See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261950645

Universiti Sains Malaysia Research Publication: A Bibliometric Study

Conference Paper · July 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 2,364

3 authors, including:

Mohd Ikhwan Ismail Mohd Kamal Mohd Napiah

Universiti Sains Malaysia Universiti Sains Malaysia
16 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohd Kamal Mohd Napiah on 30 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Universiti Sains Malaysia Research Publication:
A Bibliometric Study
Mohd Ikhwan Ismail*
Hamzah Sendut Library,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia,
ikhwanismail@usm.my

Mohd Kamal Mohd Napiah

Hamzah Sendut Library,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia,
mohdkamal@usm.my

Abd Halim Ismail

Hamzah Sendut Library,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia,
abd_halim@usm.my

ABSTRACT
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) has been recognised as a Research University (RU)
since 2006. USM offers educational and research opportunities for students and
staffs in developing academic excellence. Many journal articles have been published
every year through various publishers and databases. The requirement of the
university states that academic staffs and postgraduate students are required to
publish at least one or two articles in any journals with impact factor. Every year, the
university will be audited by the Ministry of Higher Education to verify the consistency
of criteria and requirement of the RU status. Therefore, citation analysis or
bibliometric study is needed to evaluate the progress of university research as well as
to ensure consistency in research quality and its development. In this study, 1371
articles published in 2012 were analysed in terms of percentage of subjects, number
of main authors and co-authors from USM. The relationship and collaborations
among authors was also analysed to identify the extent to which the researches had
contributed to research development in each particular field of study. Author self-
citation and journal self-citation were also examined as these types of citation
determined the total citations and the h-index. Journal ranking was also determined.
All data were derived from Web of Science (WOS) in the form of journal articles. This
database was chosen because it provided the impact factor of the journal, citations,
and h-index. The results from this study provide useful insights for university
evaluation, selection of subjects and journals to publish in, and implications for
research development.

Keywords: Citation analysis, Citation sources, Journal ranking, Bibliometrics,

Universiti Sains Malaysia

1. AIMS OF THE STUDY

This paper aims to identify the pattern of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) publications in
terms of citations, collaborations, and authorship. This study also aims to examine the
tendency of USM researchers in publishing their articles with regard to research areas and
journal titles.
2. INTRODUCTION
Bibliometrics is one of important subjects in library and information sciences. It shows the
unique technique to measure and monitor information resources. In other words,
bibliometrics could be one way to analyse any kind of information resources to identify the
trends and their impacts. Bibliometric method is used scientifically to study and measure
authorship, citation, and publication pattern (Mamdapur, Govanakoppa, & Rajgoli, 2011).
According to Pritchard (1969), bibliometrics is defined as “the application of mathematics
and statistical methods to books and other media of communication”.
Citation analysis is a part of bibliometrics. This analysis provides some basicevaluation of
trend ininformation resources. There are many and various purposes of citation analysis. For
an instance, a journal with more articles and frequencies tends to receive more citations.
The evaluation in citation analysis can be done on author, institution, and publication. There
are two major ways to evaluate data in citation analysis:manual and electronic (Vincent &
Ross, 2011). Manual citation analysis counts author and journal self-citation,among others,
manually. On the other hand, electronic citation analysis is provided by databases such as
Web of Science (WOS). The data provided and analysed by the system will show the
citations per article and the relationship with other articles. There are many other data that
can be retrieved from the database such as impact factor, total citations, and journal ranking.
Nowadays, simple analysis can be done by WOS to show the trend of article, journal, and
author. The analysis may help in getting the development of an institution especially in terms
of research development. WOS also presents journal ranking that can benefit researchers in
selecting the best journal to publish their articles.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

i. What is the authorship pattern among USM researchers?

ii. What is the author and journal self-citation rate for USM publications?
iii. What are the types of collaborations among the authors and their frequency?
iv. What are the most popular research areas published by USM researchers?
v. What are the favourite journals chosen by USM researchers?

4. METHODOLOGY
This study analysed USM publications indexed in WOS, Science Citation Index (SCI), and
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in 2012. The term “USM publications” in this study
refers to any writings produced by USM researchers. These USM publications were
extracted by searching “univ sains Malaysia” as an address in WOS database to obtain the
list. Afterward, the list was filtered by the year 2012 and only “article” was chosen as
document type. The number of articles was changed according to the index of the database
from time to time. Data were derived in February 2013.

SCI and SSCI were subsequently used to analyse the articles published by USM
researchers in terms of journal titles and ranking. Two methods were used in analysing the
data: using the tools provided in WOS and manual counting. As for the first method i.e.,
using tools provided in WOS, the result was determined by choosing the rank of articles by
selected fields. Some analyses were done using manual method by checking each record
and the data were analysed after converted to .xls file.
5. LITERATURE REVIEW
Vincent and Ross (2011) state that among the aims of the study of bibliometrics are to
answer the following questions: Which journals have the greatest impact in their fields?;
What is the average number of bibliographic citations per articles?; What is the author self-
citation rate?; What is the incidence of citations to the journal in which the article is published
(journal self-citation)?; What is the total number of citation a journal receives?; and, How
often are the articles from these journals being cited by authors in other journals? According
to Moed (2009), evaluative bibliometrics is a subfield of quantitative science and technology
study that aims at constructing indicators of research performance from a quantitative
analysis of scholarly documents. Citation analysis is well known as one of the key
methodologies used to indicate the “impact”, “influence”, and “quality” of scholarly works by
evaluating the citations of the publications. As far as the citation is concerned, Starbuck and
Mezias (1997) remind researchers in this field that citation rates measure visibility. For
instance, American journals tend to get more citation than foreign publications because of
their larger circulations. Moed (2009) explains that citation analysis is getting attention as a
method to evaluate the quality of faculty research because of its objectivity, consistent
analysis, and availability of databases that provide citation information. Through citation
analysis, one may find out a lot of information including evaluation of scientists, publications,
and scientific institutions.

Recently, the term “impact factor” is very synonym among researchers, especially in the
academic setting where lecturers need to achieve specific targets as their key performance
indicators. Researchers not merely need to publish in any journals, but they are required to
publish articles in journals with high impact factor. Studies by Vincent and Ross (2011) and
Fan and McGhee (2008) agree that impact factor plays an important role in determining the
value of the work in a discipline by presenting the average number of citations received in
one year by the articles that appear within the two previous years. Basically, Journal Impact
Factor (JIF) can be retrieved from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which is published by
Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) to provide meaningful and systematic means in
identifying the importance of science and social science journals within their subject
category. JCR provides reports in two categories: science and social science. However, the
coverage of science is bigger than social science. JIF, which was introduced by Eugene
Garfield in 1955, since then has become widely accepted as a primary key indicator of a
journal’s quality – high citation rate indicates high journal quality in spite of its early intention
as a comparative tool of citation rates among journals. From JIF, ISI also distributes the
journals into quartiles based on the impact factor of each journal. There are four quartile
rankings that begin with Quartile 1, which represents the top 25% of the impact factor
distribution followed by another 25% for each quartile until the lowest position.

The evaluation of an individual scientist can be done through bibliometric study. Hazarika,
Sarma, and Sen (2010) suggest that scientific publications seem to have provided valuable
information and foundation for measuring the outputs of individual researcher as there is a
good correlation between the eminence of scientists and their sustained scholarly
publications. William Stockley (a Nobel Laureate) is one of the first writers to suggest
scientific publications as a measure of research productivity among individuals within a
group by analysing their publications. A study on an eminent scientist in the field of
biometeorology named Nayana Nanda Borthakur has been done to identify his scientometric
portrait in his field in terms of quantitative (how many publications) and qualitative (where
they are published). The study identifies the author’s productivity, year-wise publications
distribution, authorship pattern, and collaboration.

Other than that, self-citation is one of the fields in bibliometric study that is very useful in
identifying the activity of self-citation among authors or journals. According to MacRoberts
and MacRoberts (1989), approximately 10-30% self-citation occurs in scientific publications.
Very few of the authors do not self-cite themselves. Another study by Garfield and Sher
(1963) claims that authors in research-based disciplines tend to involve in self-citation on the
average of 20% of their time. The study also finds that the average of 20% for journal self-
citation rate occurs for scientific literature journals.

6. PROBLEM STATEMENT
There is a need to evaluate university publications especially journal articles published by
USM researchers in terms of authorship, subject coverage, collaboration, and journal
preference. The university needs to know how many journals in science and non-science
subjects have been published since USM offers various courses in different subjects. Some
researchers do collaborate within USM community only and some are not. The rate of self-
citation among USM researchers can also be identified, thus the claim that states author and
journal self-citation is within 10-30% of the publications can be supported (Garfield & Sher,
1963; MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 1989).

7. FINDING AND DISCUSSION

7.1 AUTHORSHIP
Table 1: Authorship

Authorship Number Percentage (%)

Main Author (First Author) 1098 80

Co-Author 273 20

USM as a research university, the first to adopt APEX title as well as to apply Blue Ocean
Strategy, aspires to be a leader in academic world, to contribute to the community by
changing the lives of bottom billions, and to enhance their socio-economic well-being.
Research at USM focuses on solving global problems through local solutions by
concentrating upon research outcomes and technology development that will reduce equity
and enhance sustainability. In order to achieve the target, USM researchers are struggling in
producing quality research throughout the year where 1371 publications have been made,
which are equivalent to 114 publications per month on average.

Based on Table 1, out of 1371 papers, the study identified that majority of USM researchers
play the role as the Main Authors in 1098 research publications (80%), while another 20% of
the papers represent USM researchers as co-authors. This scenario indicates a positive
implication in the sense that USM researchers are leading the research. This is in
accordance to university motto that says We lead i.e., to bring us to lead in every aspect
including research.
7.2 SELF-CITATION

Whenever the citations are used to evaluate the reputation of the author and it becomes
indicator for scientific research, many authors like to do self-citation as a strategy to have
impact for their credibility. Actually, many scholars in bibliometric field have discussed self-
citation and some opine that self-citation should not be counted in citation count. This issue
could affect an individual’s credibility and the institution he or she represents. Despite that
argument, this study analysed self-citation in USM publications in two categories: author and
journal. All authors of an individual publication were accumulated together when counting the
self-citation. In other words, the author self-citation was counted only once, even if a single
publication had more than one self-citation.

Table 2: Self-Citation (Author)

Type of Citation Number Percentage (%)

Self-Citation 863 63

Non-Self-Citation 508 37

Table 2 shows that 863 USM publications (63% of total USM publications) in 2012 were self-
cited by their own authors. On the other hand, only 508 USM publications (37% of total USM
publications) were not self-cited by their own authors in the same year.

Therefore, there is a larger percentage of self-citation rather than non-self-citation. This

clearly shows that self-citation is determinant for increasing influence of citations among
USM researchers.

Table 3: Self-Citation (Journal)

Type of Citation Number Percentage (%)

Self-Citation 724 53

Non-Self-Citation 647 47

As shown in Table 3, the number of journal self-citation is 724 (53%) while the number of
journal non-self-citation is 647 (47%) out of the 1371 USM publications in 2012. Thus,
thereis only 6% gap between the two types of citation.
This finding shows that the number of journal self-citation is still high. This finding is same
with author self-citation. This phenomenon occurs possibly because researchers want to
increase the total number of citations of their own articles. This may eventually increase their
reputation or h-index. The impact of journal self-citation raises the result of impact factor for
journal. Furthermore, USM researchers chose journal self-citation as a strategy to get their
article published especially in journals that have high impact factor. At the same time, the
requirement of USM publication is that the articles must be published in any indexed journal,
thus journal self-citation could help ensure their articles will be accepted and published.

Table 4: Quartile Ranking

Subject Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4

Science
398 (29%) 313 (23%) 313 (23%) 272 (20%)
Non-Science
6 (0.5%) 15 (1.1%) 15 (1.1%) 9 (0.7%)

Quartile ranking shows the reputation of publication with number of publication and its
citations. JCR is most frequently used in bibliometric studies to indicate the ranking for all
journals indexed in ISI Web of Science. In fact, the JCR provides bibliometric analysis for
science and non-science subjects. In the same time, all journals in JCR monitor the number
of publications and citations they receive. The determination of quartile belongs to impact
factor distribution from each journal. There are four quartile rankings; Quartile 1 denotes the
top 25% of the impact factor distribution and another 25% for each quartile follows from top
position to the lowest position.

As shown in Table 4, 398 (29%) articles have been published in journals of Quartile 1
ranking and it represents the highest number of articles in science subject. Next, Quartile 2
and 3 rankings have 313 (23%) published articles and 272 (20%) published articles in
Quartile 4. For non-science subject, only 6 (0.5%) articles have been published in Quartile 1
ranking and 15 (1.1%) published articles in each Quartile 2 and 3 ranking. Lastly, for non-
science subject, Quartile 4 ranking has9 (0.7%) published articles.

From these findings, most articles from science subject have been published in high-ranked
journals. This is in accordance with the policy of the university that encourages researchers
to publish in journals with high impact factor as it will build up the university reputation and
eventually increase university ranking. However, the number of articles in Quartile 2 and 3 is
not very much different from Quartile 1. In other words, the gap between one quartile to
another is not big. This suggests good potential for USM researchers to publish their articles
in coming years.

At the same time, it is clear that many of the articles that have been published and indexed
in WOS are from science subject. Indeed, there are more core subjects in USM from science
subjects including engineering, medical sciences, and life sciences, than non-science
subject. Not many articles in non-science subject are published and indexed in WOS
because only 30% out of the total number of articles from USM are from social sciences. In
fact, the number of journals that are indexed in WOS for non-science subject is smaller than
for science subject. Additionally, many researchers in non-science subject like to publish
their works and researches in books, research papers, and chapters in books rather than in
journals.
7.3 COLLABORATION

Subramanyam (1983) states that scientific research is becoming an increasingly

collaborative endeavour. Collaboration in research is said to have taken place when two or
more investigators work together in a project and contribute resources and effort, both
intellectual and physical.

7.3.1 Collaboration by Countries

This study attempted to study the collaboration between USM researchers with other
researchers based on country. Table 5 indicates the top ten countries collaborated by USM
researchers. It can be seen that 1370 (99.92%) collaborations made by USM researchers
were from Malaysia followed by India (74, 5.39%), Japan (56, 4.08%), Iran (48, 3.51%), and
United States of America (47, 3.42%). Thus, only one publication involved collaboration with
other countries and without any other authors from Malaysia.

Table 5: Collaboration by Countries

Country Number of articles Percentage (%)

Malaysia 1370 99.92

India 74 5.39
Japan 56 4.08
Iran 48 3.5
United States of America 47 3.42
Iraq 43 3.13
Saudi Arabia 41 2.99
Australia 38 2.77
England 36 2.62
Pakistan 32 2.33

7.3.2 Collaboration by Organisations

This study also attempted to analyse the collaboration between USM researchers with other
researchers based on organisations. Table 6 shows that majority 1357 (98.97%) of the
collaborations made by USM researchers were among the USM researchers themselves
followed by Universiti Malaya (37, 2.69%), Universiti Putra Malaysia (32, 2.33%), King Saud
University (29, 2.11%), and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (28, 2.04%). Thus, 14
publications involved collaboration with other organisations and without any collaboration
from USM.
 Table 6: Collaboration by Organisations

Organisation Number of articles Percentage (%)

Universiti Sains Malaysia 1357 98.97

Universiti Malaya 37 2.69
Universiti Putra Malaysia 32 2.33
King Saud University 29 2.11
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 28 2.04
Universiti Malaysia Perlis 24 1.75
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 17 1.24
Islamic Azad University 16 1.16
Monash University 14 1.02
University Teknologi Mara 14 1.02
Universiti Utara Malaysia 14 1.02
Nanyang Technological 11 0.82
University

7.3.3 Collaboration between USM with Other Local Universities

This study also attempted to analyse the collaboration between USM researchers with other
researchers from the local universities. Table 7 shows that Universiti Malaya (37, 2.69%)
was the collaborator with the highest number of collaborations followed by Universiti Putra
Malaysia (32, 2.33%),Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (28, 2.04%), Universiti Malaysia Perlis
(24, 1.75%), and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (17, 1.24%).

Table 7: Collaboration with Local Universities

University Number of articles Percentage (%)

Universiti Malaya 37 2.69

Universiti Putra Malaysia 32 2.33
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 28 2.04
Universiti Malaysia Perlis 24 1.75
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 17 1.24
Universiti Teknologi Mara 14 1.02
Universiti Utara Malaysia 14 1.02
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa 10 0.72
Malaysia
 Universiti Malaysia Terengganu 10 0.72

AIMST
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Universiti Teknologi Petronas
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
9 0.65
8 0.58
8 0.58
8 0.58
6 0.43

7.3.4 Collaboration between USM with Universities Outside Malaysia

This study also attempted to analyse the collaboration between USM researchers with other
researchers from the universities outside Malaysia. Table 8 indicates that King Saud
University was the top collaborator (29, 2.11%) among all the universities followed by Islamic
Azad University (16, 1.16%); Monash University (14, 1.02%), Nanyang Technological
University (11, 0.82%) and Rajshahi University (10, 0.72%).

Table 8: Collaboration with Universities Outside Malaysia

University Number of articles Percentage (%)

King Saud University 29 2.11

Islamic Azad University
Monash University
Nanyang Technological
University
Rajshahi University
National University of Singapore
Jahangirnagar University
Prince of Songkla University
Toyohashi University of
Technology
Tokyo Institute of Technology
University of Delhi
Assiut University
Indian Institute of Technology
University of Basrah
University Cluj
Alwar Pharmacy College
Government College University
Lahore
King Abdul Aziz University
Kyung Hee University
16 1.16
14 1.02
11 0.82
10 0.72
9 0.65
8 0.58
8 0.58
8 0.58
7 0.51
7 0.51
6 0.43
6 0.43
6 0.43
6 0.43
5 0.36
5 0.36
5 0.36
5 0.36
 Ladoke Akintola University of 5 0.36
Technology 5 0.36

National Institute of Technology 5 0.36

Karnataka
National University of Science
and Technology
University of Adelaide
University of Mauritius
University of Queensland
5 0.36
5 0.36
5 0.36
5 0.36

This finding shows that majority of the collaboration made by USM researchers were from
Malaysia. On top of that, most of the collaborations were among USM researchers
themselves. This is a very common mode of collaboration i.e., researchers from same
country and the same university working together.

According to Subramanyam (1983), collaboration among colleagues is a very common

practice. A number of colleagues work together on one or more projects; each one
contributes expertise in different aspect of the project. Besides that, researchers from
different organisations often collaborate based on mutual interest. This kind of collaboration
may be motivated through informal contacts or prior relationship among the researchers.
Moreover, it is also possible when a researcher leaves an organisation and joins other
organisation but continues the unfinished research project in the new organisation with the
collaboration of the colleagues from the former organisation.

7.4 RESEARCH AREAS

USM researchers publish papers in various research areas. Table 9 presents the distribution
of publications according to the subject areas.It can be seen that majority of the publications
published were in Engineering (239 publications, 17.43%) followed by Material Science (231
publications, 16.85%), Chemistry (216 publications, 15.76%), Physics (126 publications,
9.19%) and Polymer Science (90 publications, 6.57%).

Table 9: Research Areas of USM Publications

Research Area Number of articles Percentage (%)

Engineering 239 17.43

Material Science 231 16.85
Chemistry 216 15.76
Physics 126 9.19
Polymer Science 90 6.57
Others (Science Technology) 84 6.12
Pharmacology Pharmacy 73 5.32
Environmental Sciences Ecology 66 4.81
 Crystallography 58 4.23
Computer Science 50 3.64

Although engineering-oriented papers dominated the result, it cannot be concluded that

engineering represented the nature of USM publication as a whole. This study only
attempted to analyse the USM publications available in WOS within 2012. In order to identify
the nature of USM publications, larger scale of study should be done to compare all
publications in different years regardless of the subject areas.

7.5 JOURNAL TITLES

In total, there were 1371 publications published in 683 journal titles. Table 10 shows the top
10 journal titles preferred by USM researchers. The top five preferred journals for publishing
journal articles were ActaCrystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online (42 titles,
3.06%) followed by International Medical Journal (27 titles, 1.96 %), Journal of Applied
Polymer Science (23 titles, 1.67%), Chemical Engineering Journal (21 titles, 1.53%), and
Sains Malaysiana (18 title, 1.31%).

The top five journal titles published by USM researcher in 2012 are popular journals in their
subjects. In addition, these journals have high impact factors, which are between 0.200 and
4.000. Therefore, articles published in journals with high impact factor have the potential to
get many citations. It may thus help the authors to increase their h-index.

Table 10: Ranking of Journal Titles based on number of articles

Journal Titles Number of articles Percentage (%)

ActaCrystallographica Section E 42 3.06

Structure Reports Online
International Medical Journal 27 1.96
Journal of Applied Polymer Science 23 1.67
Chemical Engineering Journal 21 1.53
Sains Malaysiana 18 1.31
Bioresource Technology 17 1.24
Bioresources 17 1.24
International Journal of 17 1.24
Electrochemical Science 17 1.24
Polymer Plastics Technology and 17 1.24
Engineering
Molecules 16 1.16
Applied Surface Science 14 1.02
Construction and Building Materials 14 1.02
Plos One 12 0.87
Tropical Biomedicine 12 0.87
 International Journal of Innovative 10 0.72
Computing Information and Control
Superlatticesand Microstructures 10 0.72

8. SUGGESTIONS& RECOMMENDATIONS

From this study, some suggestions and recommendations could be made for better
understanding of USM research pattern in the future:
i. Another study should be done in a larger scale to compare publications within
different years to see how the research patterns differ.
ii. A specific study should be done to identify the quality and contribution of prolific USM
researchers in specific field of research.
iii. The result of this study can be reviewed by USM research bodies in order to put a
milestone for future research direction.

CONCLUSION

Research is the catalyst behind USM’s drive towards achieving the APEX targets and its
vision to transform higher education for a sustainable tomorrow. Research at USM is driven
by three main thrust areas namely curiosity-driven, people-focused, and industry-driven. The
key areas of research strengths at USM include medical and health, engineering, social
transformation, climate change, ICT, energy security, food security, and environmental
sustainability.

Thus, research activities are highly cultivated and have become a part of USM cultures.
However, very few researchers know about these research activities in terms of
bibliometrics. From this study, we have found, among others, the following:

i. 80% of USM publications consist of USM researchers as the main authors.

ii. 63% of USM publications are self-cited by the authors.
iii. 53% of USM publications involve journal self-citation.
iv. 99.92% of USM researchers have collaborated with researchers from Malaysia
followed by researchers from India (5.39%), Japan (4.08%), Iran (3.51%), and United
States of America (3.42%).
v. Top USM local research collaborators are Universiti Malaya (2.69%) followed by
Universiti Putra Malaysia (2.33%), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (2.04%),
Universiti Malaysia Perlis (1.75%), and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (1.24%).
vi. Top USM research collaborators from universities outside Malaysia are King Saud
University (2.11%) followed by Islamic Azad University (1.16%), Monash University
(1.02%), Nanyang Technological University (0.82%), and Rajshahi University
(0.72%).
vii. The distribution of research publications according to the subject areas begins with
Engineering (17.43%) followed by Material Science (16.85%), Chemistry (15.76%),
Physics (9.19%), and Polymer Science (6.57%).
viii. Top five preferred journals for USM publications are ActaCrystallographica Section E
Structure Reports Online (3.06%), followed by International Medical Journal (1.96%),
Journal of Applied Polymer Science (1.67%), Chemical Engineering Journal (1.53%),
and Sains Malaysiana (1.31%).
REFERENCES

Fan, J. C., & McGhee, C. N. (2008). Citation analysis of the most influential authors and
ophthalmology journals in the field of cataract and corneal refractive surgery 2000-
2004. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 36(1), 54-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-
9071.2008.01674.x

Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through
citation indexing. American Documentation, 14(3), 195-201.

Hazarika, T., Sarma, D., & Sen, B. (2010). Scientometric portrait of Nayana Nanda
Borthakur: a biometeorologist. Annals of library and information studies, 57(1), 21-32.

MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical

review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342-349.

Mamdapur, G. M. N., Govanakoppa, R. A., & Rajgoli, I. U. (2011). Baltic Astronomy (2000-
2008)–A bibliometric study. Annals of library and information studies, 58(1), 34-40.

Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation.
[Review]. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz), 57(1), 13-18. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-
0001-5

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation,

25(4), 319-343.

Starbuck, B., & Mezias, J. (1997). Journal impact ratingsRetrieved 15th March, 2013, from
http://cmit.unomaha.edu/tip/TIPAPR96/starbuck.htm

Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of

Information Science, 6(1), 33-38. doi: 10.1177/016555158300600105

Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2011). On evaluation of faculty research impact of citation analysis.
Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 16(2).
 Mohd Ikhwan Ismail

Mohd Ikhwan Ismail was born 9th January 1982 in Terengganu. He received Bachelor of
Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Heritage with Honours (2005) and Master in Library and
Information Science (2007) from International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Currently he
works as a Reference Librarian and as head of MIDAS and Research University Unit from
Reference and Research Division at Hamzah Sendut Library, Universiti Sains Malaysia
(USM), Penang. He has written papers and presented at international conferences on subject
of Arabic cataloguing, Blue Ocean Strategy and bibliometrics.

Mohd Kamal Mohd Napiah

Mohd Kamal Mohd Napiah is a librarian from Customer Relations Division at Hamzah Sendut
Library, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang. He received Bachelor of Islamic Revealed
Knowledge and Heritage with Honours and Master in Library and Information Science from
International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He has working experience as librarian at
Perdana Leadership Foundation, Putrajaya before he moved to USM. He has written papers
and presented at international and national conferences on subject of Arabic cataloguing and
library community service.

Abd Halim Ismail

Abd Halim Ismail is a cataloguer from Technical Process Division at Hamzah Sendut Library,
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang. He received Bachelor of Islamic Revealed
Knowledge and Heritage with Honours and Master in Library and Information Science from
International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He has three years working experience as
librarian at Perdana Leadership Foundation, Putrajaya before he moved to USM.

View publication stats