Research Publications in the IEEE Transactions on Education: A Bibliometric Analysis

  • Dr. M. Suresh Babu Gokaraju Rangaraju Institute of Engineering & Technology (Autonomous & NAAC A++) Hyderabad
  • P Gopala Krishna Department of Information Technology Gokaraju Rangaraju Institute of Engineering and Technology Hyderabad

Abstract

 In the last decade, scientometric studies get momentum due to extensive research activities in the domain. Out of the various kinds of studies, the research on individual journals and their contributions is gaining interest among researchers. We, in this work, have analyzed the 1169 contributions published in the IEEE Transactions on Education for twenty years between 2001 and 2020. An attempt is made to explore and discuss the article, year-wise and volume-wise authorship, the annual growth rate of publications, relative growth rate, doubling time, author’s productivity, and the single and multi-authored papers of the journal. The findings of the results revealed that the maximum number of publications ((7.36%) were published in the year 2005, whereas the minimum number (2.91%) were published in the year 2014. The degree of collaboration (DC) ranges, the relative growth rates (RGR), and doubling time (DT) has also been measured. The average number of authors per paper is 2.72, and the average productivity per author is 0.37. The highest number of documents for authors at an average is 3.27, which was published in 2016.

References

[1] Blackman, V.H. (2005) Thecompoundinterestlawandplantgrowth. AnnalsofBotany, 33, 353–360. [2] Ezhilrani, R., Surianarayanan, S. & Kanthimathi, S. (2006) Authorship patterna Collaborative researchinaquaculture Journals.SRELS JournalofInformationManagement, 43, 4, 391–398. [3] Gupta, D.K. (1989) Lotka’sLawandItsapplicationtoAuthorProductivityDistribution of psychological LiteratureofAfrica,19661975. HeraldofLibraryScience, 28, 11–21. [4] Gupta, R., Ahmed, K.K.M., Gupta, B.M., Bansal, M. & Gupta, B.M. (2016) Lungcancer in India: A scientometric study of publications during 2005–14. International Journal of Medicine and Public Health, 6, 200–208 [DOI: 10.5530/ijmedph.2016.4.11]. [5] Plant, H.R. (1978). Growth Analysis. Edward Arnold: London. [6] Kumar, R.S. & Kaliyaperumal, K.A. (2015) Scientometricanalysisofmobiletechnology publications. Scientometrics Int. J. Quant. Aspects Sci. Sci., Commun. Sci.Sci.Policy, 105, 921–939. [7] Lotka, A.J. (1926) Statistics:Thefrequencydistributionofscientificproductivity. Journal of theWashington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–325.[8] Singh, K.P. & Bebi (2014) Libraryherald:Abibliometricstudy (2003–12). Library Herald, 52, 19–27. [9] Subramanyan, K. (1983) Bibliometricstudiesofresearchcollaboration:areview. Information Sciences, 6, 33–38. [10] Thavamani, K. (2014). Authorship Patterns and Collaborative Research in Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 1996-2012. Library Philosophy and Practice (E-journal), Vol. 117. [11] Arkhipov, D.B. (1999) Scientometric analysis of Nature, the journal. Scientometrics, 46, 51–72 [DOI: 10.1007/BF02766295]. [12] Rice, R.E., Chapin, J., Pressman, R., Park, S. & Funkhouser, E. (1996) What’s in a name? Bibliometric analysis of 40 years of the journal of broadcasting (& electronic media). Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40, 511–539 [DOI: 10.1080/ 08838159609364373]. [13] Harper, J.A. (1991) A bibliometric profile of the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d’Agroeconomie, 39, 503–513 [DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.1991.tb03590.x]. [14] Seglen, P.O. (1992) The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 628–638 [DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0]. [15] Plomp, R. (1990) The signifcance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolifcacy. Scientometrics, 19, 185–197 [DOI: 10.1007/BF02095346]. [16] Aksnes, D.W. (2003) Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12, 159–170 [DOI: 10.3152/ 147154403781776645]. [17] Vinkler, P. (2007) Eminence of scientists in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 33, 481–491 [DOI: 10.1177/0165551506072165]. [18] Vinkler, P. (2013) Quantity and impact through a single indicator. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 1084–1085 [DOI: 10.1002/asi.22833]. [19] Davey, M.G., Davey, M.S., Lowery, A.J. & Kerin, M.J. (2019) What proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the annals of surgery provide definitive conclusions—A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Publications, 10, 2022 [DOI: 10.3390/publications10020019]. [20] Juhl, C.B. & Lund, H. (2018) Do we really need another systematic review? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52, 1408–1409 [DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099832] [PubMed: 30154206]. [21] Lund, H., Juhl, C. & Christensen, R. (2016) Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet, 387, 123–124 [DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(15)01354-9] [PubMed: 26841992]. [22] Kim, H.Y. (2017) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, 42, 152–155 [DOI: 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152] [PubMed: 28503482]. [23] Haidich, A.B. (2010) Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia, 14 (Supplement 1), 29–37 [PubMed: 21487488].
Published
2025-01-30
How to Cite
BABU, Dr. M. Suresh; KRISHNA, P Gopala. Research Publications in the IEEE Transactions on Education: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Information Studies, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 3, p. 79-90, jan. 2025. ISSN 2278-6511. Available at: <https://dline.info/ojs/index.php/ijis/article/view/431>. Date accessed: 23 apr. 2026.
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol 14 No 3 (2022): Volume 14 Number 3 July 2022
Section
Articles