MAPPING OF HORTICULTURE SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION IN … · SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS D.Ravi Research...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJLIS/index.asp 102 [email protected]

International Journal of Library & Information Science (IJLIS)

Volume 7, Issue 1, January-February 2018, pp. 102-116, Article ID: IJLIS_07_01_013

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJLIS/issues.asp?JType=IJLIS&VType=7&IType=1

Journal Impact Factor (2018): 9.2108 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

ISSN Print: 2277-3533 and ISSN Online: 2277-3584

© IAEME Publication

MAPPING OF HORTICULTURE SCHOLARLY

COMMUNICATION IN INDIA: A

SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS

D.Ravi

Research Scholar, Dept of Library and Information Science, Annamalai University,

Annamalainagar, South India, 608002

P.Sivaraman

Research Supervisor, Professor and Coordinator, Dept of Library and Information

Science,DDE, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, South India, 608002

M. Sadik Batcha

Professor and University Librarian, Department of Library and Information Science,

Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, South India, 608002

ABSTRACT

Horticulture is that the space of farming including the art of developing and thinking

about plants. Horticulture is socially indispensable because of it improves anyway we

will in general use plants, for nourishment and other human purposes, just as fixing the

earth and individual style. Plants are additionally vital in natural security. They are

utilized to re-vegetate and reestablish land exasperates by human or characteristic

exercises, they control disintegration, and they help to clean the air and water. Plants

even include an essential job inside the difference in condition of urban and country

scenes and diversion regions. Instances of Horticulture incorporate the accompanying

Key words: Horticulture, farming

Cite this Article: D.Ravi, P.Sivaraman and M. Sadik Batcha, Mapping of Horticulture

Scholarly Communication in India: A Scientometric Analysis, International Journal of

Library & Information Science, 7(1), 2018, pp. 102-116.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJLIS/issues.asp?JType=IJLIS&VType=7&IType=1

1. INTRODUCTION

Horticulture is a science on the bleeding edge of biotechnology, a craftsmanship, calling,

business, industry, side interest, lifestyle, and treatment for many individuals. Everybody comes

associated with cultivating item and callings consistently of our lives. Agriculture bolsters

North American country, improves our condition, and, through science, is helping discover

answers to tomorrow's issues.

D.Ravi, P.Sivaraman and M. Sadik Batcha


Horticulture is that the space of farming including the art of developing and thinking about

plants. Horticulture is socially indispensable because of it improves anyway we will in general

use plants, for nourishment and other human purposes, just as fixing the earth and individual

style. Plants are additionally vital in natural security. They are utilized to re-vegetate and

reestablish land exasperates by human or characteristic exercises, they control disintegration,

and they help to clean the air and water. Plants even include an essential job inside the difference

in condition of urban and country scenes and diversion regions. Instances of Horticulture

incorporate the accompanying:

• landscaping

• gardening

• Growing crops for food, fiber, and fuel

• Horticultural therapy—using horticultural methods to treat patients

• Arboriculture—the care of trees

Significance of Horticulture lies in the way that it produces much salary per hectare of land

when contrasted with other farming yields encourages work, sustenance and nourishing security

and industrialization as well. (Nabi, Tawheed ; Bagalkoti, 2017). (Mcculloch & Ota, 2002)

expressed that the advancement of fare agriculture has regularly been proposed as an expert

poor improvement methodology because of its escalated utilization of land and untalented

work. (Dolan & Humphrey, 2000) on an investigation of agriculture underpins that, ''huge

retailers in Europe assume a conclusive job in organizing the generation and handling of crisp

vegetables traded from Africa on account of Horticulture''. A substantial amount of writing can

be seen on the rose zone of agriculture and its development. (Bhat, 1990)

The present work depends on scientometric investigation of research pattern of Horticulture

on Indian Research yield for the years 2000– 2018. Scientometrics has commonly been

characterized as the quantitative investigation of science and innovation. Scientometrics

incorporates every quantitative part of the exploration of science, correspondence in science

and science arrangement (Wilson 2001). Mapping logical fields is a significant normal task in

bibliometric thinks about, so as to envision organizes expressly or verifiably conveyed by

articles (coordinated effort, reference). Mapping is an investigation of relationship interfaces

between the over a wide span of time look into work utilizing reference examination or it is a

helpful realistic procedure done by full scale and miniaturized scale levels. Mapping is a system

used to break down huge writing and shaped in a specific structure. This specific data

arrangement can be utilized by specialist viably. Diverse components of a bibliographic record

may use to produce a guide structure. Every component uncovers a particular structure, one of

a kind it might be said, however constantly identified with the structures dependent on other

component (Mithal et al. 2005).

The present investigation plans to catch the general productions at full scale dimension of

the field among top 10 nations and the smaller scale level identifies with examination of Indian

commitments regarding the matter. The measurements fluctuate as indicated by the specific

techniques utilized. In this investigation the different proportions of coordinated effort and the

records like relative quality index, h-index, g- index, p- index were utilized to discover the

author cooperation, nature of the writing dependent on the example of origin and reference.

2. TREND IN INDIA

Agriculture assumes a crucial job in the Indian economy. More than 70 percent of the rural

family units rely upon farming as their foremost methods for work. The all out Share of

Agriculture and partnered Sectors as far as level of GDP is 13.9 percent amid 2013-14 and

2004-05 costs. (Assessments discharged by Central Statistics Office). Horticulture is a piece of

Mapping of Horticulture Scholarly Communication in India: A Scientometric Analysis


agribusiness, which is worried about the development of "garden crops" and can be

characterized as the part of horticulture worried about seriously refined plants straightforwardly

utilized by people groups for sustenance, for therapeutic reason or for stylish pleasure (Singh

2012). Horticulture includes cultivation of fruits, nuts, vegetables, medicinal and aromatic

plants, flowers, etc. Significance of Horticulture lies in the way that it creates much income per

hectare of land when contrasted with other farming yields encourages business, nourishment

and wholesome security and industrialization as well. The growth in the production of fruits

and vegetables assumes critical importance nowadays due to the increase in the demand

generated by the rapid increase in population and has been accelerated by the rise in the levels

of income of the people and the consequent changes in the pattern of consumption. Fruits play

a unique role in developing countries like India both in economic and social sphere for

improving income and nutritional status particularly of rural masses. India is the second largest

producer of vegetables and fruits after China and is popularly known as Fruits and Vegetable

Basket of the world (Gandhi & Nambordiri, 2002).

India has begun putting greater driving force on the development of horticultural sector after

sixties in order to utilize the country’s vast potential and to generate the much needed value

addition. In 2010-11 horticultural yields put together covered approximately 11.35% of the total

cropped area with an annual production of about 114 million tons accounting for more than

18% of agricultural output of India (Das, Gogoi and Borah, 2013). The significance of

horticulture in improving the productivity of the land, creating employment, improving

economic conditions of the farmers and entrepreneurs, enhancing exports and above all,

providing dietary security to the desert inhabitants, can hardly be overemphasized (Bhandari et

al., 2014) .

3. RELATED REVIEWS

An extensive literature has developed studying patterns of publication in the field of

Horticulture. These studies have challenged to gain a deeper understanding of topics such as,

how horticulture research is performed, how horticulture

Table 1 Symbol Used and their Descriptions

Symbols Descriptions

ACPP Average citation per paper

CC Collaborative coefficient

CI Collaborative index

CPP Citation per paper

DC Degree of collaboration

Dt Doubling time

ICP International collaborative papers



MCC Modified collaborative coefficient

NC Number of citations

NHQ Number of high quality papers

NP Number of papers

RGR Relative growth rate

RQI Relative quality index

TNC Total number of citations

TNP Total number of papers

relates to more established field of research, how and where horticulture are being

developed, and their potential economic impacts.(Suresh, Hema, & Sankarasubramaniam,

2015) did a scientometric study on Indian Journal of Horticulture during 2010-2014 and found

that the highest number of contributors are belong to India with 688 articles out of 714 total

articles published. (Ranganathan, 2015) studied analysis of authorship trends and collaborative

research in horticulture and found that the author productivity in terms of Lotka’s law are

positively related with author productivity in Horticulture research output is identified as

invalidated. It is evident that the number of single author contributed papers is less than sixty

percent. (Raimbault, Cointet, & Joly, 2016) analysed in their study of mapping the emergence

of synthetic biology to a corpus comprising synthetic biology (SynBio) publications in

Thomson Reuters Web of Science to characterize the emergence of this new scientific field.

They resulted that the central and influential scientists act as “boundary spanners,” meaning

that their importance to the field lies not only in their academic contributions, but also in their

capacity to interact with other social spaces that are outside the academic sphere.

Hirsch (2005) introduced a single index h-index to quantify a scientist’s published research

impact created an unprecedented response from the scientometric community. Improvement of

the h-index, Egghe (2006) proposed the g-index and Prathap (2010) proposed the p-index.

Alonso et al. (2010) presented a new index called hg-index in order to reduce the disadvantages

of using h-index (Hirsch 2005) and g-index (Egghe 2006) without affecting the advantages of

both the measures. h-index is now used as a tool for research assessment of individuals, research

faculties and institutions and even for com- paring performance of journals and countries

(Prathap 2010).

4. OBJECTIVES

The prime objective of the present study is to ascertain the trends of Indian research articles

related to horticulture research. The database wraps all relevant documents with at least one

Indian author which has been in print during the period 2000–2018. The other objectives are to

examine the Indian research output, position, publication share and growth among top 10

countries, to learn the pattern of author collaboration by using various scientific measures, to

study the contribution of Indian authors, contributions by various scientometric measures and

to find the pattern of scholarly research communication in most productive journals. The



outcome of the present study will be used to know the strength and weakness of the horticulture

research in India.

5. METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of the study, the Web of Science an international database (All Database

collection) was looked for all records of papers published by scientists/academicians from the

part of the research and development activity that has resulted in publication in peer-reviewed

journals. Data were downloaded from Web of Science database, (presently Web of Knowledge)

from 2000 to 2018. The wide-ranging search strings were used to draw out records pertinent to

horticulture for this study.

It can be found that nearly 11,412 bibliographic records of Indian contribution in

horticulture over the period of 19 years (i.e.) 2000–2018. The publication progress and author

collaboration on horticulture is measured using scientometric tools such as collaborative index

(CI), collaborative coefficient, modified collaborative coefficient, h-index, g-index, hg-index,

p-index. Further based on citation per paper, number of high quality papers, relative quality

index also applied to find out the quality of the research output. The findings of the study will

reveal the coherent dynamic nature of the subject. Further it will be enable to understand the

institutional and temporal dimensions of spread of horticulture which is crucial factor in

application areas and research directions. Symbols and descriptions used in this study are

mentioned in Table 1.

6. ANALYSIS

Out of 1, 58,738 publications, 26.17% of publication are from USA and ranks to the top first,

China has given its contribution with 10.01% and ranks second top in the position. It is followed

by India with 7.19% of publication output. India is ranked to the third top country in publishing

on Horticulture. The countries Spain (5.95%) and Brazil (5.79%) are placed to fourth and fifth

rank while analyzing the total output (Table 2). Out of the top 10 countries India maintains 3rd

and 4th rank with its contribution in the field of Horticulture during the period from 2000 to

2018. USA and China stamp at the 1st and 2nd places in all the period of study. Less

productivity of Japan, Italy, Canada, France and Germany may be due to the policy of

publishing their research output in their respective native languages largely.

Table 2: India leader in Horticulture publications among the competitor countries

Country No of Publications Rank

2000 2018 Total 2000 2018 2000-2018

USA 2550 7885 41,543 1 1 1

Peoples R China 52 2292 15,895 10 2 2

India 276 784 11,412 3 4 3

Spain 202 605 9,444 5 5 4

Brazil 94 800 9,186 9 3 5

Japan 353 394 8,400 2 9 6

Italy 133 569 7,126 8 6 7

Canada 229 362 6,509 4 10 8

France 156 426 6,246 7 7 9

Germany 161 422 5,862 6 8 10

Other Countries 1155 3309 37,115

Total 5361 17,848 1,58,738



Indian publication output in Horticulture during the period 2000–2018 consists of 11,412

records, with an average publication per year as 601. Of the total publications in horticulture,

11,401 appeared as articles. The cumulative output of India in horticulture increased from 276

papers in the year 2000 to 823 papers in the year 2015 and then a slight decrease accounted to

784 in 2018 (i.e.) during 19 years of period the growth ratio is 1:3 and holds the 3 and 4th

positions on both the starting and the ending period of the study (Fig. 1).

Figure. 1 Publication and Citation growth of Indian research

The growth of Indian research output were analysed by Relative Growth Rate (RGR) and

Doubling time (Dt). RGR is a measure to anlyse the increase in number of articles of time

(Mahapatra 1985) and the Dt is directly related to RGR. It is the time required for articles to

become double of the existing amount. The following Table 3 represents the yearwise

distribution, RGR, Dt, and mean of RGR and Dt of Indian publications in the field of

horticulture during the period 2000–2018.

From the Table 3 it is observed that the mean RGR for the first block is 1.031 and the Dt is

0.708, for the second block it is 1.712 and 0.414 respectively, for the third block it is 2.341 and

0.296 and in the last block it is 2.574 and 0.270 respectively. Dt is the period of time required

for a quantity to double in size or value. Yet it can be seen that the Dt is not doubled during the

second, third and final block. When the RGR is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential

growth and has a constant Dt or period which can be calculated directly from the growth rate.

Table 3 Indian’s research output and relative growth rate and doubling time of Horticulture

Year TNP Cum.

Output Loge1 Loge2 RGR

Mean

RGR Dt

Mean

Dt

2000 276 276 5.6204 5.620 0.000

2001 274 550 5.6131 6.310 0.697 0.995

2002 316 866 5.7557 6.764 1.008 0.687

2003 404 1270 6.0014 7.147 1.145 0.605

2004 494 1764 6.2025 7.475 1.273 1.031 0.544 0.708

2005 592 2356 6.3835 7.765 1.381 0.502

2006 605 2961 6.4052 7.993 1.588 0.436

2007 723 3684 6.5834 8.212 1.628 0.426

2008 747 4431 6.6161 8.396 1.780 0.389

2009 564 4995 6.3351 8.516 2.181 1.712 0.318 0.414

2010 571 5566 6.3474 8.624 2.277 0.304

2011 599 6165 6.3953 8.727 2.331 0.297

2012 653 6818 6.4816 8.827 2.346 0.295

2013 759 7577 6.6320 8.933 2.301 0.301



2014 714 8291 6.5709 9.023 2.452 2.341 0.283 0.296

2015 823 9114 6.7130 9.118 2.405 0.288

2016 778 9892 6.6567 9.199 2.543 0.273

2017 736 10628 6.6012 9.271 2.670 0.260

2018 784 11412 6.6644 9.342 2.678 2.574 0.259 0.270

RGR increased from the rate of 0.697 in 2001 to 2.678 in 2018. The mean relative growth

for the first 5 years (i.e. 2000–2004) showed a growth rate of 1.031 and the mean RGR for the

last 4 years (i.e. 2015–2018) increased to 2.574. The corresponding Dt for different years

gradually decreased from 0.995 in 2001 to 0.259 in 2018. The mean Dt for the first 5 years was

0.708 which was decreased to 0.270 during the last 4 years. Thus as the rate of growth of

publication was increased, the corresponding Dt was decreased (Table 3).

6.1. Calculating collaboration

To demonstrate the trend towards multiple authorships in a discipline, many studies have used

either the mean number of authors per paper, was termed the CI by Lawani (1980) or the

proportion of multiple authored papers is called Degree of Collaboration (DC) by

Subramanyam (1983) as a measure of the strength of collaboration in a discipline. It is assumed

that these two measures are seemed to be inadequate, Ajiferuke et al. (1988), who derived a

single measure that incorporates some of the merits of both of the above. Ideally, it is desired

that a quantification of collaboration should have a value between 0 and 1, with 0 corresponding

to single authored papers, and 1 for the case where all papers are maximally authored, i.e. every

publication in the collection has all authors in the collection as co- authors. All the above

mentioned formulas to find the collaboration coefficient (CC) value have one or other demerit.

To overcome some of the demerits of previously explained measures, and propose a simple

modification of CC, which is represented as the Modified Collaboration Coefficient (MCC),

which improves its performance in this respect. Let the collection K be the research papers

published in a discipline or in a journal during a certain period of interest. In the following, we

write fj is the number of papers having j authors in collection K; N is the total number of papers

in K. N = Rjfj; and A is the total number of authors in collection K.

One of the early measures of DC is CI is given by:

∑kj (1/j)fj

CI = -----------------

N

It is a measure of mean number of authors. Although it is easily computable, it is not easily

interpretable as a degree, for it has no upper limit. Moreover, it gives a non-zero weight to single

authored papers, which involve no collaboration.

DC, a measure of proportion of multiple authored papers is given by:

f1

DC = 1- -----------------

N

DC is easy to calculate and easily interpretable as a degree (for it lies between zero and

one), gives zero weight to single-authored papers, and always ranks higher a discipline for

period) with a higher percentage of multiple authored papers. However, DC does not

differentiate among levels of multiple authorships.

CC was designed to remove the above shortcomings pertaining to CI and DC. It is given

by:



∑kj (1/j)fj

CC =17- -----------------

N

The derivation of the new measure is almost the same as that of CC, as given in Ajiferuke

et al. (1988). The above equation is not defined for the trivial case when A = 1, which is not a

problem since collaboration is meaningless unless at least two authors are available. CC

approaches MCC only when A =1, but is otherwise strictly less than MCC by the factor (1-⅟2

) (Savanur and Srikanth 2010).

A ∑kj (1/j)fj

MCC = ------ 1- ------------------

A-1 N

From the 11,412 articles 278 articles are authored more than 10 authors. Overall the 96%

of the articles are collaborative like the other disciplines. Only 4% of the articles are solo authors

(Table 4).

Based on the CI in the year 2000 it was 3.23, followed by the year 2004 (3.39), 2011 (4.12),

2015 (4.58), 2017 (4.75), 2018 (4.65), and overall (3.99). DC is 0.94 during the year 2000 and

maintains up to 0.98. To calculate the differentiations among levels of multiple authors CC and

MCC were calculated and presented in the Table 5. CC is between 0.59 and 0.63 and the MCC

is between (2000) 0.62 and (2018) 0.68.

6.2. Pattern of citation of research output

Out of the total Indian publications of 11,412 papers, with an average output of 601 papers per

year has 1, 17,836 citations. The average rate of citation was 10.33. Analysis of citation data

indicates that, out of the 11,412 published papers, 2,732 (23.94%) papers did not have any

citation and the remaining 76.06% had one or more citations. 4,182 (36.65%) papers received

citations between one and five. 1,567 (13.73%) papers received citations between six and ten.

2,826 papers received citations between eleven and hundred. More than hundred citations were

received by 105 papers. The citation pattern is shown in Table 5.

Table 4: Authorship Collaboration

Year One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine

Ten

&

Above

TP T_

Author CI DC CC MCC

2000 16 78 94 49 20 8 4 2 1 4 276 891 3.23 0.94 0.62 0.62

2001 27 77 88 42 26 8 2 3 0 1 274 839 3.06 0.90 0.59 0.59

2002 17 82 108 56 28 14 5 2 2 2 316 1042 3.30 0.95 0.63 0.63

2003 24 131 112 73 30 17 5 4 0 8 404 1313 3.25 0.94 0.61 0.62

2004 29 141 125 95 52 26 16 4 3 2 493 1673 3.39 0.94 0.63 0.63

2005 25 151 184 110 66 24 15 7 5 5 592 2049 3.46 0.96 0.64 0.65

2006 31 131 184 119 75 29 18 8 2 8 605 2158 3.57 0.95 0.65 0.65

2007 36 177 193 160 77 45 14 7 4 10 723 2554 3.53 0.95 0.65 0.65

2008 33 177 195 159 82 44 28 13 10 6 747 2732 3.66 0.96 0.66 0.66

2009 23 123 138 123 77 41 16 10 4 9 564 2124 3.77 0.96 0.67 0.67

2010 28 116 134 126 89 42 11 6 9 10 571 2169 3.80 0.95 0.66 0.67

2011 28 105 139 110 97 44 25 26 10 15 599 2467 4.12 0.95 0.68 0.68

2012 26 130 148 121 96 48 31 21 16 16 653 2671 4.09 0.96 0.68 0.68

2013 25 100 162 152 133 79 44 28 10 26 759 3340 4.40 0.97 0.71 0.71

2014 19 105 165 146 97 79 43 23 11 26 714 3111 4.36 0.97 0.71 0.71

2015 15 121 150 179 111 100 64 36 13 34 823 3771 4.58 0.98 0.72 0.72



2016 20 114 156 151 124 89 51 22 26 25 778 3491 4.49 0.97 0.71 0.72

2017 14 102 129 137 108 96 60 36 24 30 736 3493 4.75 0.98 0.73 0.73

2018 20 113 136 148 135 89 59 26 18 41 785 3648 4.65 0.97 0.72 0.72

Total 456 2274 2740 2256 1523 922 511 284 168 278 11412 45536 3.99 0.96 0.68 0.68

% 4.00 19.93 24.01 19.77 13.35 8.08 4.48 2.49 1.47 2.44 100.00

Mean 24.00 119.68 144.21 118.74 80.16 48.53 26.89 14.95 9.88 14.63 600.63

STD 6.23 28.46 31.56 39.87 35.88 30.87 20.60 11.67 7.57 12.07 175.74

C.V 25.95 23.78 21.89 33.58 44.77 63.61 76.59 78.10 76.64 82.49 29.26

6.3. Citation impact of Indian’s research output, 1990–2009

Impact suggested by Nagpaul (1995), Garg and Pandhi (1999) have been used for inter-

comparison of quality by making unit of citation indicators such as CPP, NHQ, RQI, NHQ%

and TNP% (Garg et al. 2009).

CPP is based on the publication output and the number of citations received by these papers,

citation per paper for different countries and different institutions has been calculated. Citation

per paper has been calculated by using the following formula:

Total number of citations for a country or an institution

CPP = __--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total number of Papers for that country or an institution

NHQ is based on the calculation of the citation per paper for different countries and

institutions were calculated as the pattern of citation varied from one country to another country.

Papers that received more than twice the average citations have been considered as high quality

papers.

RQI is an indicator and it is the ratio of the proportion of NHG% to the proportion of the

TNP%

Number of High Quality Papers for a country or an institution

NHQ% = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ⅹ 100

Total Number of High Quality Papers

Table -5 Distribution of Citations

No of

Citation TNP TNP% TNC TNC %

0 2732 23.94 0 0

1 1392 12.20 1392 1.18

2 945 8.28 1890 1.60

3 698 6.12 2094 1.78

4 636 5.57 2544 2.16

5 511 4.48 2555 2.17

6 407 3.57 2442 2.07

7 362 3.17 2534 2.15

8 292 2.56 2336 1.98

9 280 2.45 2520 2.14

10 226 1.98 2260 1.92

11--20 1391 12.19 20498 17.40

21--30 611 5.35 15256 12.95

31--40 315 2.76 11025 9.36

41--50 196 1.72 8801 7.47



51--60 104 0.91 5718 4.85

61--70 69 0.60 4496 3.82

71--80 66 0.58 4959 4.21

81--90 42 0.37 3588 3.04

91--100 32 0.28 3048 2.59

101--- 105 0.92 17880 15.17

Total 11412 100.00 117836 100.00

Total publication output of a country or an institution

TNP% = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ⅹ100

Total publication output for all countries or institutions

The stated citation index calculated for Indian contributions are shown in Table 6.

A value of RQI > 1indicates higher than average quality, whereas a value of RQI < 1

indicates lower than average quality. Table 7 indicates year wise total number of publications,

total citations, citation per paper, number of high quality and relative quality index. The value

of RQI is high in the years from 2000 to 2011. RQI is lower than average from the years 2012

to 2018 yet it is nearly 1 except the year 2017. RQI is noted maximum in the years 2003 and

2010. The RQI are 1.40 during these years. (Fig. 2).

6.4. Index technique in Scientometric

Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to measure both the productivity and impact of the

published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist’s most

cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other people’s publications.

The index can also be applied to the productivity and impact of a group of scientists, such as a

department or university or country. The g-index was introduced by Egghe (2006) as an

improvement of Hirsch’s h-index for measuring the overall citation record of a set of articles.

The influence of the self-citations appears to be more significant for the g-index than the h-

index (Schreiber 2008).

To increase the h-index is difficult. It is usual to find that many different researchers have

the same h-index with a very different number of publications and cities. The hg-index provides

a more fine-grained way to compare scientists, balance between the impact of the majority of

the best papers of the author and very highly cited ones. Prathap (2010), has introduced a new

index, called the p-index or the mock h-index, which is given by (C * C/P)(1/3), where C is the

number of citations and P is the number of publications (Table 6).

Table 6: Citation Metrics & Formula

S.N

o

Index

Type

Contributo

r Purpose Definition/ Formula

1 h-index Hirsh

To measure both the

productivity and impact of

the published work of a

scientist or scholar

A scientist has index h if h

of [his/ her] Np papers have

at least h citations each, and

the other (Np - h) papers

have at most h citations each

2 g-index Leo Egghe

For quantifying the

scientific productivity of

physicists and other

scientists based on their

publication record

The index is calculated

based on the distribution of

citations received by a given

researcher’s publications

3 hg-index Rousseau hg-index of a researcher is

computed as the geometric √hg



mean of his h- and g-

indices

4 p-index Gangan

Prathap

To compare authors and

countries on this index,

combination of quantity

and quality

C2 ^1/3

--------

P

6.5. Indian Authors contribution

Indian authors’ contribution accounts to 7.19% in horticulture publications. The contributions

of the Indian authors and the citation, average citation, h- index, g-index, hg-index and p-index

has been analyzed and the same is shown in Table 6. In this study it was found that the Kumar

S produced 114 papers during the period 2000–2018. There are 15 authors share 611

publications in the field of horticulture from India. Varshney Rajeev K and Singh S have

produced more than 70 publications and have received appreciable citations. (Table 7).

Based on h-index (Hirsch 2005) productivity and impact of the published work of the

institutions were analyzed (Table 9). Among the top 15 authors, Varshney Rajeev K (29) holds

the first position and followed by Upadhyaya Hari D (26) , Gaur Pooran M (24), Kumar S (20)

and Krishnamurthy L (17).

The quantification of the productivity of the authors and based on their publication record

were identified by using g-index (Egghe 2006) technique. g-index is more sensitive than h-

index in the assessment of selective scientists, since this type of scientist shows in average a

higher g-index/h-index ratio and a better position in g-index rankings than in the h-index ones

(Radrigo and Maria 2008). Varshney Rajeev K (59), Upadhyaya Hari D (52), Gaur Pooran M

(44) holds first three ranks. Based on the results it is found that g-index is always higher or

equal to h-index (Egghe 2006). Geometric mean of h and g indices is hg index (Alonso et al.

2010). Hg index value nearer to h than to g. i.e. h B hg B g and hg - h B g - hg. The hg-index

provides gain to compare scientists. Hg-index is used to balance between the impact of the

majority of the best publications of the author and very highly cited ones that is it reduces the

impact of single very high cited publications. P-index is the performance index balanced

between activity and excellence (Prathap and Gupta 2009). A mock h-index hm is an ideal per-

formance indicator that can evaluate activity/quantity and excellence/quality and must increase

when quantity i.e. number of publication increases and the quality i.e. number of citations

increases (Tol 2009). The p-index provides the best balance between quantity and quality

(Prathap 2010). The p-index represents a combination of size and quality, it would be ideal to

compare authors and countries on this index. Hence the authors were compared by using p-

index. Upadhyaya Hari D holds first position based on p-index (56.30) followed by Gaur Pooran

M (51.31) and Varshney Rajeev K (47.92). h-index, g-index and p-index are one type of indices

describe the most productive core of the output of a scientist and tell us the number of papers

in the core.



Figure. 2 Relative quality index

Table-7 Citation impact of research output of Prolific Authors

S.

No

Name of

Author TP TC ACPP

TC

Within

h-core h-i

ndex

g-i

ndex

hg

-index

P-i

ndex

1 Varshney Rajeev K 84 3040 36.19 2556 29 59 41.36 47.92

2 Upadhyaya Hari D 38 2604 68.53 1447 26 52 36.77 56.30

3 Gaur Pooran M 30 2013 67.10 1034 24 44 32.50 51.31

4 Kumar S 114 1112 9.75 675 20 28 23.66 22.14

5 Krishnamurthy L 24 991 41.29 720 17 30 22.58 34.46

6 Singh S 77 947 12.30 695 16 28 21.17 22.67

7 Gowda C. L. L 38 1163 30.61 888 16 33 22.98 32.89

8 Tyagi Akhilesh K 23 857 37.26 694 15 27 20.12 31.73

9 Samiyappan R 24 763 31.79 628 15 27 20.12 28.95

10 Singh N 28 916 32.71 884 14 28 19.80 31.06

11 Kumar N 24 443 18.46 396 13 24 17.66 20.15

12 Parida Swarup K 26 512 19.69 430 13 22 16.91 21.60

13 Kumar Sanjay 31 473 15.26 406 13 21 16.52 19.33

14 Singh Sube 23 511 22.22 458 13 22 16.91 22.48

15 Saxena Rachit K 27 1163 43.07 1102 13 28 19.08 36.86

7. CONCLUSION

Due to technological importance and expected economic activity, horticulture has been

intensively investigated by scientometric methods. In this paper, the current status of

horticulture has been presented. Initially frequency and percentile method have been evolved

chronologically. The progress has further been measured using growth rate and Dt. In the

present decade the Dt of horticulture literature is decreased once in 4 years. Just one specific

measure is not shrewd to power the assessment of researchers or of research groups.

It is even unsafe, because it strengthens the opinion of administrators and politicians that

scientific performance can be expressed simply by one note. Hence we always stress that a



reliable set of several indicators is necessary, in order to explicate different aspects of

performance.

Hence to evaluate the author collaboration, CI, collaborative coefficient, DC and modified

collaborative coefficient were employed to prove that the 96% of the research outputs are of

collaborative in nature. As like that of other discipline collaborative research is predominance.

The aim of the study is to illustrate the different approaches in scientometrics have dealt

with this blooming area so far and presented a variety of data. This raises the question to what

extent the data presented can provide useful information to various stakeholders, such as

scientists and agriculturists working in one of the fields related to horticulture, decision-makers

in R&D administrations and industry. Some of the scientometric data may be of interest to

researchers in the field. Often they are specialists focused on one of the several strands in

horticulture and may be interested in data that provides them with a more general picture. They,

just like policy analysts, may also be interested in the overall standing of countries in terms of

publication output. Students of agricultural technology may find the parallel observation of

publication data of interest.

This study presented a summary of scientometric research in the horticulture area. Using

publication of literature, an overview of scientometric efforts have been presented to trace the

emergence of this new technological area. The paper has also presented data that gives an idea

about which countries are the most active in terms of scientific publications in horticulture.

Brazil, Japan and Italy are very active, following the big four countries USA, China, India and

Spain. At the moment, horticulture appears to enter a phase of concentration. For instance, most

of the horticulture publications so far have occurred in the in all agricultural sciences.

India has a substantial contribution on horticulture research. Varshney Rajeev K Upadhyaya

Hari D, Gaur Pooran M, Kumar S and Krishnamurthy L (17) are the prolific contributors. Share

of International collaborative publication among the top 15 authors is appreciable.

To engage with horticulture successfully, developing countries would need to address a

range of issues pertaining to research, technology development, skills requirement, institutions

involved, risks issues, regulatory and governance structure and stakeholder engagement.

Regulatory oversight for horticulture is necessary to channelize research efforts in a responsible

direction. The regulatory regime for horticulture needs to be dynamic and should be reviewed

from time to time. Transparency and public involvement in the design and implementation of

regulatory structure in horticulture should be ensured.

This paper focused on the presentation of scientometric data only. Understanding the

development of a field such as horticulture could be made easier by integrating the informetric

findings with results of other studies. Market analyses and future studies, which were not

discussed in this place, remind us that there is a bright way ahead for this blooming area to

become a generic discipline or technology.

It is concluded that the results of a scientometric study that focuses on the field of

horticulture is that the contribution of India has increased greatly in the last 5 years. However,

it is sound to say based on the number of publications that the field of horticulture is currently

led by USA, China, and India. Countries that lack a research and development infrastructure to

develop the horticulture may use scientometric trends to analyse the intrinsic variety in

approaches to technology development.



REFERENCES

[1] Ajiferuke, I., Burell, O., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of

the collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421–433

[2] Alonso, S., et al. (2010). hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of

researchers based on the h- and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82, 391–400.

doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0047-5.

[3] Bhandari, D. C., Meghwal, P. R., & Lodha, S. (2014). Horticulture based production

systems in Indian arid regions. In Sustainable Horticultural Systems (pp. 19-49). Springer,

Cham.

[4] Bhat, K. K. S. (1990). A bibliometric analysis of world horticultural literature published

during the past two decades. Journal of Advances in Horticultural Science, 4(1), 19–24.

Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42881527

[5] Dolan, C., & Humphrey, J. (2000). Governance and Trade in Fresh Vegetables: The Impact

of UK Supermarkets on the African Horticulture Industry. Journal of Development Studies,

37(2), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/713600072

[6] Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.

[7] Gandhi, V. P., & Namboodiri, N. V. (2002). Fruit and vegetable marketing and its efficiency

in India: A study of wholesale markets in the Ahmedabad area.

[8] Garg, K. C., & Pandhi, P. (1999). Scientometrics of laser research literature as viewed

through, Journal of Current Laser Abstracts. Scientometrics, 45, 19–38.

[9] Garg, K. C., et al. (2009). Bibliometrics of global malaria vaccine research. Health

Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 22–31.

[10] Gogoi, M., & Borah, S. D. (2013). Baseline data on area, production and productivity of

horticulture crops in North-East and Himalayan states-A study in Assam. Agro-Economic

Research Centre for North-East India Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat–785013,

Assam, 166, 182-8.

[11] Hirsch, (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings

of National Academic Science, USA, 102(46), 16569–16572.

[12] Jayapriya R &Sivarman P.(2012). Forensic Medicine research output:ABibliometric

analysis.Asican Journal of Information Scuience and Technology.2(2),36-40.

[13] Lawani, S. M. (1980). Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: A 268

bibliometric study. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 395 pp.

[14] Leydesdorff, L. (2008). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of

journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), 159–167.

[15] Mahapatra, M. (1985). On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific

literature. In 15th IASLIC conference proceedings, Bangalore, IASLIC, pp 61–70.

[16] Mcculloch, N., & Ota, M. (2002). Export Horticulture and Poverty in Kenya. Institute of

Development Studies. Retrieved from

https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3952/

Wp174.pdf?sequence=1

[17] Mithal, R., Ahmad, M., & Singh, G. (2005). Citation mapping of published literature on

Embelia ribes. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 52(4), 308–316.

[18] Nabi, Tawheed ; Bagalkoti, S. (2017). Growth trends of Horticulture Crops in India.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 4(3), 158–164.

[19] Prathap, G. (2010). The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index. Scientometrics, 84,

167–172. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0068-0.

[20] Raimbault, B., Cointet, J.-P., & Joly, P.-B. (2016). Mapping the Emergence of Synthetic

Biology. PLoS One, 11(9), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161522



[21] Ranganathan, C. (2015). Sscientometric analysis of Authorship Trends and Collaborative

Researach in Horticulture. Ijnglt.Com, 1(3), 1–11. Retrieved from

http://www.ijnglt.com/files/Issue 3/ARTICLE.pdf

[22] Schreiber, M. (2008). The influence of self-citations corrections on Egghe’s g-index.

Scientometrics, 76(1), 187–200.

[23] Seeman T &Sivaraman P (2013) Research Trends and collaboration pattern among

Environmental Science Researchers in selected universities of south India: A Scientometric

analysis.International. Journal of Library and Information Science Research and

Development.2 (1),18-25.

[24] Singh J. Basic Horticulture, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 2012

[25] Sivaraman P, Seeman T and Sevukan R (2013)Bradford’s law and the research productivity

of environmental science researchers in selected universities of south India.International

Journal of Library and Information Science.2(2),1-12.

[26] Sivakumar N et al. (2013) Application of Lotka’s law in Biology literature of Central

Universities in India. International Journal of Library and Information Science 2 (1), 61-70

[27] Suresh, C., Hema, R., & Sankarasubramaniam, N. (2015). a Scientometric Analysis of the

“ Indian Journal of Horticulture ” ( 2010-2014 ). Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 1(34),

86–97. Retrieved from www.apjor.com

[28] Veeramani, K & Sivaraman P Research Trends in Chemistry of India, 2001-2010:an

emprical analysis. Libray Progress (International).31(1).

[29] Wilson, M., Kannangara, K., Smith, G., Simmons, M., & Raguse, B. (2002).

Nanotechnology: Basic science and emerging technologies. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and

Hall/CRC Press.

MAPPING OF HORTICULTURE SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION IN … · SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS D.Ravi Research...

Documents

Transcript of MAPPING OF HORTICULTURE SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION IN … · SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS D.Ravi Research...