.8 4 (20.0) 0 (0.00)
3. CSIR-NIScPR, India 15 (2.6) 114 (2.5) 7.6 3 (20.0) 0 (0.00)
4. PES University, India 14 (2.4) 87 (1.9) 6.2 5 (35.7) 2 (14.3)
5. Shahid Chamran University, Iran 13 (2.2) 217 (4.7) 16.7 6 (46.2) 0 (0.00)
6. KISTI, Korea 11 (1.9) 73 (1.6) 6.6 4 (36.4) 4 (36.4)
7. University of Delhi, India 11 (1.9) 74 (1.6) 6.7 3 (27.3) 3 (27.3)
8. Concordia University, Canada 10 (1.7) 62 (1.3) 6.2 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
9. Karnataka University, India 10 (1.7) 112 (2.4) 11.2 6 (60.0) 0 (0.0)
Sub-total 130 (22.3) 988 (21.4) 7.6 33 (25.4) 15 (11.5)
Other 230 institutions 452 (77.7) 3633 (78.6) 8.0 133 (29.4) 73 (16.2)
Tota l 582 (100.0) 4621 (100.0) 7.9 166 (28.5) 88 (15.1)
CSIR-NIScPR: National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research, KISTI: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Korea.
Table 3A: Prolic institutions and the impact of their output for CJSIM.

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024 641
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
Saudi Arabia and India. France has the lowest CPP among all the
15 prolic countries. Authors explored the reasons for the low
CPP for France using i-10 index and PnC%. Data presented in
Table 2A for the values of i-10 index and PnC% indicates that
France had low CPP because, about 72% papers published by
France remained uncited and no paper was found to be cited ten
or more times. Of the total papers published by prolic countries,
140 (28%) papers were cited 10 or more times. In terms of an
absolute number of papers, highest share of papers that received
10 or more citations were for India (59) followed by Iran (18).
However, in terms of the proportion of total papers, i-10 index was
highest for Indonesia and Turkey. Of the total papers contributed
by prolic countries, 69 (13.8%) papers remained uncited.
Highest share of uncited papers (72.7%) was for France followed
by Indonesia (41.7%). For Saudi Arabia, Canada, Slovenia and
Nigeria no paper remained uncited, i.e. all papers published by
these four countries were cited.
JSR
Table 2B depicts the distribution of publication output and the
impact of papers published in the journal for 12 prolic countries
which contributed 10 or more papers during the study period
of 2012 to 2021. Based on the complete count of articles, it is
observed that 50 countries including India contributed 656
articles. e contribution of the 12 prolic countries is 516, slightly
more than three-fourths (78.7%) of the total output and the share
of remaining 38 countries contributing less than 10 papers is
21.3% of the total output. Of these 38 countries, nine countries
produced one paper only and the output of the remaining 29
countries varied in the range of two to nine papers. Of the 12
prolic countries listed in Table 2B, more than 40% papers were
contributed by Indian authors, followed by contributions from
Iran and Brazil. us, these three prolic countries (India, Iran
and Brazil) together contributed more than half (56.6%) of the
total output.
e impact of the output of the 12 prolic countries has been
examined using CPP, i-10 index and proportion of papers not cited
(PnC%). e value of CPP for the global output is 7.2. Among
all the countries listed in Table 2B, the value of CPP is higher
than the global CPP for Malaysia, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico in
that order. For the remaining eight countries, the value of CPP
is lower than the global value of CPP. e value of CPP among
all the countries was highest (24.8) for Malaysia closely followed
by Turkey. e lowest value of CPP was for Romania followed
by China. Of the 516 papers published by prolic countries, 113
(21.9) papers were cited 10 or more times and the remaining
403 (78.1%) papers were cited less than 10 times. Among the
12 prolic countries, highest share of papers that received 10
or more citations were for India (64) followed by Iran with 16
papers. Of the total papers contributed by prolic countries, 48
(9.3%) papers remained uncited. Highest share of uncited papers
(22.8%) was for China. For the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia
only one paper each remained uncited and for Brazil, Turkey,
USA, Mexico, Malaysia, Romania and the UK no paper remained
uncited. Authors explored the reasons for low CPP for Romania
and China using i-10 index and PnC%. Data presented in Table
2B for values of i-10 index and PnC% indicates that Romania and
China had low CPP because, no paper published by Romania was
cited 10 or more times and in case of China only two papers were
cited ten or more times.
# Institute TP (%) TC (%) CPP i-10 index
(% of TP)
PnC
(% of TP)
1. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi
31 (4.7) 288 (6.1) 9.3 9 (29.0) 2 (6.5)
2. CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi 29 (4.4) 195 (4.1) 6.7 9 (31.0) 4 (13.8)
3. PES University, India 17 (2.6) 85 (1.8) 5.0 0 (0.0) 2 (11.8)
4. Dalian University of Technology,
China
15 (2.3) 23 (0.5) 1.5 0 (0.0) 5 (33.3)
5. Banaras Hindu University, India 14 (2.1) 157 (3.3) 11.2 5 (35.7) 0 (0.00)
6. BARC (Mumbai) 14 (2.1) 101 (2.1) 7.2 6 (42.9) 0 (0.00)
7. IABF University, Saudi Arabia 10 (1.5) 34 (0.7) 3.4 0 (0.0) 1(10.0)
8. South Asian University, New Delhi 10 (1.5) 76 (1.6) 7.6 0 (0.0) 0 (0.00)
Sub-total 140 (21.3) 959 (20.2) 6.9 29 (20.7) 14 (10.0)
Other 290 institutions 516 (78.7) 3793 (79.8) 7.4 110 (21.3) 49 (9.5)
Total institutions 656 (100.0) 4752 (100.0) 7.2 139 (21.2) 63 (9.6)
CSIR-NIScPR: National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research, PES: People’s Education Society, BARC: Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, IABF
University: Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University.
Table 3B: Prolic institutions and the impact of their output for JSR.

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024642
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
Prolic Institutions and the Impact of their Output
CJSIM
Table 3A presents the output data and its impact in terms of CPP,
i-10 index and PnC for nine prolic institutions. Two hundred
thirty-nine institutions located in India and abroad contributed
582 publications. us, on an average 2.5 paper was contributed by
each institute. Of the 239 institutions, 62 institutions were located
in dierent states of India and the remaining 177 institutions
were located in other 38 countries scattered in dierent parts of
the globe. Table 3A lists nine prolic institutions that contributed
10 or more papers along with their citations and other dierent
# Author Institution TP (%) TC (%) CPP
1. Ho, Yuh-Shan Asia University, Taiwan 12 (2.1) 104 (2.3) 8.7
2. Bornmann, Lutz Max Planck Society (H. Qtrs.), Germany 7 (1.2) 67 (1.4) 9.6
3. Gupta, B.M. CSIR-NIScPR, India 5 (0.9) 37 (0.8) 7.4
4. Hassanzadeh, M Tarbiat Modares University, Iran 5 (0.9) 31 (0.7) 6.2
5. Rousseau, R University of Antwerp, Belgium 5 (0.9) 19 (0.4) 3.8
6. Sangam, S.L. Karnataka University, India 5 (0.9) 56 (1.2) 11.2
7. Wang, Ming Haung Asia University, Taiwan 5 (0.9) 41 (0.9) 8.2
8. Alguliev, Ramiz M. Institute of Information Technology, Azerbaijan 4 (0.7) 28 (0.6) 7.0
9. Elango, B IFET College of Engineering, India 4 (0.7) 50 (1.1) 12.5
10. Garg, K.C. CSIR-NIScPR, India 4 (0.7) 18 (0.4) 4.5
11. Rao, IKR PES University, India 4 (0.7) 17 (0.4) 4.3
12. Riahi, Aref Islamic Azad University, Iran 4 (0.7) 24 (0.5) 6.0
Sub total 64 (11.0) 492 (10.6) 7.7
Other 440 authors contributing papers in the range 1-3 518 (89.0) 4129 (89.4) 8.0
Total authors = 12+440 = 452 582 (100.0) 4621 (100.0) 7.9
Table 4A: Most prolic authors and impact of their output for CJSIM.
# Author Institutions TP (%) TC (%) CPP
1. Gupta, B M CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi 11 (1.7) 103 (2.2) 9.4
2. Dhawan, S M CSIR-NPL, New Delhi 8 (1.2) 83 (1.7) 10.4
3. Gupta, Ritu Sri Venkateshwar University, Meerut 8 (1.2) 68 (1.4) 8.5
4. Bhattacharya, Sujit CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi 6 (0.9) 56 (1.2) 9.3
5. Aliguliyev, Ramiz M Institute of Information Technology
of Azerbaijan (NAS), Azerbaijan
5 (0.8) 136 (2.9) 27.2
6. Das, Anup Kumar JNU, New Delhi 5 (0.8) 105 (2.2) 21.0
7. Desai, Pranav N JNU, New Delhi 5 (0.8) 36 (0.8) 7.2
8. Kosto, R N Georgia Institute of Technology, USA 5 (0.8) 32 (0.7) 6.4
9. Saha, Snehanshu PES University, India 5 (0.8) 18 (0.4) 3.6
10. Singh, Vivek Kumar Banaras Hindu University, India 5 (0.8) 55 (1.2) 11.0
11. Lewison, Grant Kings College London 5 (0.8) 34 (0.7) 6.8
12. Bhanumurthy, Karanam BARC, Mumbai 4 (0.6) 31 (0.7) 7.8
13. Dutta, Bidyarthi Vidyasagar University, India 4 (0.6) 15 (0.3) 3.8
14. Kademani, B S BARC, Mumbai 4 (0.6) 31 (0.7) 7.8
15. Dey Sudeepa Roy PES University, India 4 (0.6) 14 (0.3) 3.5
Sub-total 84 (12.8) 817 (17.2) 9.7
Other 525 authors contributing papers in the range 1-3 572 (87.2) 3935 (82.8) 6.9
Total authors 656 (100.0) 4752 (100.0) 7.2
Table 4B: Most prolic authors and impact of their output JSR.

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024 643
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
bibliometric indicators. Of the total papers contributed by these
prolic institutions about 25.4% were cited 10 or more times and 15
(11.5%) papers remained uncited. Among these nine institutions,
the output is mainly concentrated in two institutions, namely
Dalian University of Technology, China, and Asia University,
Taiwan. ese two institutions together contributed about eight
per cent of the total output. As mentioned above, CPP for the
global output published in the journal is 7.9. Among these eight
institutions the highest CPP was for Shahid Chamran University,
Iran, and Karnataka University, India. ese two institutes has
high values of CPP, because, 46% papers published by Shahid
Chamran University (Iran) and 60% papers contributed by
Karnataka University (India) were cited 10 or more times. Lowest
CPP is for Dalian University of Technology (China), because of
the 26 papers published by the university only two papers were
cited 10 or more times.
JSR
Two hundred ninety-eight institutions located in India and
abroad contributed 656 publications. us, on an average 2.2
paper was contributed by each institute. Of the 298 institutions,
99 institutions were located in dierent states of India and the
remaining 199 institutions were located in other 49 countries
scattered in dierent parts of the globe. Table 3B lists eight
institutions that contributed 10 or more papers along with their
citations and other bibliometric indicators. ese eight prolic
institutions together contributed about 22% papers of the total
output and also attracted about the same proportion of total
citations. Among these eight institutions, the output is mainly
concentrated in two Indian institutions, namely Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi and CSIR-National Institute of
Science Communication and Policy Research (CSIR-NIScPR)
formerly CSIR-National Institute of Science, Technology and
Development Studies. ese two Indian institutions contributed
about nine per cent of the total output. e global value of CPP
for the output published in the journal is 7.2. Among these eight
institutions, four institutions had either more or equal CPP as
the global CPP and for the remaining four CPP was lower than
the global CPP. e highest CPP (11.2) was for Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi followed by Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi had high CPP
because one paper published by scholars from the university was
cited 30 times and none of its paper remained uncited. Value of
CPP for Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi was high because
of the 31 papers published by the scholars of the university, one
paper was cited 70 times. Lowest CPP is for Dalian University of
Technology (China), because, of the 15 papers published by it, no
paper was cited 10 or more times and also about one-third of the
paper published by the university remained uncited.
Prolic authors and the impact of their output
CJSIM
Table 4A presents the output data and its impact in terms of CPP
for prolic authors. In all 452 authors scattered in 39 dierent
countries contributed 582 papers. us, the productivity per
author is 1.3 papers approximately. Of the 452 authors, 363
(81.8%) authors contributed only one paper and remaining 89
authors produced more than one paper each. Table 4A lists 12
authors who contributed four or more papers along with their
CPP. Among the 12 prolic authors, ve authors were from India,
Pattern of citations in CJSIM Pattern of citations in JSR
Number of citations Papers (%) Total citations Papers (%) Total citations
Uncited 36 (15.6) 0 26 (9.8) 0
1 25 (10.5) 25 29 (10.5) 29
2 17 (7.2) 34 41 (14.9) 82
3 21 (8.9) 63 28 (10.2) 84
4 18 (7.6) 72 29 (10.5) 116
5 17 (7.2) 85 14 (5.1) 70
6 10 (4.2) 60 16 (5.8) 96
7 14 (5.9) 98 17 (6.2) 119
8 7 (3.0) 56 8 (2.9) 64
9 8 (3.4) 72 4 (1.5) 36
10 4 (1.7) 40 8 (2.9) 80
11-15 25 (10.5) 323 25 (9.1) 327
16-20 13 (5.5) 227 10 (3.6) 177
> 20 21 (8.9) 629 19 (6.9) 951
Tota l 236 (100.0) 1784 276 (100.0) 2231
Table 5: Pattern of citations.

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024644
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
two each from Iran and Taiwan, and one each from Azerbaijan,
Belgium and Germany. Among the 12 authors Yuh-Shan Ho of
Asia University of Taiwan topped the list with 12 papers followed
by Lutz Bornmann from the Max Planck Society (Headquarters)
Germany. Among all the authors the value of CPP is highest
for B. Elango (IEFT College of Engineering, India) followed by
S.L. Sangam (Karnataka University, India) and Bornmann Lutz
(Max Planck Society (H. Qtrs.), Germany). Authors explored
the reason for high CPP for Elango B found that one papers by
the author was published in international collaboration with Ho
Yuh-Shan which was cited 30 times. Also, CPP for Bornmann
Lutz is high because one paper of the author is among the highly
cited papers. Possible reason for low CPP for other authors is that
a large proportion of papers published by these authors remained
uncited.
JSR
In all 540 authors scattered in 50 dierent countries contributed
656 papers. us, the productivity per author is 1.3 papers
approximately. Of these, 193 authors were from India and
remaining 327 were from other countries of the globe. Of the
540 authors, 480 (88.5%) authors contributed only one paper and
remaining 60 authors produced more than one paper each. Table
4B lists these 15 authors who contributed four or more papers
along with the value of CPP. Among these 15 prolic authors, 12
authors were from India, and one each from Azerbaijan, the UK
and the USA. Among the 15 authors B.M. Gupta of CSIR-NIScPR,
New Delhi topped the list with 11 papers. Among all the authors
the value of CPP is highest (27.2) for Aliguliyev, Ramiz M of
Institute of Information Technology of Azerbaijan (NAS) followed
by Anup Kumar Das of the Jawaharlal Nehru, New Delhi with a
CPP of 21. Of the 15 prolic authors, ve authors had a low CPP
as compared to the global CPP. Authors explored the reason for
high CPP for Aliguliyev, Ramiz M and Anup Kumar Das found
# Bibliographic details of the paper with country of origin of the paper Number of
citations
CPY (Rank)
**1 Tripathi, M., Kumar, S., Sonker, S.K., & Babbar, P. (India).
CJSIM,12(2), 2018, 215-232.
81 16.2 (2)
2 Osareh, F., Khademi, R., Rostami, M.K., & Shirazi, M.S. (Iran).
CJSIM,8(2), 2014, 263-271.
43 4.8 (5)
*3 #Bornmann, L., #Stefaner, M., $Anegón, F.D.M.,
& 1Mutz, R. (#Germany, $Spain, & 1Switzerland).
CJSIM,9(1), 2015, 65-72.
40 5.0 (4)
4 Markscheel, B., & Schröter, F. (Germany).
CJSIM,15(2), 2021, 365-396.
39 19.5 (1)
5 De Souza Vanz, S.A., & Stumpf, I.R.C. (Brazil).
CJSIM, 6(2), 2012, 315-334.
35 3.2 (8)
**6 Mahesh, G., & Wadhwa, N.K. (2012). (India)
CJSIM,6(2), 2012, 263-272.
30 2.7 (9)
*7 #Elango, B., & $Ho, Y.S. (#India, & $Taiwan).
CJSIM,12(2), 2018, 289-307.
30 6.0 (3)
8 Syamili, C., & Rekha, R. V. (India).
CJSIM,11(1), 2017, 103-117.
28 4.7 (6)
**9 Bousari, R. G., & Hassanzadeh, M. (Iran).
CJSIM,6(2), 2012, 215-227.
26 2.4 (10)
10 Beaver, D.D. (USA).
CJSMI,7(1), 2013, 45-54.
26 2.6 (9)
11 Velmurugan, C., & Radhakrishnan, N. (India).
CJSIM,9(2), 2015, 193-204.
25 3.1 (8)
**12 Ahmad, S.A.J., Abdel-Magid, I.M., & Hussain, A. (Saudi Arabia).
CJSIM,11(1), 2017, 133-151.
25 4.1 (7)
Tota l 428 (24%)
*Paper published in international collaboration, **Paper published in domestic collaboration.
Table 6A: Highly cited papers (CJSIM).

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024 645
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
that one paper each by both the author was cited more than 60
times resulting in high CPP for both the authors. Possible reason
low CPP for other authors is that a large proportion of papers
published by these authors remained uncited. Lowest value of
CPP was for Saha, Snehanshu of the PES University and Dutta,
Bidyarthi of Vidyasagar University and Dey Sudeepa Roy.
Pattern of citation in CJSIM and JSR
e impact of each article published in a journal can be measured
by counting the number of times these are cited by other articles.
High levels of citation to a publication are interpreted as signs
of inuence, impact, and visibility. An author’s visibility can
be measured through a determination of how oen his/her
publications have been cited in publications by other authors.
Table 5 shows the citation distribution of papers published in
CJSIM and JSR from 2012 to 2023 (February 5, 2024). During
this period, 236 papers published in CJSIM received 1784
citations and 275 papers published in JSR received 2231 citations.
Of the total papers included in the analysis in the two journals,
37 (15.6%) and 27 (9.8%) did not receive any citation for CJSIM
and JSR respectively. Tables 6A and 6B lists highly cited papers
for CJSIM and JSR respectively.
# Bibliographic details of the paper with country of origin of the paper Number of
citations
CPY (Rank)
1 Derviş, H. (Turkey).
JSR,8(3), 2020, 156–160.
310 103.3 (1)
2 Leta, J. (Brazil).
JSR,1(1), 2012, 44–52.
93 8.5 (3)
**3 Das, A., & Mishra, S. (India).
JSR,3(2), 2014, 82-92.
75 8.3 (3)
*4 #Leydesdor, Loet, & $Felt, Ulrike. (#e Netherlands, $Austria)
JSR, 1(1), 2012, 28-34.
62 5.6 (4)
*5 #Abdi, A., #Idris, N., $Alguliyev, R.M., & $Aliguliyev, R. M. (#Malaysia, &
$Azerbaijan).
JSR, 7(1), 2018, 54–62.
61 12.2 (2)
6 ompson, D.F. (USA).
JSR,7(3), 2019, 167–172.
34 8.5 (3)
7 Arik, E. (Turkey).
JSR,4(1), 2015, 20-28.
32 4.0 (7)
8 Waila, P., Singh, V.K., & Singh, M.K. (India).
JSR,5(1), 2016, 71–84.
30 4.3 (6)
9 Megnigbeto, E. (Republic of Benin).
JSR,2(3), 2013, 214-222.
29 2.9 (9)
10 Jeyasekar, J.J., & Saravanan, P. (India).
JSR,4(3), 2015, 135-142.
27 3.3 (8)
11 Bakri, A., Azura, N.M., Nadzar, M., Ibrahim, R., & Tahira, M. (Malaysia).
JSR,6(2), 2017, 86–101.
27 4.6 (5)
Tota l 780 (35%)
*Paper published in international collaboration, **Paper published in domestic collaboration.
Table 6B: Highly cited papers (JSR).
# Country Papers in
domestic
collaboration
1. India 32
2. Iran 15
3. China 4
4. Germany, Taiwan and Brazil 3 papers
each
9
7. Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Indonesia 2 papers each.
8
11. Russia, Turkey, Greece, Slovenia,
Canada & France 1 paper each.
6
Total (%) 74 (31.4)
Table 7 A: Pattern of output in domestic collaboration (CJSIM).

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024646
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
Highly cited papers
Tables 6A and 6B lists papers that received 15 or more citations
from 2012 to 2024 (15 January 2024 to February 5, 2024) for
CJSIM and JSR respectively. ese have been denoted as highly
cited papers.
CJSIM
CJSIM published 21 papers which were cited 20 or more times
during the study period. Of these 12 papers were cited 25 or more
times in CJSIM. ese 12 papers were contributed by authors
from India (4) followed by Iran (2), and one each from Brazil,
Germany, Saudi Arabia and USA. Remaining two papers were
published in international collaboration among Germany, Spain
and Switzerland and the other in collaboration between India
and Taiwan. Of the four papers contributed by Indian authors,
two were published in domestic collaboration by authors from
dierent institutions. ese 12 highly cited papers attracted about
one third (~24%) of all citations. As the number of citations
received varies according to the citation window, hence to
normalize this variation in citations, authors calculated Citation
Per Year (CPY) used earlier by Garg and Tripathi.[17] Analysis of
data based on CPY indicates that the rank of authors arranged by
total citations received changes signicantly if arranged by CPY.
For instance, the author ranked at # 4 will change to rank 1 if
arranged by CPY. Similarly, the paper ranked at # 1 will change
to rank 2 and # 7 change to rank 3. Similarly, the rank of other
India
# Primary Institute (Total papers) Collaborating Institutes (Total papers)
1. CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi (5) CSIR-NPL, New Delhi (3), GMCH, Chandigarh (1),
University of Delhi, Delhi (1)
2. Jawaharlal Nehru University (3) IGNOU (1), NIScPR (1),
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (1)
3. Karnataka University, Dharwad (2) Karnataka Science College, Karnataka (1), Documentation
Research and Training Centre, Karnataka (1)
4. Ananda Mohan College, Kolkata (2) City College, Kolkata (2)
6. Kuvempu University, Shimoga (2) Tumkur University, Tumkar (2)
Tota l 14
Collaborative papers of other institutions 18
Grand total 32
Iran
# Primary Institute (Total papers) Collaborating Institutes
1. Islamic Azad University (4) Tarbiat Modares University (1), Payame Noor University (1),
Kharazmi University (1) and Razi University (1)
2. Shahid Beheshti University (3) Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (1), Shahid
Chamran University (1), National Research Institute for
Science Policy (1)
3. Shahed University (2) Tarbiat Modares University (1), Scientic Information
Database (2)
4. Shahid Chamran University (2) Amir Al Momenin Library (2),
Tota l 11
Collaborative papers of other institutions 4
Grand Total 15
Table 7B: Primary institute and collaborating institutions.
# Country Papers in
domestic
collaboration
1. India 46
2. Iran 12
3. Brazil, e Netherlands, Romania,
Turkey and UK (3 each)
15
4. Mexico, Spain, and USA (2 each) 6
5. Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Chile, Fiji,
France, Germany, Greece, Korea,
Poland, Saudi Arabia, ailand and
Vietnam (1 each)
13
Tota l 92
Table 8 A: Pattern of output in domestic collaboration (CJSIM).

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024 647
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
papers also changes. Rank of dierent papers can be seen from
the last column of Table 6A.
JSR
Of the 276 papers published in JSR 11 papers were cited 27 or
more times during the study period. ese 11 papers were
contributed by India (3), Turkey (2), and one each from Brazil,
USA and the Republic of Benin. All the three papers contributed
by Indian authors were published in domestic collaboration
among dierent institutions. Two papers were published in
international collaboration between the Netherlands & Austria
and the other between Malaysia and Azerbaijan. ese 11 papers
attracted about 35% of all citations. Among these papers, paper
authored by H. Dervis from Turkey received the highest (310)
citations followed by Leta Jacqueline with 93. However, the
rank of these papers changes if arranged by Citation Per Year
(CPY). For instance, paper ranked at 5 and 6 changes to 2 and 3
respectively. Similarly, the rank of other papers also changes. is
can be seen from the last column of Table 6B.
Pattern of papers published in domestic
collaboration
Tables 7A and 7B present details of countries and institutions
which published papers in domestic collaboration for CJSIM.
Data for JSR for the collaboration have been depicted in Tables
8A and 8B.
CJSIM
Of the 39 countries which published papers in the journal during
the study period from 2012 to 2021 only 16 countries published
74 papers in domestic collaboration (Table 7A) constituting
about 31% of total papers published in the journal. Among these
16 countries, India, the publishing country of the journal topped
the list with 32 papers in domestic collaboration followed by Iran
with 15 papers. us, these two countries published 47 (63.5%)
of total papers published in domestic collaboration. Remaining
14 countries published 27 papers in domestic collaboration. e
number of papers published by each country has been depicted
in Table 7A. Further analysis of data on domestic collaboration
indicates that 118 institutions from dierent countries contributed
these papers. Table 7B list name of primary institution and
India
# Primary Institute
(Total papers)
Collaborating Institutes (Total
papers)
1. Banaras Hindu
University (5)
CSIR-NIScPR (3), Mizoram
University (1), South Asian
University (1)
2. Jawaharlal Nehru
University (3)
DST (1), Vidyasagar University
(1), Commonwealth Educational
Media Centre for Asia (1).
3. CSIR-NIScPR (7) BHU (1), CSIR-NPL (5), Sri
Venkateswar University, Meerut
(3)
4. Sri Venkateswar
University, Meerut
(3)
Phcog.Net and Sci. Biol. Med
(2), CSIR-NPL (1), Individual
author (3)
5. PESIT Bangalore
South Campus (2)
DRTC (1), IIT Patna (1)
6. University of Calcutta
(2)
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics
(1), Ananda Mohan College (1)
Total (22) Total Institutes = 17 including
individual author
Collaborative papers
of other institutions
24
Grand total 46
Iran
1. Razi University (3) Shiraz University of Medical
Sciences (2),
Ilam University (1), Payme Noor
University (1)
2. Tehran University of
Medical Sciences (1)
Shahed University (1), National
Research Institute for Science
Policy (1)
3. Urmia University of
Medical Sciences (1)
Azad University (1), Ardabil
University of Medical Sciences
(1)
4. Shahid Bahonar
University of Kerman
(1)
Allameh Tabatabai University
(1), Kerman University of
Medical Sciences (1)
5. Hamadan University
of Medical Sciences
Medical department
(1)
Hamadan University of Medical
Sciences LIS (1)
6. Isfahan University of
Medical Sciences (1)
Shahid Chamran University of
Ahvaz (1)
7. Kharazmi University
(1)
Payme Noor University (1)
8. Payme Noor
University (1)
Islamic Azad University (1)
Table 8B: Primary collaborator institute and collaborating institutions. India
# Primary Institute
(Total papers)
Collaborating Institutes (Total
papers)
9. Shahid Beheshti
University of Medical
Sciences (1)
Iran University of Medical
Sciences (1)
10. Shiraz University of
Medical Sciences (1)
Bushehr University of Medical
Science (1)
Total (12) Total institutions = 15

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024648
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
collaborating institutions from India and Iran which published
10 or more papers in domestic collaboration.
JSR
Of the 50 countries which published papers in the journal during
the study period from 2012 to 2021, 23 countries published 92
papers in domestic collaboration (Table 8A) constituting about
33.4% of total papers published in the journal. Among these
23 countries, India topped the list with 46 papers in domestic
collaboration followed by Iran with 12 papers. us, these two
countries published 58 (61.7%) of total papers published in
domestic collaboration. Remaining 21 countries published 34
papers in domestic collaboration. e number of papers published
by each country has been depicted in Table 8 A. Further analysis
of data on domestic collaboration indicates that 147 institutions
located in dierent parts of the globe contributed these papers.
Table 10B list name of primary institution and collaborating
institutions from India and Iran which published 10 or more
papers in domestic collaboration.
Pattern of papers published in international
collaboration
Tables 9A and 9B depicts details of papers published in
international collaboration in the two journals respectively.
CJSIM
Of the 39 countries which contributed papers to the journal, only
19 countries contributed 38 papers in international collaboration
(Table 9A). ese 38 papers were contributed by 32 institutions
located in dierent countries. Of these 19 countries, the highest
Sl. No. Primary collaborator Collaborative partner country Papers in international
collaboration
1. China Germany, Taiwan, the Netherlands and Pakistan 9
2. Russia Germany, the Netherlands, and USA 4
3. Iran Germany and the UK (2) 3
4. USA Russia, India, Jordon, Bahrain and Bangladesh 3
5. India Germany and Taiwan 2
6. Germany e Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland 2
7. France Australia 2
8. Saudi Arabia Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Australia 2
Other 11 countries publishing one paper each as primary collaborator: Bangladesh,
Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Malaysia, Nigeria, the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,
and Turkey one paper each.
11
Total papers 38
Total countries 19
Table 9A: Pattern of output in international collaboration (CJSIM).
Sl.
No.
Primary collaborator Collaborative partner country Papers in international
collaboration
1. Brazil Portugal, Germany, Spain and Columbia 3
2. USA Mexico, e Netherlands, and India 3
3. India e Netherlands, Canada and Saudi Arabia 3
4. Saudi Arabia China, India and Taiwan 2
5. China Turkey, and Belgium 2
6. Italy UK, Russia and Finland 2
7. Korea India and Bangladesh 2
8. South Africa Germany and India 2
Other 13 countries publishing one paper each as primary collaborator: Argentina, Belgium,
Canada, Ecuador, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Malaysia, e Netherlands, Nigeria, Sweden, and
Uruguay and UK
13
Total papers 32
Total countries 21
Table 9B: Pattern of output in international collaboration (JSR).

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024 649
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
number of papers in international collaboration were published
by China (9) followed by Russia (4) Iran and USA (3 each),
France, Germany, India and Saudi Arabia (2 each). Remaining
11 countries published only one paper each in international
collaboration. Collaborative partners for each country is depicted
in Table 9A. Among the countries listed in Table 9A, USA had
collaborative links with ve countries followed by China with
collaborative links with four countries and Germany, Russia, and
Saudi Arabia with three dierent countries. All other countries
had collaborative links only with one country except India and
Iran which had collaborative links with two countries.
JSR
Of the 50 countries which contributed papers to the journal, 21
countries contributed 32 papers in international collaboration
(Table 9B). irty-two institutions located in dierent countries
contributed these papers. Of these 19 countries, Brazil, USA, and
India contributed three papers each in international collaboration
and China, Italy, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa published
two papers each in international collaboration. Remaining
13 countries published only one paper each in international
collaboration. Collaborative partners for each country is depicted
in Table 10B. Among the countries listed in Table 9B, only Brazil
had collaborative links with four countries, USA and India
had collaborative links with three countries each. Countries
publishing one paper in collaboration had collaborative links
only with one country.
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
Based on the complete count of papers, the present bibliometric
study analysed 582 papers published in CJSIM and 656 papers
in JSR on several bibliometric indicators like CPP, i-10 index
and papers not cited. Both the journals published almost equal
number of research articles and reviews. However, JSR also
published some other type of documents like perspective paper,
research note, and commentary resulting in more number of
records as compared to CJSIM. An inconsistent pattern of output
during the study period has been observed in both the journals.
JSR attracted papers from more number of countries as compared
to CJSIM. India followed by Iran contributed the highest number
of papers in both the journals. Foreign authored contributions
were more in CJSIM as compared to JSR. Global CPP for both
the journals were almost equal. Papers cited 10 or more times
was slightly more in CJSIM than JSR. Share of uncited papers was
more in CJSIM as compared to JSR.
Productivity per institutions for both the journals is almost the
same. Of the 239 institutions which contributed to CJSIM, Dalian
University of Technology, China topped the list with 26 (4.5%)
papers with lowest CPP among all the nine institutions. CPP and
i-10 index was highest for Shahid Chamran University, Iran. Of
the 298 institutions which contributed to JSR, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi and CSIR-National Institute of Science
Communication and Policy Research (CSIR-NIScPR) topped the
list of contributing institutes. However, among the eight prolic
institutions, the highest CPP is for Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi followed by Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Like CJSIM, the lowest CPP in JSR is also for Dalian University of
Technology (China).
Number of authors who contributed to the two journals were
almost equal. Like institutions, the highest number of authors
were also from India. Among the prolic authors in CJSIM,
Yuh-Shan Ho of Asia University of Taiwan topped the list with
12 papers while CPP is highest for B. Elango (IEFT College of
Engineering, India). Among the prolic authors in JSR, B.M.
Gupta of CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi topped the list with 11
papers with the highest CPP for Aliguliyev, Ramiz M of Institute
of Information Technology of Azerbaijan (NAS), Azerbaijan.
Number of highly cited papers in both the journals were almost
equal. Number of papers which remained uncited was slightly
more in CJSIM. Almost equal number of papers were cited 20 or
more times.
Seventy-four papers were published by 16 countries in domestic
collaboration constituting about 31% of total papers published in
CJSIM, while 92 papers were published in domestic collaboration
by 23 countries in JSR. India and Iran contributed the highest
number of papers in domestic collaboration in both the journals.
CSIR-NIScPR had the highest number of collaborative links with
other institutions in both the journals.
Number of countries publishing papers in international
collaboration in both the journals were equal. In CJSIM, 19
countries contributed 38 papers in international collaboration and
21 countries published 32 papers in international collaboration in
JSR. e highest number of papers in international collaboration
were contributed by China followed by Russia in CJSIM. Brazil,
USA, and India contributed three papers each in international
collaboration in JSR.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above stated ndings it is observed that more
number of countries, institutions, and authors contributed papers
to JSR as compared to CJSIM. Also, the share of papers published
by authors from abroad was more in CJSIM as compared to JSR.
Number of articles and reviews published in the two journals
were almost equal. CPP for papers published in both the journals
diered marginally. Papers cited 10 or more times was slightly
more in CJSIM than JSR. However, share of uncited papers was
more in CJSIM as compared to JSR. Based on this it can be stated
that the two journals did not dier much on dierent bibliometric
parameters.

Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol 13, Issue 2, May-Aug, 2024650
Garg, et al.: Bibliometric Characteristics of CJSIM and JSR: A Comparative Study
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
e authors declare that there is no conict of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Garg KC, Bebi. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management:
A bibliometric study. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information
Management. 2021;15(1):47-61. DOI: 10.1080/09737766.2021.1920067
2. Giri, R, Das AK, The Journal of Scientometric Research: A statistical outlook of the rst
eleven volumes, Journal of Scientometric Research, 2023;12(3):739-54. DOI: 10.5530/
jscires.12.3.070
3. Dutt B, Garg KC, Bali A. Scientometrics of the International Journal Scientometrics.
Scientometrics. 2003;56(1):81-93. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021950607895
4. Mukherjee B. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology (2000-2007): A bibliometric study. IFLA Journal. 2009;35(4):341-58. DOI:
10.1177/0340035209352429
5. Garg KC, Lamba M, Singh R. Bibliometric Analysis of papers published during
1992 to 2019 in DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology.DESIDOC
Journal of Library & Information Technology. 2020;40(06):396-402. DOI: 10.14429/
djlit.40.06.15741
6. Garg KC, Singh RK. A Bibliometric Study of Papers Published in Library and
Information Science Research during 1994-2020. DESIDOC Journal of Library &
Information Technology. 2022;42(1):57-63. DOI: 10.14429/djlit.42.1.17480
7. Gaviria-Marin M, Merigo JM, Popa S. Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge
Management: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management.
2018;22(6):1655-87. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497
8. Abdi A, Idris N, Alguliyev RM, Aliguliyev RM. Bibliometric Analysis of IP&M Journal
(1980-2015). Journal of Scientometric Research. 2018;7(1):54-62. DOI: 10.5530/
jscires.7.1.8
9. Garg KC, Kumar N, Geeta. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science:
A bibliometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2019:3687. https//digi
talcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3687
10. Velmurugan C, Radhakrishnan N. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information
Science: A Scientometric Prole. Journal of Scientometric Research. 2916;5(1):62-70.
DOI: 10.5530/jscires.5.1.9
11. Naseer Mirza Muhammad, Waris Abu, Ahmad Shakil, Peter Manuelraj, Abdel-Magid
Isam Mohammed. A Bibliometric Study of Communications Published in Journal of
Informetrics from 2012 to 2016. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2019:3532. https//
digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3532
12. Garg KC, Bebi. A citation study of Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS)
and DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology (DJLIT), Annals of
Library and Information Studies. 2014;61(3):212-6.
13. Verma, MK, Brahma K. Bibliometric Analysis of SRELS Journal of Information
Management and DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology
(DJLIT): A Comparative Study. Library Progress. 2018;38(1):59-71. DOI:
10.5958/2320-317X.2018.00006.5
14. Vazquez M, Ardanuy J, Lopez-Borrull A, Olle C. Scientic output in library
and information science: A comparative study of the journals Anales de
Documentación and BiD textos universitaris en biblioteconomia i documentació.
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 2019;51(2):440-57. DOI:
10.1177/0961000617729199
15. Slutsky B, Aytac, A. Bibliometric Analysis and Comparison of Two STEM LIS
Journals: Science & Technology Libraries and Issues in Science & Technology
Librarianship (2005-2014). Science & Technology Libraries. 2016;35(2):1-20. DOI:
10.1080/0194262X.2016.1171191
16. Maity A, Sahu NB. A comparative study of Journal of documentation and Journal
of knowledge Management during the period 2005-2015. Library Philosophy and
Practice. 2019:2491. https//digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2491
17. Garg, K.C.; & Tripathi, H.K. Addendum to Bibliometrics and Scientometrics in India
during 1995-2014: An overview of studies during 1995-2014. Annals of Library and
Information Studies. 2017;64(3):204-8.
Cite this article: Garg KC, Bebi, Singh RK. A Comparative Study of the Bibliometric Characteristics of COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information
Management and Journal of Scientometric Research. J Scientometric Res. 2024;13(2):636-50.