informetrics, scientometrics, cybermetrics, bibliometrics, webometrics

• bibliometrics, informetrics, scientometrics, and cybermetrics
• bibliometrics
  • The empirical foundations: the Science Citation Index
  • The philosophical foundations
  • The mathematical foundations
  • Data collection and model development techniques
  • Citation analysis
  • Bibliographic Coupling, Co-citation, Co-word Analysis
  • Issues in Bibliometrics – Scholarly Communication and Research Evaluation
• Scientometrics and Scientific Productivity
• Webometrics and Link Analysis

• Bibliographic Coupling
  • Glanzel, W. & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A New Methodological Approach to Bibliographic Coupling and Its Application to the National, Regional and Institutional Level. Scientometrics 37 (2): 195-221.
  • Jarneving, B. (2007). Bibliographic Coupling and Its Application to Research-Front and Other Core Documents. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (4): 287-307.
• Eigenfactor and Journal Ranking
  • West, J.D., Bergstrom, T.C. and Bergstrom, C.T. (2010). Big Macs and Eigenfactor Scores: Don't Let Correlation Coefficients Fool You. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, online ahead of print
  • West, J.D., Bergstrom, T.C. and Bergstrom, C.T. (2010). The EigenfactorTM Metrics: A network approach to assessing scholarly journals, College and Research Libraries. 71(3): 236-244.
  • Elkins, M.R., Maher, C.G., Herbert R.D., Moseley, A.M. and Sherrington, C. (2010). Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics 85 (1): 81-93.

• Derek J. De Solla Price

• Information Production Process (IPP)

• How to Represent the Distribution of Sources and Items
  • Size-Frequency Distribution
  • Rank-frequency representation
• Transformation for Plotting

• Lotka’s Law of Author Productivity
  • Price's Law
• Bradford’s Law of Scatter: Journal Productivity
• Zipf’s Law of Word Frequencies
  • Pareto’s Law
  • 80/20 rule

• Amudhavalli, A. (1997). Informetrics. In: International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science.
• Borgman, C. L. ed. (1990). Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. Sage.
• De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Scarecrow.
• Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer.
• Price, D.J de Solla. (1980). The citation cycle. In: Key Papers in Information Science. Knowledge Industry Publications, 1980.
• Thelwall, M. (2004). Link Analysis: An Information Science Approach. Academic Press
• Wolfram, D. (2003). Applied Informetrics for Information Retrieval Research. Libraries Unlimited.
• 何光國（1994）。文獻計量學導論。台北，三民。
• 邱均平主編（2007）。信息計量學。武漢大學。
• 蔡明月（2003）。資訊計量學與文獻特性。台北：華泰。
• Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau (1990). Introduction to Informetrics
• Mike Rhelwall (2004). Link Analysis

• Annual Conference of the American Society for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T)
• Biennial Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics & Informetrics (ISSI)

• International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics
• Conference on Science & Technology Indicators
• International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics, and Scientometrics

• Scientometrics
• Journal of Informetrics
• Cybermetrics
• Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
• Journal of Documentation
• Journal of Information Science
• Information Visualization
• Webology
• Social Studies of Science
• Science Studies
• American Sociological Review
• Research Evaluation
• Research Policy
• Information Processing & Management
• Library Trends
• Library Quarterly
• Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

• Almind, T.C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to 'webometrics'. Journal of Documentation 53(4), 404-426.
• Amin, M., & Mabe, M. A. (2003). Impact factors: use and abuse. MEDICINA, 63, 347-354.
• Björneborn, L., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Toward a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(14), 1216-1227.
• Breitzman, A., & Thomas, P. (2002). Using patent citation analysis to target/value M&A candidates. Research Technology Management, 45(5), 28-36.
• Brooks, T.A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37, 34-36.
• Egghe, L. (1991). Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures. Information Processing & Management, 27(2-3):177-202.
• Eom, S. B. (1996). Mapping the intellectual structure of research in decision support systems through author cocitation analysis (1971-1993). Decision Support Systems, 16(4), 315-338.
• Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178, 471-479.
• Ingwersen, P. (1998). The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236-243.
• Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 5-25.
• Line, M.B. (1987). Relationship between productivity and obsolescence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38, 307-308.
• Narin, F. (1994). Patent bibliomatrics. Scientomertics, 30(1), 147-155.
• Narin, F. (1995). Patent as indicators for the evaluation of industrial research output. Scientomertics, 34(3), 489-496.
• Narin, F., & Hamilton, K. S. (1996). Bibliometric performance measure. Scientometrics, 36(3), 293-310.
• Sandstrom, A., Pettersson, I., & Nilsson, A. (2000). Knowledge production and knowledge flows in the Swedish biotechnology innovation system, Scientometrics. 48(2), 179-201.
• Tagliacozzo, R. (1977). Self-citations in scientific literature. Journal of Documentation, 33, 251-265.
• Thelwall, M., Vaughan, L., & Björneborn, L. (2005). Webometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 39, 81-135.
• van Leeuwen, T. N. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66(1), 133-154.
• van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment, Scientometrics, 67(3), 491-502.
• Watt, R. J., & Porter, A. L. (1997). Innovation forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 56, 25-47.
• White, H. D., & Griffith. B. C. (1981). Author Co-citation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32, 163-171.
• White, H. D., McCain, K. W. (1989). Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24, 119-186.
• White, H. D., McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-356.
• Zhao, D. (2005). Challenges of scholarly publications on the web to the evaluation of science: a comparison of author visibility on the web and in print journals. Information Processing & Management, 41, 1403-1418.
• 王崇德（1996）。關於文獻計量學的爭議。資訊傳播與圖書館學，2(4)，15-21。
• 黃慕萱、陳達仁、張瀚文（2003）。從專利計量的觀點評估國家科技競爭力。中國圖書館學會會報，70，18-30。
• 蔡明月（1997），學術傳播與書目計量學。教育資料與圖書館學，35(1)，民國86年，頁38-57。
• 蔡明月（1998）。書目計量學、科學計量學與資訊計量學。教育資料與圖書館學，34(3)， 268-284。

• Calver, M., Wardell-Johnson, G., Bradley, S., & Taplin, R. (2010). What makes a journal international? A case study using conservation biology journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 387-400.
• Breimer, L., & Nilsson, T. (2010). A longitudinal and cross-sectional study of Swedish biomedical PhD processes 1991–2009 with emphasis on international and gender aspects. Scientometrics, 85(2), 401-414.
• Assimakis, N., & Adam, M. (2010). A new author’s productivity index: p-index. Scientometrics, 85(2), 415-427.
• Južni , P., Pe lin, S., Žaucer, M., Mandelj, T., Pušnik, M., & Demšar, F. (2010). Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests. Scientometrics, 85(2), 429-441.
• Lancho-Barrantes, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). The iceberg hypothesis revisited. Scientometrics, 85(2), 443-461.
• Cho, C., Hu, M., & Liu, M. (2010). Improvements in productivity based on co-authorship: a case study of published articles in China. Scientometrics, 85(2), 463-470.
• Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2010). Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 471-487.
• De Marchi, M., & Rocchi, M. (2010). Note on R&D expenditures and fixed capital formation. Scientometrics, 85(2), 489-494.
• Miguel, S., Moya-Anegón, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2010). The impact of the socio-economic crisis of 2001 on the scientific system of Argentina from the scientometric perspective. Scientometrics, 85(2), 495-507.
• Bolaños-Pizarro, M., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2010). Cardiovascular research in Spain: A comparative scientometric study. Scientometrics, 85(2), 509-526.
• Meyer, M., Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2), 527-539.
• Jeong, S., & Kim, H. (2010). Intellectual structure of biomedical informatics reflected in scholarly events. Scientometrics, 85(2), 541-551.
• Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics, 85(2), 553-559.
• Prathap, G. (2010). The iCE approach for journal evaluation. Scientometrics, 85(2), 561-565.
• Hagen, N. (2010). Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD? Scientometrics, 85(2), 567-579.
• Shin, J., & Cummings, W. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85(2), 581-594.
• Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Porter, A. (2010). The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 85(2), 595-611.
• Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010). Counting the citations: a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613-625.

• Padial, A., Nabout, J., Siqueira, T., Bini, L., & Diniz-Filho, J. (2010). Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles. Scientometrics, 85(1), 1-12.
• Giuliani, F., De Petris, M., & Nico, G. (2010). Assessing scientific collaboration through coauthorship and content sharing. Scientometrics, 85(1), 13-28.
• Fisher, E., Slade, C., Anderson, D., & Bozeman, B. (2010). The public value of nanotechnology? Scientometrics, 85(1), 29-39.
• Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2010). The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85(1), 41-52.
• Aminpour, F., Kabiri, P., Boroumand, M., Keshtkar, A., & Hejazi, S. (2010). Iranian Medical Universities in SCIE: evaluation of address variation. Scientometrics, 85(1), 53-63.
• Su, H., & Lee, P. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: a first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics, 85(1), 65-79.
• Elkins, M., Maher, C., Herbert, R., Moseley, A., & Sherrington, C. (2010). Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics, 85(1), 81-93.
• Moehrle, M. (2010). Measures for textual patent similarities: a guided way to select appropriate approaches. Scientometrics, 85(1), 95-109.
• Ohniwa, R., Hibino, A., & Takeyasu, K. (2010). Trends in research foci in life science fields over the last 30 years monitored by emerging topics. Scientometrics, 85(1), 111-127.
• Parker, J., Lortie, C., & Allesina, S. (2010). Characterizing a scientific elite: the social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 85(1), 129-143.
• Pouris, A. (2010). A scientometric assessment of the Southern Africa Development Community: science in the tip of Africa. Scientometrics, 85(1), 145-154.
• Schultz, L., & Joutz, F. (2010). Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics, 85(1), 155-170.
• Levitt, J., & Thelwall, M. (2010). Does the higher citation of collaborative research differ from region to region? A case study of Economics. Scientometrics, 85(1), 171-183.
• Prathap, G. (2010). An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries. Scientometrics, 85(1), 185-191.
• Pautasso, M. (2010). Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics, 85(1), 193-202.
• Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., Perotti, A., & Proto, A. (2010). Analysis of the ch-index: an indicator to evaluate the diffusion of scientific research output by citers. Scientometrics, 85(1), 203-217.
• Velden, T., Haque, A., & Lagoze, C. (2010). A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: mesoscopic analysis and interpretation. Scientometrics, 85(1), 219-242.

.