Microbiology Research in India: A Scientometric Analysis of research output during 2010-2020

R. Shyamala; M. Sivamani; M. Mekala

R. Shyamala Sri Ramakrishna College of Arts and Science for Women Coimbatore, TN. India
M. Sivamani Vellalar College for Women (Autonomous), Erode-12. TN. India
M. Mekala Associate Professor Sri Ramakrishna College of Arts and Science for Women Coimbatore, TN. India

Abstract

The investigation examines the academic output from India between 2010 and 2020, emphasizing the increase in research activity, prolific institutions, sub-disciplines, and the leading journals in microbiology. Data for this analysis were collected from Scopus-Expanded using the search terms “Microbiology in India,” “Molecular Biology in India,” and “Immunology and Microbiology in India” for the specified years of 20102020. A total of 14,616 records were gathered for this research. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Chandigarh ranked first with the highest publication count (339). Medicine emerged as the leading subdiscipline, followed by Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Immunology, and Microbiology. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India, was responsible for funding the most publications in this area, taking the top spot among funding bodies. The Journal of PLOS ONE was identified as the most favored journal for researchers in this domain, with Scientific Reports following closely.

References

[1] Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting,quantifying, and visualising the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.

[2] Batagelj, V., Cerinšek, M. (2013). On bibliographic networks. Scientometrics, 96(3), 845–864.

[3] Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.

[4] Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.

[5] Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused on its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273–289.

[6] Garfield, E. (1977). Introducing citation classics: The human side of scientific reports. Essays of an Information Scientist, 3, 1–2.

[7] Martínez, M. A., Herrera, M., López-Gijón, J., Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). H-Classics: Characterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index. Scientometrics, 98, 1971–1983.

[8] Börner, K., Chen, C., Boyack, K. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 37, pp. 179–255). Information Today.

[9] Nai, C. (2017). Southern promises: A snapshot of the microbiology research landscape in South America based on bibliometric data. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 364(16).

[10] Rodrigues, M. L., Nimrichter, L., Cordero, R. J. B. (2016). The benefits of scientific mobility and international collaboration. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 363(21).

[11] Redfern, J., Verran, J. (2015). What is a microbiologist? A survey exploring the microbiology workforce. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 362(24).

[12] Ajiferuke, I., Burrell, Q., Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421–433.

[13] Price, D. de S., Beaver, D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1 0 1 1 .