Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Evolution of Glaucoma Research: A Scientometric Review

Parul Ichhpujani, Gagan Kalra, Rishemjit Kaur, Shibal Bhartiya

Keywords : Bibliometrics, Citation, Collaboration, Glaucoma, Scientometric analysis

Citation Information : Ichhpujani P, Kalra G, Kaur R, Bhartiya S. Evolution of Glaucoma Research: A Scientometric Review. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2020; 14 (3):98-105.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1286

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Ophthalmic literature has been subjected to scientometrics in the past both for specific disease pathologies, such as, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy, and specific journals to add insight to the evolving trends. This short scientometric review looks at the distribution pattern and subject domain knowledge of worldwide glaucoma research with data extracted from Web of Science (WoS, Clarivate Analytics) for the past 74 years.


PDF Share
  1. Ramin S, Pakravan M, Habibi G, et al. Scientometric analysis and mapping of 20 years of glaucoma research. Int J Ophthalmol 2016;9(9):1329.
  2. Bradford SC. Documentation. Washington DC: Public Affairs Press; 1950. pp. 106–121.
  3. Lotka AJ. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Washington Acad Sci 1926;16:317–323.
  4. Kumar A, Cheeseman R, Durnian JM. Subspecialization of the ophthalmic literature: a review of the publishing trends of the top general, clinical ophthalmic journals. Ophthalmology 2011;118(6):1211–1214. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.10.023.
  5. Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2014;121(11):2081–2090. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013.
  6. Glänzel W, Thijs B. The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators. Scientometrics 2004;59(3):281–310. DOI: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018535.99885.e9.
  7. Glänzel W, Debackere K, Thijs B, et al. A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics 2006;67(2):263–277. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0098-9.
  8. Ogden TL, Bartley DL. The ups and downs of journal impact factors. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52(2):73–82.
  9. Ohba N, Nakao K, Isashiki Y, et al. The 100 most frequently cited articles in ophthalmology journals. Arch Ophthal 2007;125(7):952–960. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.125.7.952.
  10. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. What do we know about the h index? J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2007;58(9):1381–1385. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20609.
  11. Da Silva JAT, Dobránszki J. Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes. Scientometrics 2018;115(2):1107–1113. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2680-3.
  12. Vision Research: Needs, Gaps and Opportunities. Available at: https://www.nei.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/VisionResearch2012.pdf. Accessed on 8th August, 2020.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.