Guidance for the Reporting of Bibliometric Analyses: A Scoping Review

Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Niveen Syed, Dimity Stephen, Ana Patricia Ayala, Michel Sabe, Marco Solmi, Ludo Waltman, Stefanie Haustein, David Moher
{"title":"Guidance for the Reporting of Bibliometric Analyses: A Scoping Review","authors":"Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Niveen Syed, Dimity Stephen, Ana Patricia Ayala, Michel Sabe, Marco Solmi, Ludo Waltman, Stefanie Haustein, David Moher","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.26.24312538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the growth in the number of bibliometric analyses published in the peer-reviewed literature, few articles provide guidance on methods and reporting to ensure reliability, robustness, and reproducibility. Consequently, the quality of reporting in existing bibliometric studies varies greatly. In response, we are developing a preliminary Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL), a reporting guideline for bibliometric analyses. This paper outlines a scoping review that aims to identify and categorise bibliometric recommendations from the literature to develop an initial list of candidate items for the GLOBAL. Five bibliographic databases, three preprint servers, and grey literature were systematically searched. Twenty-three out of 48,750 records fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six documents contained bibliometric reporting recommendations based on a complete or partial literature review; all other sources (n = 17) contained opinion-based recommendations. A 32-item recommendation list that will inform the development of the GLOBAL was created. A paucity of evidence-based studies on bibliometric reporting exists in the literature, supporting the need to create a reporting guideline for bibliometric analyses. The next step in the GLOBAL project will focus on conducting a two-round Delphi study to achieve consensus on which of the 32 items should be included in GLOBAL.","PeriodicalId":501556,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.26.24312538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the growth in the number of bibliometric analyses published in the peer-reviewed literature, few articles provide guidance on methods and reporting to ensure reliability, robustness, and reproducibility. Consequently, the quality of reporting in existing bibliometric studies varies greatly. In response, we are developing a preliminary Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL), a reporting guideline for bibliometric analyses. This paper outlines a scoping review that aims to identify and categorise bibliometric recommendations from the literature to develop an initial list of candidate items for the GLOBAL. Five bibliographic databases, three preprint servers, and grey literature were systematically searched. Twenty-three out of 48,750 records fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six documents contained bibliometric reporting recommendations based on a complete or partial literature review; all other sources (n = 17) contained opinion-based recommendations. A 32-item recommendation list that will inform the development of the GLOBAL was created. A paucity of evidence-based studies on bibliometric reporting exists in the literature, supporting the need to create a reporting guideline for bibliometric analyses. The next step in the GLOBAL project will focus on conducting a two-round Delphi study to achieve consensus on which of the 32 items should be included in GLOBAL.
文献计量学分析报告指南:范围审查
尽管同行评议文献中发表的文献计量学分析数量不断增加,但很少有文章对方法和报告提供指导,以确保可靠性、稳健性和可重复性。因此,现有文献计量学研究的报告质量参差不齐。为此,我们正在编制一份初步的文献计量学分析报告指南清单(GLOBAL),这是一份文献计量学分析报告指南。本文概述了一项范围审查,旨在确定文献中的文献计量学建议并对其进行分类,从而为 GLOBAL 编制一份初步的候选项目清单。本文系统地检索了五个文献数据库、三个预印本服务器和灰色文献。在 48,750 条记录中,有 23 条符合纳入标准。六篇文献包含基于完整或部分文献综述的文献计量报告建议;所有其他来源(n = 17)包含基于观点的建议。我们编制了一份包含 32 个项目的建议清单,为 GLOBAL 的开发提供参考。文献中关于文献计量学报告的循证研究很少,因此有必要制定文献计量学分析报告指南。GLOBAL 项目的下一步将侧重于开展两轮德尔菲研究,以就 32 个项目中哪些应纳入 GLOBAL 达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信