Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
06 agricultural information
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

06 agricultural information

186
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
186
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ANDInternational Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD), INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH ANDISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, © DEVELOPMENT (IJLISRD)PRJ PublicationISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print)ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) IJLISRD © PRJ PUBLICATIONVolume 1, Issue 1, January- April (2012), pp. 56-68© PRJ: www.prjpublication.com/ijlisrd.asp A SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF BIOLOGY LITERATURE OF SELECTED CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES OF INDIA, 2000 – 2010 Dr. R. SEVUKAN Reader Department of Library and Information Science Pondicherry University Puducherry, India Email: sevukan2002@yahoo.com N. ANITHA MLIS (Alumnus), Department of Library and Information Science Pondicherry University Puducherry, India Email: anitha2109@gmail.com ABSTRACT The study explores the quantitative analysis of research performance of the researchers in central universities of India in the field of biology. A total of 3634 records for 11 years between 2000 and 2010 were retrieved from ISI Web of Science. The study aims to ascertain the growth of literature, authorship pattern, collaboration pattern, sources of publications, identification of prolific authors, institutions, core journals, etc. The result showed that the growth of publications increases rapidly, and the research collaboration among biology researchers is fairly collaborative. Keywords: scientometrics, central universities, biology, collaborative coefficient, biology scientists, biology literatureINTRODUCTIONResearchers in several disciplines have been interested in publication productivity as a means ofassessing scholarly excellence of individual researchers within a field.1–5 Publicationproductivity, as measured by the number of papers, has also been regarded as one of the main 56
  • 2. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publicationindicators of reputation of institutions in general6–10 and academic institutions in particular.11–12There is a growing awareness that the advantages of basing research, and subsequent politicalchoices, on criteria that lend themselves for more quantitative evaluation.13 Bibliometrics is oneof the interdisciplinary research fields concerned with measuring the output of almost allscientific fields.14 The researchers of Library and Information Science extensively usebibliometrics as a tool to identify the pattern of publication, authorship and secondary journalcoverage with the objective of getting an insight into the dynamics of growth of knowledge inthe areas under consideration. This consequently leads to better organization of informationresources which is essential for its most effective and efficient use.Based on the above fact, it was intended to carry out a study on “Scientometric analysis ofbiology literature of selected central universities of India, 2000 – 2010”. The study aims toascertain the growth of literature, authorship pattern, collaboration pattern, sources ofpublications, identification of prolific authors, institutions, core journals, etc. in the field ofbiology by faculties in central universities of India.OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDYThe main objectives proposed for the present study are: • To ascertain the growth of biology literature in selected central universities of India; • To analyze the authorship pattern of research trend in biology by the faculties in selected central universities of India; • To analyze the extent of research collaboration among the faculties in selected central universities of India; • To identify the geographic distribution of journals from which the research contribution of faculties got published; • To identify the area of research concentration on different subfields of biology in selected central universities of India; • To analyze various forms of publications in which the faculties of selected central universities reported their research contribution; andRESEARCH METHODOLOGYA total of numbers of 3634 records was retrieved for a period of 11 years between 2000 and2010 from ISI-Web of Science. There are 44 central universities in India. Of which, thefollowing seven universities were undertaken for the study as the remaining universities did nothave either the biology as discipline or they had no records in web of science – Aligarh MuslimUniversity (504 publications), Banaras Hindu University (994 publications), Delhi University(1341 publications), Central University of Gujarat (80 publications), University of Hyderabad(103 publications), Pondicherry University (487 publications), and Visva Bharati University (125publications). 57
  • 3. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ PublicationCollaborative CoefficientTo measure the extent and strength of collaboration among the biology faculties of some selectedcentral universities of India, a method called Collaborative Co – efficient (CC) suggested byAjiferuke15 was adopted. This can be mathematically expressed as: j =k CC = 1 − ∑ (1 / J ) f j / N [Equation…1] j =1Where fj is the number of J authored papers published in a discipline during a certain period of time; N is the total number of research papers published in a discipline during a certain period of time; and k is the greatest number of authors per paper in a discipline.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONYearwise distribution of research publicationsThe annual research trends of biology faculties in selected central Universities for the periodbetween 2000 and 2010 has been presented in Table 1. The Table indicates that the number ofpublications in 2000 was 26 that rose to 590 in 2009. The highest output was observed in 2009that accounts for 16.24% of the total output over the period of study. As far as the growth ofpublications is concerned, it was found that a steady growth in terms of productivity wasobserved throughout the period of study. However, there was a sudden increase in 2004 andsudden decrease in 2003. Table 1: Year-Wise Distribution of Annual Research Output of Selected Central Universities No. of Year Percentage Cumulative Percentage Publication 2000 26 0.72 0.72 2001 258 7.10 7.82 2002 183 5.04 12.86 2003 77 2.12 14.97 2004 223 6.14 21.11 2005 316 8.70 29.81 2006 415 11.42 41.23 2007 458 12.60 53.83 2008 516 14.20 68.03 2009 590 16.24 84.26 2010 572 15.74 100.00 Total 3634 100.00 58
  • 4. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ PublicationRanking of universities based on research productivityUniversity-wise total research productivity of biology faculties in some selected centraluniversities of India for 2000 – 2010 based on SCIE has been presented, according to rank interms of productivity in Table 2. It was noted that Delhi University ranks first in order bycontributing 36.9 percent of total research output. The second place in order is recorded byBanaras Hindu University which shares 27.35 percent. Aligarh Muslim University contributing13.87 percent to the total research output of the central universities takes third place in orderfollowed by Pondicherry University (13.4%), Visva Bharati University (3.44%), HyderabadUniversity (2.83%), and Gujarat University (2.2%). However, there was a wide gap observedbetween the research contribution of Banaras Hindu University and Aligarh Muslim University.The contribution of Banaras Hindu University is almost double that of Aligarh MuslimUniversity. Table 2: Distribution of university wise research output of biology faculties SL. No. of Cumulative University Percentage No. Records Percentage 1 Delhi University 1341 36.90 36.90 2 Banaras Hindu University 994 27.35 64.25 3 Aligarh Muslim University 504 13.87 78.12 4 Pondicherry University 487 13.40 91.52 5 Visva Bharati University 125 3.44 94.96 6 Hyderabad University 103 2.83 97.80 7 Gujarat University 80 2.20 100.00 Total 3634 100.00Source-wise distribution of biology literature of central universitiesThe analysis of publications of 3634 records reveals that journal articles occupy predominantposition sharing 84.76 percent of total research output, the other ranked sources are reviews(5.56%), meeting abstracts (4.73%), proceedings (2.56%), letters (0.94%), editorial material(0.88%) and corrections (0.58%). As a result, it is clear that the faculties of some centralUniversities got their research published predominantly by journal articles (Table 3). Table 3: Sources-Wise Distribution of total research trends of selected central universities Source Type No of Publication Percentage Cumulative Percentage Articles 3080 84.76 84.76 Reviews 202 5.56 90.31 Meting Abstracts 172 4.73 95.05 Proceedings 93 2.56 97.61 Letters 34 0.94 98.54 Editorial Material 32 0.88 99.42 Corrections 21 0.58 100.00 Total 3634 100 59
  • 5. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ PublicationSubfield wise contribution of faculties in selected central UniversitiesThese publications were thoroughly examined to identify the different subfields in which thefaculties of selected central universities have concentrated. Table 4 presents the results of thesubfield-wise contribution of faculties in some selected central Universities. It was observed thatbiochemistry and molecular biology yields 24.38% of total research output, and it is placed firstin order followed by biotechnology and applied microbiology (16.51%), microbiology (10.04%),biology (9.93%), plant science (6.69%), biophysics (5.12%), cell biology (4.98%), oncology(4.76%), ecology (3.36%), zoology (2.59%) and biochemistry research methods (2.15%). Theremaining subjects namely, entomology, generics and heredity, marine and freshwater biology,virology, etc. take the percentage share less than 2 percent. Table 4: Subfield-wise distribution of biology literature of central universities No. of Cumulative Subject Publications Percentage Percentage Biochemistry And Molecular Biology 886 24.38 24.38 Biotechnology And Applied Microbiology 600 16.51 40.89 Microbiology 365 10.04 50.93 Biology 361 9.93 60.87 Plant Science 243 6.69 67.56 Biophysics 186 5.12 72.67 Cell Biology 181 4.98 77.65 Oncology 173 4.76 82.42 Ecology 122 3.36 85.77 Zoology 94 2.59 88.36 Biochemistry Research Methods 78 2.15 90.51 Entomology 60 1.65 92.16 Generics And Heredity 59 1.62 93.78 Marine And Freshwater Biology 51 1.40 95.18 Virology 37 1.02 96.20 Mycology 36 0.99 97.19 Reproduction Biology 35 0.96 98.16 Development Biology 24 0.66 98.82 Physiology 24 0.66 99.48 Anatomy And Morphology 11 0.30 99.78 Pathology 8 0.22 100.00 Total 3634 100.00 60
  • 6. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ PublicationAuthorship pattern of biology literature of central universitiesTable 5 shows the overall analysis of the pattern of authorship. The authors are classifiedaccording to their contribution that they have made. The total contribution made by biologyfaculties of selected central universities amounts to 3634 records over the period of study. Itcould be noted that two authored papers rank first in order sharing 23.80%. The next place isrecorded by three authored papers sharing 23.45% of the total research contributions. Fourauthored contributions take that third position in order occupying 17.17% of the total researchoutput during the study period followed by five authored (11.53%), six authored (7.79%), sevenauthored (4.98%) and eight authored (3.22%). The least percentage is recorded by more thannine authored publications. Table 5: Distribution of Authorship Pattern Authorship No. of Cumulative Percentage Pattern Publication Percentage 1 110 3.03 3.0 2 865 23.80 26.8 3 852 23.45 50.3 4 624 17.17 67.4 5 419 11.53 79.0 6 283 7.79 86.8 7 181 4.98 91.7 8 117 3.22 95.0 9 65 1.79 96.8 >10 118 3.25 100.0 Total 3634 100.00Collaborative Co-efficientBased on the data presented in Table 5, the Collaborative Coefficient (CC) using equation [1] wascalculated to measure the collaboration pattern among biology faculties of selected centraluniversities of India. The analyses revealed that the computed value of collaborative coefficient(CC) for collaboration pattern is very high (0.93). This indicates that biology research amongFaculties of selected central universities in India is fairly collaborative. The reason could be thatICT has reduced geographical barriers opening up possibilities for collaboration. 61
  • 7. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publication Table 6: Calculation of Collaborative Co-efficient J fj 1/j (1/j)*fj (1/j)*fj)/N 1 110 1.00 110.00 0.18 2 865 0.50 432.50 0.71 3 852 0.33 284.00 0.47 4 624 0.25 156.00 0.26 5 419 0.20 83.80 0.14 6 283 0.17 47.17 0.08 7 181 0.14 25.86 0.04 8 117 0.13 14.63 0.02 9 65 0.11 7.22 0.01 10 118 0.10 11.80 0.02 Total 3634 2.93 1172.97 1.93 Collaborative Co-efficient = 0.93 (i.e. 1.93 – 1)Ranking of individual journals according to publication of articlesThere have been 70 contributions published by a single journal ‘Biochemical and BiophysicalResearch Communications’. It is ranked first position in order. The second position is recordedby ‘World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology’, which amounts to 46 publications offaculties of selected central universities. The other considerably ranked journals are: Journal ofBioscience; Indian Journal of Biochemistry & Biophysics; Bioresource Technology; Molecularand Cellular Biochemistry; Faseb Journal; Current Microbiology; Biochemistry and MolecularBiology International; and Cytobios. A detailed list of journals has been provided in Table 7. Table 7: Distribution of ranking of journals S. No. Name of The Journal No. of Articles Percentage 1 Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 70 4.80 2 World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology 46 3.16 3 Journal of Biosciences 44 3.02 4 Indian Journal of Biochemistry & Biophysics 40 2.75 5 Bioresource Technology 30 2.06 6 Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 27 1.85 7 Faseb Journal 24 1.65 8 Current Microbiology 24 1.65 9 Biochemistry and Molecular Biology International 20 1.37 10 Cytobios 20 1.37 11 Plant Science 20 1.37 12 Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology 19 1.30 13 International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 18 1.24 14 Fems Microbiology Letters 17 1.17 15 Acta Biologica Hungarica 16 1.10 16 Journal of Biological Chemistry 16 1.10 17 Archives of Biochemistry And Biophysics 16 1.10 62
  • 8. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publication S. No. Name of The Journal No. of Articles Percentage 18 Analytical Biochemistry 15 1.03 19 Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry 15 1.03 20 Biogenic Amines 14 0.96 21 Molecular Biology Reports 14 0.96 22 Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 13 0.89 23 Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta-General Subjects 13 0.89 24 Febs Letters 13 0.89 25 European Journal of Biochemistry 12 0.82 26 Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 12 0.82 27 Phytochemistry 12 0.82 28 Protein and Peptide Letters 12 0.82 29 Biochemistry-Moscow 12 0.82 30 Biochemistry 11 0.75 31 Folia Microbiologica 11 0.75 32 Journal of Genetics 10 0.69 33 Process Biochemistry 10 0.69 34 Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 10 0.69 35 Molecular Biology of The Cell 10 0.69 36 Microbiological Research 10 0.69 37 Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 9 0.62 Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C- 38 Pharmacology Toxicology & Endocrinology 9 0.62 39 Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 9 0.62 Mutation Research-Genetic Toxicology and 40 Environmental Mutagenesis 9 0.62 41 Biochemical Journal 8 0.55 42 Applied and Environmental Microbiology 8 0.55 43 Gene 8 0.55 44 Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B-Biology 8 0.55 45 Canadian Journal of Microbiology 8 0.55 Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C- 46 Toxicology & Pharmacology 8 0.55 47 Journal of Protein Chemistry 8 0.55 48 Biotechnology Letters 8 0.55 49 Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 8 0.55 50 Nucleic Acids Research 8 0.55 Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B- 51 Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 7 0.48 52 Cell Biology International 7 0.48 53 Biometals 7 0.48 Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A-Molecular 54 & Integrative Physiology 7 0.48 55 Zeitschrift Fur Naturforschung C-A Journal of 7 0.48 63
  • 9. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publication S. No. Name of The Journal No. of Articles Percentage Biosciences 56 Journal of Neurochemistry 7 0.48 Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta-Protein Structure and 57 Molecular Enzymology 7 0.48 58 Journal of Human Genetics 7 0.48 59 Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry 6 0.41 60 Electro- and Magnetobiology 6 0.41 61 Virus Genes 6 0.41 62 Journal of Basic Microbiology 6 0.41 63 Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta-Biomembranes 6 0.41 64 Experimental and Molecular Medicine 6 0.41 65 Human Genetics 6 0.41 66 Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta-Molecular Cell Research 6 0.41 Mutation Research-Fundamental and Molecular 67 Mechanisms f Mutagenesis 6 0.41 68 Yeast 6 0.41 69 Journal of Applied Microbiology 6 0.41 70 Dna and Cell Biology 6 0.41 71 Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 6 0.41 72 Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 6 0.41 73 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6 0.41 74 Protein Expression and Purification 5 0.34 75 International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 5 0.34 76 Enzyme and Microbial Technology 5 0.34 77 Biopolymers 5 0.34 78 Hydrobiologia 5 0.34 79 Journal of Medical Microbiology 5 0.34 80 Chemico-Biological Interactions 5 0.34 81 Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture 5 0.34 82 Biophysical Journal 5 0.34 83 Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 5 0.34 84 Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta-Proteins and Proteomics 5 0.34 85 Molecular Immunology 5 0.34 86 Journal of Clinical Microbiology 5 0.34 87 18 Journals With 4 Articles Each 72 4.94 88 30 Journals With 3 Articles Each 90 6.18 89 67 Journals With 2 Articles Each 134 9.20 90 138 Journals With 1 Articles Each 138 9.47Country wise distribution of research publications of biology facultiesThe country wise distribution of article over different journals is shown in Table 8. It could beobserved that faculty members of biology from selected central Universities of India have made 64
  • 10. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publication3634 publications. These journals were published from 38 different countries. Here, an attemptwas made to ascertain the attractiveness of journal contributions on the part of the facultymembers of universities with reference to the country of origin. It is obvious that facultymembers have opted for international journals especially USA in the first order of priority. Itcovers 34.67% of publications over the period of the study. It reflects that faculty members haveopted for international sources due to international recognition, name and fame, internationalstandard and for international collaboration. Next to USA, England ranks second in orderpublishing 23.78% of research trends followed by Netherlands (16.62%), India (6.52%),Germany (3.69%), and Ireland (2.53%). The rest of the countries have made less than 2 percentof the publications. Table 8: Country-wise distribution of articles over journals No. of Cumulative S. No. Country Percentage Publication Percentage 1 USA 1260 34.67 34.67 2 England 864 23.78 58.45 3 Netherlands 604 16.62 75.07 4 India 237 6.52 81.59 5 Germany 134 3.69 85.28 6 Ireland 92 2.53 87.81 7 Japan 57 1.57 89.38 8 Switzerland 53 1.46 90.83 9 U Arab Emirates 44 1.21 92.04 10 France 37 1.02 93.06 11 Poland 32 0.88 93.94 12 Canada 29 0.80 94.74 13 Nigeria 24 0.66 95.40 14 South Korea 19 0.52 95.92 15 Austria 16 0.44 96.37 16 Singapore 13 0.36 96.72 17 Scotland 11 0.30 97.03 18 Italy 10 0.28 97.30 19 Hungary 9 0.25 97.55 20 Brazil 8 0.22 97.77 21 Czech Republic 8 0.22 97.99 22 Turkey 8 0.22 98.21 23 Denmark 6 0.17 98.37 24 Taiwan 6 0.17 98.54 25 Australia 5 0.14 98.68 26 Chile 5 0.14 98.81 27 Kenya 5 0.14 98.95 28 New Zealand 5 0.14 99.09 29 Croatia 4 0.11 99.20 65
  • 11. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publication No. of Cumulative S. No. Country Percentage Publication Percentage 30 Greece 4 0.11 99.31 31 Iran 4 0.11 99.42 32 Israel 4 0.11 99.53 33 Slovakia 4 0.11 99.64 34 Spain 4 0.11 99.75 35 Pakistan 3 0.08 99.83 36 Romania 3 0.08 99.91 37 Belgium 2 0.06 99.97 38 Sweden 1 0.03 100.00Distributions of Most Prolific AuthorsAn attempt was made to analyse the research performance of individual faculties of biology inselected central universities of India. The analysis reveals that the contribution of individualfaculties varies from person to person. However, the highest contribution is of 80 papers whereasthe lowest contribution is 1 paper. The findings of distribution of individual authors in terms oftheir productivity reveal the fact that Khan, R.H, Aligarh Muslim University is in the top positionwith 80 different publications. The second rank is recorded by Tyagi, A.K, University of Delhi,who has contributed 67 publications to biology literature. The 65 publications of Kumar, A fromAligarh Muslim University stand at the third place in order. A total of 38 prolific authors, whohave made more than 10 contributions, have been listed in the Table 9. Table 9: Distribution of most prolific authors No of S. No. No. of Author % Name of The University Publication 1 Khan, R,h 80 5.52 Aligarh Muslim University 2 Tyagi, A,k 67 4.62 University of Delhi 3 Kumar, A 65 4.48 Aligarh Muslim University 4 Parmar, V,S 61 4.21 University of Delhi 5 Singh, S 59 4.07 Aligarh Muslim University 6 Chandra, R 52 3.59 University of Delhi 7 Gupta, R 52 3.59 Aligarh Muslim University 8 Sasikala, C 45 3.10 University of Hyderabad 9 Ramana, C,V 42 2.90 University of Hyderabad 10 Sundar, S 42 2.90 Aligarh Muslim University 11 Satyanarayana, T 41 2.83 University of Delhi 12 Kumar, R 39 2.69 Aligarh Muslim University 13 Kumar, S 38 2.62 Aligarh Muslim University 14 Lal, R 37 2.55 University of Delhi 15 Reddanna, P 37 2.55 University of Hyderabad 16 Kumar, P 35 2.41 Banaras Hindu University 17 Jagannadham, M,V 34 2.34 Banaras Hindu University 66
  • 12. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publication 18 Singh, A 34 2.34 Aligarh Muslim University 19 Swamy, M,J 34 2.34 Aligarh Muslim 20 Kumar, V 33 2.28 Aligarh Muslim University 21 Prasad, A,k 33 2.28 University of Delhi 22 Raj, H,G 33 2.28 University of Delhi 23 Saxena, R,k 33 2.28 Aligarh Muslim University 24 Kumar, S 33 2.28 Aligarh Muslim University 25 Khurana, J,P 32 2.21 Aligarh Muslim University 26 Gupta, V 30 2.07 Aligarh Muslim University 27 Hasnain, S,E 30 2.07 Aligarh Muslim University 28 Kuhad, R,C 29 2.00 University of Delhi 29 Saleemuddin, M 29 2.00 Aligarh Muslim University 30 Senthilkumaran, B 29 2.00 Banaras Hindu University 31 Tripathi, A,k 29 2.00 Aligarh Muslim University 32 Bhattacharya, S 28 1.93 Aligarh Muslim University 33 Husain, Q 27 1.86 Aligarh Muslim University 34 Singh, Y 27 1.86 Aligarh Muslim University 35 Sharma, S 26 1.79 Aligarh Muslim University 36 Gupta, K,C 25 1.72 Banaras Hindu University 37 Kayastha, A,M 25 1.72 Banaras Hindu University 38 Singh, S,P 25 1.72 Banaras Hindu UniversitySUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe analysis of literature in biology contributed by faculties in central universities of India bringsto light some interesting facts about the literature as well as authors. • The pattern of year wise output is much skewed. It registers decrease in one year and goes on increasing in the next year. • Research output of AMU faculties is on the top followed by that of DU, BHU and HU. Khan, R.H is the most prolific author contributing 80 publications for AMU shows its share in the literature contributed by its faculty. • Collaboration in research is evident by the fact that 23.80%, 23.45% and 17.17% of articles have been written by two, three and four authors respectively. The nature of collaboration is fairly collaborative. • Faculties preferred to publish their papers in international journals of foreign origin. Their preference is more for journals from USA, which also happens to be one of the countries publishing maximum journals. • Majority of the journal related to biology is published from USA (34.67%), England (23.78%) and Netherlands (16.62%). Whereas the majority of the articles is coincidentally published from USA. 67
  • 13. International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development (IJLISRD),ISSN: 2277 – 3541 (Print) ISSN: 2277 – 3673 (Online) Volume 1, Issue 1, January- April 2012, ©PRJ Publication • The articles appearing in journals rank first in order as compared to the other preferred sources such as reviews, meeting abstracts and proceedings.REFERENCES1. Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a Research Field: A Course on Theory and Application of Bibliometric Indicators. Available at2. Gupta, B.M., Kumar, S., Aggarwal, B. S. (1999). A Comparison of Productivity of Male and Female Scientists of CSIR. Scientometrics, 45:269–289.3. Prpic, K. (2000). The Publication Productivity of Young Scientists: An Empirical Study. Scientometrics, 49: 453–490.4. Babu, A.R. and Singh, Y.P. (1998). Determinants of Research Productivity. Scientometrics, 43: 309–329.5. Uzun, A. and Ozel, M.E. (1996). Publication Patterns of Turkish Astronomers. Scientometrics, 37: 159–169.6. Uzun, A. (1996). A Bibliometric Analysis of Physics Publications from Middle Eastern Countries. Scientometrics, 36: 259–269.7. Garg, K. C. and Padhi, P. (1999). Scientometrics of Institutional Productivity of Laser Science and Technology. Scientometrics, 46: 19–38.8. Abt, H. A. (1993). Institutional Productivities. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 105: 794–798.9. Basu, A. and Nagpaul, P. S. (1998). National Mapping of Science. NISTADS Report: No. Rep-248/98, New Delhi, 157–169.10. Perdew, J. P. and Tipler, F. J. (1996). Ranking the Physics Departments. Physics Today, October: 96–97.11. Johns, J. L. (1983). A Study of Institutional Productivity in “Reading World”: 1978– 1983, ERIC Document Re-production service No. ED 248 490, Northern Illinois University.12. Thoresen, R. W., Kraauskopf, C. J. and Cox, J. G. (1975). Reputation, Halo, and Ratings of Counseling Programs, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22: 446–450.13. Okubo, Yoshiko (1997). Bibliometric Indicators and Analysis of Research Systems: Methods and Examples. STI working papers, OECD.14. Godin, Benoît (2006). On the Origins of Bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 68(1): 109–133.15. Ajiferuke, I, Burrel, Q and Taque, J. (1988). Collaborative Coefficient. A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14(5 – 6): 421. 68

×