In my recent paper, I explore how inaccuracies in "topic" search strategies can lead to misleading results and introduce significant errors in bibliometric analyses. I identify six key issues that arise from these strategies, including:
- Inclusion of irrelevant publications due to sponsor coding,
- Influence of funding organizations' names,
- Semantic confusion and data pollution from institutional addresses,
- Abbreviation conflicts across disciplines,
- Problems arising from Web of Science’s "Keywords Plus,"
- Misclassification caused by word-number combinations (e.g., "Industry 4.0").
Given these findings, I would like to open a discussion on the broader implications: What are some overlooked risks associated with topic-based search strategies in bibliometric analyses, and how can researchers mitigate these methodological pitfalls to ensure more accurate and reliable results?
Your insights, personal experiences, or even alternative strategies to refine bibliometric search processes would be greatly appreciated. Let’s collaborate to improve the methodological robustness of bibliometric research.
Article BİBLİOMETRİK ARAŞTIRMALARDA “TOPIC” ARAMA STRATEJİSİNİN HAND...
Using "topic" search strategies in bibliometric research can have several pitfalls and challenges. One major issue is the risk of missing relevant studies due to varying terminology, synonyms, or inconsistent use of keywords across disciplines. Similarly, unrelated or irrelevant studies might be included if the search terms are too broad or ambiguous. Another challenge is the dependence on database indexing and metadata, which may not always accurately reflect the content of the articles. Language barriers can also limit access to non-English research. Additionally, there may be difficulties in maintaining objectivity, as the selection of keywords can introduce bias. These challenges require researchers to carefully refine their search terms, use multiple databases, and validate their results to ensure comprehensive and accurate findings.
Thank you for your valuable contribution! Your insights into the difficulties of "topic" search strategies in bibliometric research are greatly appreciated. The points you highlight, such as terminology differences, keyword ambiguity, database limitations, and language barriers, are important considerations for researchers aiming for comprehensive and accurate results. Your contribution added depth to the discussion. Best regards.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Data Mining