Keywords
social sciences
bibliometric analysis
publication trends
citation trends
authorship patterns
collaborative research
Web of Science
How to Cite
Abstract
The present study evaluated the trends in publications and citations in social science research funded by Indian funding agencies over the last decade. We identified the key research areas, preferred document types for publication, and authorship patterns in funded publications using bibliometric mining and visualization. Analysis of 2040 publications produced during the last decade (2014-2023) indexed in Social Science Citation Index of Web of Science revealed that they received a total of 41015 citations, averaging 21.11 citations per paper. The mean relative growth rate of both publications and citations were higher during the first five years (MRp=0.20, MRc=0.12) and declined during the second (MRp=-0.08, MRc=-0.70). A similar trend was seen in the mean doubling time of publications and citations during the first five years (DTp=0.29, DTc=0.17) as compared to the second five-year block period (DTp=-0.12, DTc=-1.01). Correlation between publications and citations was positive (r=0.574), but not statistically significant (p=.082). "Public, Environmental & Occupational Health" was the most dominant subject area in terms of publication counts (210), and "Green & Sustainable Science & Technology" in terms of citation counts (3381). Authors preferred to publish their research in the form of articles (86.91%). Indian social science researchers engaged mostly in collaborative research (97.25%), with three-authored publications being the most prevalent (18.38%). Ganesan Venkatasubramanian from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru was the most prolific author with 48 publications and 287 collaboration linkages. Based on the results, it is clear that social science research in India needs significant attention in terms of financial support. While funding agencies need to enhance research funding, social scientists need to utilize alternative platforms such as author self-archiving repositories to get better visibility for their publications.References
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1129–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8
Aksnes, Dag. W., Sivertsen, G., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wendt, K. K. (2016). Measuring the productivity of national R&D systems: Challenges in cross-national comparisons of R&D input and publication output indicators. Science and Public Policy, scw058. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw058
Bansal, S., Mahendiratta, S., Kumar, S., Sarma, P., Prakash, A., & Medhi, B. (2019). Collaborative research in modern era: Need and challenges. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 51(3), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijp.IJP_394_19
Carpenter, C. R., Cone, D. C., & Sarli, C. C. (2014). Using Publication Metrics to Highlight Academic Productivity and Research Impact. Academic Emergency Medicine, 21(10), 1160–1172. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12482
Gondaliya, A. V., & Shah, K. V. (2013). Funding Agencies in India for Research in Science and Technology. Pharma Science Monitor, 4(3), 252–273.
Lupia, A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement_3), 14048–14054. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212726110
Lupia, A. (2014). What Is the Value of Social Science? Challenges for Researchers and Government Funders. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(01), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513001613
Mahapatra, G. (1994). Correlation between growth of publications and citations: A study based on growth curves. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 41(1), 8–12.
Prewitt, K. (2013). Is Any Science Safe? Science, 340(6132), 525–525. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239180
Sattari, R., Bae, J., Berkes, E., & Weinberg, B. A. (2022). The ripple effects of funding on researchers and output. Science Advances, 8(16), eabb7348. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb7348
Subramanian, N. (2014). Authorship patterns and degree of collaboration of Sri Lankan scientific publications in Social sciences and Humanities – a picture from SCOPUS. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2966
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Abdoli, M., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Wilson, P., & Levitt, J. (2023). Why are coauthored academic articles more cited: Higher quality or larger audience? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(7), 791–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24755
Verma, D. M. K., Borgohain, D. J., & Shivanand Hadagali, G. (2021). Scientometric Analysis of Indian Biochemistry Research During 2010—2020. Journal of Indian Library Association, 57(3).
Xu, X., Tan, A. M., & Zhao, S. X. (2015). Funding ratios in social science: The perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences. Scientometrics, 104(3), 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1633-3
Yang, W., Hao, X., Qu, J., Wang, L., Zhang, M., Jiang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Collaborative networks and thematic trends of research on the application of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: A bibliometric analysis. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 37, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2019.08.008
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 South India Journal of Social Sciences