International Journal of Library Science and Research (IJLSR) ISSN (P): 2250–2351; ISSN (E): 2231–0079 Vol. 10 Issue 1, Jun 2020, 29-40 ©TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.
RESEARCH PERFORMANCE OF UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
A. PERUMAL Assistant Professor, Dept. of Library and Information Science, University of Madras, Chennai, India ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to explore the research performance of the University of Madras for the period of twenty years through the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) citation databases. The parameters adapted by these two major citation analytics provides scope for a comparative examining of the total output in terms of publications, emerging research topics, prolific authors, collaboration pattern, growth rate of publication and testing the impact of citations on h-index for the bibliographic data retrieved and integrated. The amassed data have been systematically analysed with the help of Bibexcel; sizable bibliometric software, SPSS and Excel tools so that some sort of relationships and differences have been understood. One of the oldest universities in India; University of Madras occupies significant position and rank in publications and citations as seen in these two Bibliographic databases (secondary data) which has been attracted by modern researchers to identity and accumulate their primary literature for earlier period of their studies through the
Origin standard citation formats and links to full texts available here. The take away of this study could be real research performance measurement of the faculty members of the university over a period so that future
researchers/stakeholders of this institution and others interested people and organizations in the same field will be a
l benefited a lot. Furthermore, this kind of performance assessments provides knowledge to policy makers to take Ar
t
decision upon funding, research collaboration, appointments and allocation of resources accordingly. icle
KEYWORDS: Research performance, Bibliometric analysis, Collaborations, Ranking of authors, University of Madras
Received: May 11, 2020; Accepted: Jun 01, 2020; Published: Jun 24, 2020; Paper Id.: IJLSRJUN20204
1. INTRODUCTION
Universities are the symbolic representation for the higher education achievement of a country so as to establishment of knowledge society and intellectual assets through structured and profiled teaching and research process as its fundamental responsibilities well defined. The Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to measure the overall performance of universities and colleges could vary according to the nation’s socio-economic factors but it can be broadly categorized as: Participation of under-represented groups, Student progression, Learning outcomes (including non-completion), Efficiency of learning and teaching and Research output [1]. Among all this specific indicators the importance on research and its publications is highly valuable because of sharing of knowledge universally is need of the hour. Another vital factor is evaluation of the research activity of a university helps the administrators and authorities to understand the institution’s position in publication that can be witnessed through many bibliographical databases like Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CitSeerX, Crossref, PubMed, Embase, SciFinder and so on. Furthermore, more specifically, ranking the research performance of the faculty members of institutions relies largely on two inter-related indicators viz., quantum of the scholarly publications (quantitative) and citation evaluations (qualitative). Bibliometrics is a study of statistical analysis for
www.tjprc.org [email protected] 30 A. Perumal
the library products and services that could be measured and assessed for its worthiness and values and it will investigate the publication productivity, pattern, and evaluative author and journal indices viz. g-index, h-index, i-10 index and Impact Factor(IF) and SCImago journal ranking, Eigenfactor and Article Influence Score[2] respectively. Of many models to measure the research performance of an institution or combination of institution, one such is measured by both dependent variable (Research quantum) and independent variables which play impact upon the dependent variables like staff PhD percentage, Staff-student ratio, good teaching etc.[3] This study applies bibliometric methods and techniques to dissect the scholarly communications of University of Madras indexed in Scopus and Web of Science citation databases.
1.2 Background of the Study
University of Madras established based on the model of London University, was incorporated on September 5, 1857 by an Act of the Legislative Council of India. It is one of the three Premier Universities and the other two giants are University of Calcutta and University of Bombay. All the three are celebrated their 150th (Sesquicentennial) year of establishment on 2006-07 (Madras). The test university-University of Madras embeds six campuses at various places in Chennai Metropolitan area. They are called i) Chepauk (Main) Campus, ii) Guindy Campus (Pure Sciences), iii) Marina Campus (Language), iv) Taramani Campus (Basic Medical), v) Chetpet Campus (Sports) and vi) Maduravoyal Campus (Botany field laboratory). There are 73 Teaching and Research Departments in the University of Madras which are grouped under 18 schools.
1.3 Need for the Study
The cause and effect of information explosion is colossal and muddle respectively. In order to overcome this problem, library and information centres (LIC) traditionally adapted information organization practices systematically; such system includes classifications, indexing and abstracting methods, subject bibliographies and directories and of course citation databases. Investigation of standard citation databases for the indexing of publication of an institution or individual author implies ranking them purposefully. This study provides room for analyse and assimilate the research performance of the particular institution-University of Madras over a period visible in two popular citation databases so that volumetric and valuable output and outcome is put forth on public domain with easy to understand scales.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Over the last five decades several studies have been undertaken on research performances of the faculties of Universities, Institutions and individual authors as Biobibliometric studies and quantifying a specific subject literature from various sources of publications. Some of the specific related literature is listed below as such:
Levine-Clark & Gil (2009)[4] presented the result of a comparative analysis of three citation databases-Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar and its hits over a randomly selected business and economics journals and they were made an extensive study of average number of hits/cites for all journals of selected disciplines, top twenty five journals and unranked articles. They concluded that the Web of Science have long been the only citation database because of ISI, IF and Scopus covers large quantity of journal article so that mammoth citations but Google Scholar is best alternate for these two commercial databases. Baskaran (2003) [5] have systematically studied the research output of Alagappa University for the period from 1999-2011 based on Web of Science citation database and he investigated the degree of collaboration, relative growth rate, subject wise contribution etc. Balasubrarmani and Parameshwaran (2014)[6] mapped the research
Impact Factor (JCC : 5.4762 NAAS Rating: 2.87 Research Performance of University of Madras: A Bibliometric Analysis 31 productivity of Banaras Hindu University and they categorized the strong and weak areas of university research by going through prolific authors, emerging subjects, source journals etc. Al-Ghamdi et al (2011)[7] analysed the research output of King Saud University elaborately by using bibliometric and non-bibliometric indicators which can be categorize the authors and their research performances in a systematic way. Zhu et al (2014) [8]measured research performances of the Chinese Universities using bibliometric indicators and the source was Scopus databases for the year 2007-2010.They did comparative analyses of the research performances of the Chinese Universities with the United States and Europe Universities and they have used the citation analysis to study the performance of the researchers. Annibaldi et al (2010)[9] analysed the research performances of the analytical chemistry academic publication of the national university of the Italy based on the citation indices of Impact factor, h-index etc. This study gives clear sight on the research performance of the specific departments and its publication productivity and their area of research. Thirumagal (2012)[10] studied the scientific publication of the Manonmanium Sundaranar University, Thirunelveli, the source collected from the Web of Science for a period of 1992-2011, she listed out the research productivity based on geographic distribution, total global citation score by using bibliometric tools like BibExcel, HitCite. Maharana (2014)[11] explained elaborately about the Research growth and development of the Sambalpur University during 2008-2012, through a bibliometric way and this study emphases various measurements like major research areas, most prolific authors, most prolific institutions, length of the paper during the 2007-2011, Lotka’s law of scientific productivity, AAPP (Average Author Per Paper) and authorship pattern etc.
3. OBJECTIVES
The prime objective of this study is to analyse the research performance of University of Madras. The objective includes:
To quantify the research output of the faculty of University of Madras
To identify the frontier areas of research of the faculty of the University of Madras witnessed in two major citation databases
To study impact of the research publications of the faculty of the University of Madras
To study the collaborative pattern of the University of Madras
To compare the indexing of periodicals in both the databases
To examine the impact of citation as control variable on h-index and publications
4. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of research is to contribute new knowledge to the existing field of study and to solve the problem through exploratory, descriptive and explanatory types of research[12]. The focus of this study is to analyse the research publications and its indexing nuances of the two citation databases in our contemporary world. The bibliographic data had been extracted for the period of twenty years (1996-2015) and they were analysed with the help of Bibexcel and SPSS software to visualize and witness as it is retrieved where it is so that simple classifications and categorization of the university scholarly communication is achieved.
www.tjprc.org [email protected] 32 A. Perumal
Scope and Coverage
This study aimed at to study the research performance of the scientific publications as embedded in the test databases. So that future studies would be taken on other citation databases listed above and more because there is a huge scope for bibliometric analysis of ranking and listing authors and institutions enabled.
Period: 1996-2015 (two decades) Sources: The Web of Science and Scopus bibliographic databases Language: English only Form: All forms 5. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 5.1 Growth Rate and Percentage of Research Productivity
Research productivity in terms of year-wise distribution will enable the researcher to understand and interpret the growth rate and its trend so that the efficiency of research publication of the particular institution can be studied. Here we are seen the publication productivity for the University of Madras based on the comparative scales accordingly.
Table 1: Year Wise Publications Scopus Web of Science Percentage S.No Year Percentage (%) (Records) (Records) (%) 1 1996 227 3.210 202 3.059 2 1997 216 3.055 209 3.165 3 1998 227 3.210 226 3.423 4 1999 264 3.000 256 3.877 5 2000 188 2.659 189 2.862 6 2001 198 2.800 206 3.12 7 2002 201 2.843 223 3.377 8 2003 321 4.540 309 4.68 9 2004 284 4.016 280 4.24 10 2005 353 4.992 360 5.452 11 2006 455 6.435 447 6.77 12 2007 414 5.855 424 6.421 13 2008 401 5.671 397 6.012 14 2009 439 6.208 425 6.436 15 2010 354 5.006 353 5.346 16 2011 477 6.746 401 6.073 17 2012 513 7.255 359 5.437 18 2013 513 7.255 370 5.604 19 2014 534 7.552 460 6.967 20 2015 492 6.958 507 7.678 Total 7071 99.266 6603 99.999
Figure 1 Descriptive Analysis by SPSS tool Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Scopus 20 188 534 353.55 121.625 Web of Science 20 189 507 330.15 100.038 Valid N (listwise) 20
Impact Factor (JCC : 5.4762 NAAS Rating: 2.87 Research Performance of University of Madras: A Bibliometric Analysis 33
Table 1 shows that the total published papers per year to the University of Madras for the period of two decades along with its percentages, The Scopus shows 534 as a maximum publication in the year 2014 whereas Web of Science have 507 documents in the year 2015. The documents quantity is varied from one another because of the number of journals indexed by both databases in the same field. It is very evident that the Scopus listed more number of journals compare to Web of Science so as to more volumes of publications listed. Figure 1 is arrived by SPSS tool which signifies the minimum and maximum number of publications, mean and standard deviation for the records seen in the databases taken for the test.
5.2 Documents and its Types
It is very significant that the majority of publications witnessed in both the databases are journal article as universal scientific publications are in journal article nature. Later, the scientific publishers used to prefer their research output either in conference proceedings or book chapters. This particular classification also exposes the kinds of documents visible in their proprietary databases which rank upon its number.
Table 2: Document Types Scopus WoS Sl.No Document Type Percentage (%) Percentage (%) (Doc.) (Doc.) 1 Article 6539 92.476 6179 93.579 2 Meeting Abstract -- 0.000 190 2.877 3 Proceedings Paper 265 3.748 133 2.014 4 Review 93 1.315 80 1.212 5 Letter 61 0.863 78 1.181 6 Correction -- 0.000 28 0.424 7 Editorial Material 6 0.085 24 0.363 8 Book Review -- 0.000 10 0.151 9 Biographical Item -- 0.000 9 0.136 10 News Item -- 0.000 3 0.045 11 Retracted Publication -- 0.000 1 0.015 12 Reprint -- 0.000 1 0.015 13 Correction Addition -- 0.000 1 0.015 14 Book Chapter 28 0.396 1 0.015 15 Book 3 0.042 0 0 16 Note 26 0.368 0 0 17 Erratum 22 0.311 0 0 18 Article In Press 20 0.283 0 0 19 Short Survey 8 0.113 0 0 Total 7071 100 6738 102.042
Above table reveals the documents and its types in which the research publication were prospected by the researchers of the institution. Out of 7071 documents from Scopus database 6539 are journal articles whereas WoS occupies 6179 articles out of 6738 total publications. The second place is different for Scopus which is Proceeding Paper (295) and for WoS it is Meeting Abstracts (190).
5.3 Collaboration Pattern and its importance
Collaboration is an important activity in research primarily to enhance more visibility for the paper which is submitted to the public domain because of the authors’ wisdom and institutional reputation. Secondly funding facilities shall be
www.tjprc.org [email protected] 34 A. Perumal
maximized thorough multiple authors across the nation and countries. Finally the integration of the specific knowledge into single information system is to be accomplished.
Table 3.Countries/Territories Wise Distribution (Collaboration) of Records Scopus Rank Web of Science S.no Year Rank Order (Records) Order (Records) 1 India 7025 1 6592 1 2 USA 386 2 371 2 3 Malaysia 215 3 215 3 4 Japan 167 4 164 4 5 South Korea 133 5 155 5 6 Germany 68 6 77 6 7 France 55 7 63 7 8 Canada 51 9 52 8 9 Taiwan 52 8 48 9 10 Mexico 40 11 43 10 11 United Kingdom 45 10 41 11
We can easily understand that the research collaborations with USA is remarkable because it was 386 and 371 paper in Scopus and Web of Science respectively. Malaysia stands second contributing 215 publications in each database. Mexico shows least shares with 40 and 43 records in table.
5.4 Prolific Subjects and Authors Identification
Prolific means active and aggressive person and product on some processes or services. Authors who are energetic in research publications apart from their teaching and learning responsibilities can be ranked according to their quantum of publications and citations attained as on date. The subject proliferations are depending upon the field in which the researcher engaged and sometimes the emerging situations like COVID-19, Demonetisation and so on.
Table 4: Research Areas
Research Area Web of Science Research Area Scopus Sl.No (Subject) (Records) (Subject) (Records) 1 Chemistry 1430 Chemistry 2820 Biochemistry, Genetics 2 Crystallography 979 2716 And Molecular Biology Pharmacology 3 590 Material Science 1564 Pharmacy Biochemistry 4 583 Physics And Astronomy 1511 Molecular Biology 5 Materials Science 477 Chemical Engineering 750 6 Physics 461 Medicine 729 Pharmacology, 7 Toxicology 331 Toxicology And 678 Pharmaceutics 8 Engineering 273 Engineering 554 Science Technology 9 239 Multidisciplinary 226 Other Topics Immunology and 10 Cell Biology 209 159 microbiology
Impact Factor (JCC : 5.4762 NAAS Rating: 2.87 Research Performance of University of Madras: A Bibliometric Analysis 35
Table 4 shows the major research area of the university of madras; chemistry witnessed active research topic why because the significant specialization like organic, inorganic, physical, polymer, material and analytical chemistry departments are assets of the institution so as to large volume and quality Publications and awards achieved by this school. Here, it is 1430 publication from WoS and 2820 from Scopus for chemistry following that crystallography –physics topic, which occupies with 979 and 2716 for WoS and Scopus respectively this is due to centre for advanced studies status for the department of Crystallography and biophysics department in the university.
Table 5: Preferred Source Titles For Publications WoS Scopus Sl.No Source Titles Source Titles (Records) (Records) Acta Crystallographica Section E Acta Crystallographica Section E 1 580 784 Structure Reports Online Structure Reports Online Acta Crystallographica Section C Acta Crystallographica Section C 2 126 Crystal Structure 149 Crystal Structure Communications Communications 3 Tetrahedron Letters 105 Tetrahedron Letters 105 Molecular And Cellular 4 Indian Journal Of Animal Sciences 102 88 Biochemistry Molecular And Cellular 5 93 Synthetic Communications 69 Biochemistry 6 Current Science 78 Chemico Biological Interactions 62 7 Synthetic Communications 69 Current Science 62 Biomedicine And Preventive 8 Rsc Advances 67 60 Nutrition Indian Journal Of Experimental 9 Indian Veterinary Journal 66 60 Biology 10 Chemico Biological Interactions 65 Biomedicine 57
This table is evident for the active journals occupy maximum papers in it so that considered to be the preferred journal for publications by the authors concerned. WoS shows 580 papers from Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online and Scopus includes 780 documents from Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online
Table 6: Prolific Authors in Publications Count
Sl.No Authors (WoS) No. of Papers Authors (Scopus) No. Of Papers 1 Velmurugan D 402 Velmurugan D 481 2 Raghunathan R 305 Raghunathan R 358 3 Ponnuswamy Mn 213 Ponnuswamy Mn 232 4 Fun Hk 178 Mohanakrishnan Ak 203 5 Mohanakrishnan Ak 174 Narayanan V 172 6 Ravikumar K 153 Ravikumar K 158 7 Rajakumar P 129 Rajakumar P 135 8 Narayanan V 124 Varalakshmi P 122 9 Varalakshmi P 122 Bakthdoss M 117 10 Kandaswamy M 104 Kandaswamy M 110 11 Ramamurthy P 91 Fun Hk 101
www.tjprc.org [email protected] 36 A. Perumal
Authors proliferation in terms of number of publication is the basic phenomenon in ranking the researcher accordingly, it does not mean that they are the best researcher; excluding valued quality factors one can say most prolific authors in volumetric scales. Author Velmurugan is the topper in both the databases with 402 and 481 records at WoS and Scopus respectively.
Table 7 h-index Comparison
The h-index is an indicator to measure authors publication productivity through citation window, it implies the number of quoting made by prospective writer to cite retrospectively so that the number of citations to author cited and references to citing author. This can be calculated by arranging citations over a period he/she is active descending order so that at one point rank(r) is equal to citation (Tc) or otherwise rank is greater than citations received for the paper.
Table 7
This table arrived through Bibexcel software analysis which shows the authors with high h-index along with its citations. Prof. Varalakshmi ranked first in Scopus with 31 score and Prof. Panneerselvam stands first in h-index at WoS with 27 scores. Other nineteen toppers listed as seen above with their respective scores and publication and again citations. This ranking is for the period stipulated and it is not static but dynamic experienced by the researcher for the last ten years in library system of the University of Madras.
Impact Factor (JCC : 5.4762 NAAS Rating: 2.87 Research Performance of University of Madras: A Bibliometric Analysis 37
8. Partial Correlation Analysis
Figure 2: Scopus Correlation (Partial) Partial Correlations Analysis for Scopus Control Variables h-index Articles Correlation 1.000 .488 Significance h-index . .034 (2-tailed) df 0 17 citations Correlation .488 1.000 Significance .034 . articles (2-tailed)
df 17 0
Figure 3: WoS correlation (Partial) Partial Correlation analysis for WoS Control Variables h-index Articles Correlation 1.000 .256 Significance h-index . .290 (2-tailed) df 0 17 citations Correlation .256 1.000 Significance .290 . articles (2-tailed)
df 17 0
Correlation analysis is to understand the relationship between two variables of test intended (Dependent and Independent) and to know the impact of independent upon the dependant variables. Here the h-index, the dependent variable influenced by the number publication as expected in general. But another important independent variable plays major role is citation, in determining the h-index score of an author or institution irrespective of number of publications but volume of citations. Above two figures exhibits the control variable citation has much dominance upon h-scores but less impact on total articles. It is .488 in Scopus because of high proportion of articles indexed, whereas .256 at WoS as a result of benchmarking of journal inclusions. So, we can conclude that the citation has greater impact upon the h-index score compare to number of publication. This can be learnt through researchers Varalakshmi and Panneerselvam outcome, even though they published minimum papers comparatively (122 and 55 for Scopus and WoS respectively) but attained high h-index marks (31 &27) why because notable citations (1587 &1326).
6. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
After having analysed the data meticulously, following findings and realizations were made accordingly, they are as follows:
www.tjprc.org [email protected] 38 A. Perumal
Almost 7000 papers were identified form the two bibliographic databases and most of them are journal articles and they are from the foreign journals.
The collaborations with the other institute and industrial researchers have been highlighting, majority from the USA, following that Malaysia, Japan and South Korea due to institutional reputation and alumni strength of University of Madras.
The prolific subject areas are Chemistry, Crystallography & Biophysics and Pharmacology & Pharmacy in Web of Science, Whereas Chemistry, Biology and Material Science for Scopus.
Top three source titles are coincided in both of the databases which are Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online, Act Crystallographica Section C Crystal Structure Communication and Tetrahedron Letters.
Again there are similarities in the top three active authors in quantum of publication, they are: Dr. Velmurugan, Dr. Raghunathan and Dr. Ponnuswamy, and all the three are retired professors from the University and the onus is on the young faculties to intensify their publications in the coming year.
Prof. Varalakshmi from Medical Biochemistry department stands first in h-index ranking in Scopus (31) and Second position in WoS (26) databases.
Citations play influential role in determining the h-index score but not more and more publications only, we would say at least 31 citations for at least 31 articles each so that h-index is 31 not necessarily to publish 100 papers without citation or less citation almost all.
CONCLUSIONS
The changing role of faculties in universities are from simple teaching alone to publication and social responsibility through sharing his/her knowledge through proper media and format for the development of the society as much as possible. This sharing can be identified and discovered through various print and digital formats, one such is citation databases. This comparative study concluded that the publications and its metadata is systematically captured and preserved in a huge data storage system for quick search and retrieval via link resolvers. The traditional ISI now Clarivate Analytics, it provides bibliographic data with stringent journal indexing parameters but at the same time Scopus covers large volumes in their respective subject categories of research. Both the databases enable researchers for citation study as well as relevant content discovery by search techniques and strategies. University of Madras-the pioneer in scientific research in South India proves active in research and publication as same can be witnessed through above said two citation databases. Mainly this study is to compare and measure the two databases enlists the research papers via quantitative and qualitative parameters. The output analysis of an institution is not comprehensive by only studying the documents indexed by the Web of Science and Scopus online databases but we have a huge grey literature which is not included in these citation databases but many bibliometric indicators and adaptation of quality check is appreciable part in the bibliographic databases management system and its services. Finally, the core research we found from above data analysis is chemistry and physics following those biological sciences.
Impact Factor (JCC : 5.4762 NAAS Rating: 2.87 Research Performance of University of Madras: A Bibliometric Analysis 39
REFERENCES
1. E. Pollard et al., “How should we measure higher education? A fundamental review of the Performance Indicators Part Two: The evidence report Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, Department for Edu,” no. November, 2013.
2. R. Rousseau and T. STIMULATE Group 8, “On the relation between the WoS impact factor, the Eigenfactor, the SCImago journal rank, the article influence score and the journal h-index,” pp. 1–13, 2009, [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/13304.
3. P. Ramsden, “Predicting institutional research performance from published indicators: A test of a classification of Australian university types,” High. Educ., vol. 37, pp. 341–358, 1999, doi: 10.1023/a:1003692220956.
4. M. Levine-Clark and E. L. Gil, “A comparative citation analysis of web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar,” J. Bus. Financ. Librariansh., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 32–46, 2009, doi: 10.1080/08963560802176348.
5. C. Baskaran, “Research productivity of Alagappa University during 1999-2011: A bibliometric study,” DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 236–242, 2013.
6. R. Balasubramani and R. Parameswaran, “Mapping the research productivity of Banaras Hindu University: A scientometric study,” J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 367–371, 2014.
7. A. S. Al-Ghamdi, M. A. M. Wadaan, and A. M. El-Garhy, “Quantitative Approach for Research Chairs Evaluation in King Saud University,” vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 228–234, 2011.
8. J. Zhu, S. U. Hassan, H. T. Mirza, and Q. Xie, “Measuring recent research performance for Chinese universities using bibliometric methods,” Scientometrics, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 429–443, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1389-1.
9. A. Annibaldi, C. Truzzi, S. Illuminati, and G. Scarponi, “Scientometric analysis of national university research performance in analytical chemistry on the basis of academic publications: Italy as case study,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem., vol. 398, no. 1, pp. 17– 26, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s00216-010-3804-7.
10. A. Thirumagal, “Scientific Publications of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu: Scientometric Analysis,” Thirumagal. Libr. Philos. Pract., 2012, [Online]. Available: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/.
11. R. K. Maharana, “A bibliometric analysis of the research output of Sambalpur University ’ s publication in ISI Web of Science during 2007-11,” 2013.
12. A. Li and D. Stacks, “A Study of Buying Decision Process in Malls,” Meas. Impact Soc. Media Bus. Profit Success, pp. 49–64, 2016, doi: 10.3726/978-1-4539-1590-5/12.
www.tjprc.org [email protected]