Special Issue on Bibliometric & Scientometric Studies Scientometric Analysis of Food and Nutrition Research in India and China: A Comparative Study A.Vellaichamy Research Scholar Department of Library & Information Science Alagappa University, Karaikudi-India vellaichamy19@gmail.com Abstract The present study mainly attempts to evaluate quantitatively the growth and development of food and nutrition research in India and china in terms of publication output as reflected from SCOPUS database. Out of 2478 records both the countries for the period of before 1982 2012. Food and nutrition research on India and China are compared by Year-wise growth, by publication type, by institutional affiliation, by publishing sources, by size of publications, by pattern of authorship and by nature of research collaboration. The authorship pattern is measured by different collaboration parameters like degree of colloboration and Pattern of Co Authorship. Keywords: Scientometrics, Relative Growth Rate, Degree of Collaboration, Doubling Time, Food & Nutrition 1. Introduction Scientometrics is an emerging thrust area of research in the field of library and information science. It is a tool by which the state of science and technology can be observed through the traces of communication in the science technology system, most notably the published documents which comprise books, monographs, reports, theses, papers in serials and periodicals. Nalimov and Mulchenko defined as scientometrics is the application of those quantitative methods which are dealing with the analysis of science viewed as information process 1. The bibliometric/ scientometric / informetric techniques used to analyze various quantitative or qualitative aspects of a publication. It is a scientific field that studies the evolution of science through some quantitative measures of scientific information, as the number of scientific articles published in a given period of time, their citation impact, etc 2. Scientometricians explain about input and outputs resource in terms organizational structure and they develop benchmarks to evaluate the quality of information resources and packages of information for decision making in science. It provides a key opportunity to the researcher to publish their articles with new strategies, innovations, new methods and new ideas 3. To ensure food and nutrition security of more than nine billion people is a daunting task for the entire world. To feed humanity, it requires increased production of grains, pulses, 122
oilseeds, vegetables, fruits, milk, poultry, fish, meat, etc. A lot of research is being carried out all over the world in this area 4. Jeyshankar, Rao and Vellaichamy 5 investigated 1291 publications in the field of food and nutrition in India. The study revealed that majority of the contributions from the research institutions (46.71 percent) followed by universities (38.26 percent) and colleges (15.03 percent). Zabed Ahmed and Rahman 6 conducted a study on bibliometric analysis of nutrition literature of Bangladesh during from 1972 to 2006. The study was identified total of 636 articles by 998 authors. The five-yearly distribution of nutrition literature shows that there is a rapid growth of nutrition literature from 1987 onwards. Alfaraz and Calvino 7 reported that eight selected IA countries contributed 97.6% of the IA production and accounted for a 6.6% of the world production. The most frequent document type was journal article published in English. Zhou, Zhong and Yu 8 made a comparative study on China s collaboration with selected countries including the USA, the UK, Germany and Japan. The growth rate of China s internationally collaborated publications was lower than that of China s total publications. Sweileh, 9 et al. analysed the research activity in nutrition and dietetics in Arab countries. The study mainly focused research areas of published documents were in Food Science/Technology and Chemistry which constituted 75% of published documents compared with 25% for worldwide documents in nutrition and dietetics. 2. Research questions The study explored the following questions: 1. What is the overall performance in food and nutrition research on India and China? 2. What is the nature of those publications? 3. What is the nature of collaboration? 4. Which institutions/organizations are behind food and nutrition research on India and China? And, 5. Which is the predominant source of information on food and nutrition research on India and China? 3. Meterials and methods The present study covered 2478 records (before 1982 2012) out of which 1431 records in India and 1047 records in China. The data downloaded from Scopus 123
database. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of research literature and quality web-only journals. It's designed to enable not only the researchers for accessing scientific information but provide the information scientists to study the literature for different information analyses purposes and it provides quick, easy and comprehensive, superior support of the research literature process. The collected data has been analyzed with the MS excel spreadsheet and presented in the form of tables and figures. Further, Scientometric indicators such as Exponential Growth, Co- Authorship Index, Doubling Time and Degree of collaboration have been analyzed. 4. Scientometric Indicators Used 4.1 Relative Growth Rate (RGR) Relative Growth Rate (RGR) is a measure to study the increase in the number of articles/pages per unit articles/pages per unit of time (Mahapatra, 1985) 10. Relative Growth Rate of articles over a specific period of interval is calculated mathematically as: Log e 2 W- Log e 1 W RGR= -------------------------- 2 T - 1 T 4.2 Doubling Time (DT) DT is defined as the number of publications/pages of a subject doubles during a given period, and then the difference between the logarithm of the numbers at the beginning and at the end of the period must be the logarithms of the number 2. If one uses a natural logarithm, this difference has a value of 0.693. The corresponding doubling time for publications and pages can be calculated by using the following formula. DT = 0.693 --------- R 4.3 Degree of Collaboration (DC) The Degree of Collaboration of authors by year wise is shown in Table 5. Extent or degree of collaboration can be ascertained by the formula by K.Subramanian 11. The degree of collaboration (collaboration coefficient) among authors is measured mathematically as; Nm C= Nm + Ns Where, 124
C = degree of collaboration Nm = number of multi authored papers Ns = number of single authored papers 4.4 Co-Authorship Index (CAI) Co-Authorship Index (CAI) is obtained by calculating proportionately the Publication by single, two and multi authored papers. N ij /N io CAI = --------- * 100 N oj /N oo Where, N ij =Number of papers having authors in block I N io =Total output of block I N oj = Number of papers having J authors for all blocks. N oo =Total number of papers for all authors and all blocks 5. Results and Discussions 5.1 Food and Nutrition literature on India and China: comparison by publication year The literature growth occupies an important place in bibliometrics/scientometrics. Table 5.1 which compare research output in India and China, indicate the trend of publishing of Food and Nutrition research on the two countries by the year of publication. Throughout the period of before 1982-2012, China s publications remained well below those on India. However, the two countries witnessed similar patterns of research output. Except for the before 1982 period, where there was a no difference in growth of publications (i.e., an increase trend for India and China), the pattern is similar. In both countries, there was a upward trend between before 1982-2012, while the growth rate of approximately 249 to 818 publications from 2003-2007. However, 2008-2012 recorded 1079 records respectively. Both countries witnessed the largest production in these two periods. 125
Table 5.1 Food and Nutrition literature: comparison by publication year F&N research F&N research Block Periods on India on China Total No % No % No % Before-1982 110 7.69 2 0.19 112 4.52 1983-1987 32 2.24 5 0.48 37 1.49 1988-1992 53 3.70 11 1.05 64 2.58 1993-1997 80 5.59 39 3.72 119 4.80 1998-2002 168 11.74 81 7.74 249 10.05 2003-2007 468 32.70 350 33.43 818 33.01 2008-2012 520 36.34 559 53.39 1079 43.54 Total 1431 100 1047 100 2478 100 Figure 1- Literature Growth in India & China Table 5.2- F&N research: comparison by RGR & Doubling Time Block Periods F&N research on India No. of Paper Cum. W 1 W 2 RGR DT s F&N research on China No. of Cu Paper W m. 1 W 2 RGR DT s Before- 1982 110 110 0 4.70 0 0 2 2 0 0.69 0 0 1983-1987 32 142 4.96 0.26 2.71 4.70 5 7 0.69 1.95 1.25 0.55 1988-1992 53 195 5.27 0.32 2.18 4.96 11 18 1.95 2.89 0.94 0.73 1993-1997 80 275 5.62 0.34 2.02 5.27 39 57 2.89 4.04 1.15 0.60 1998-2002 168 443 6.09 0.48 1.45 5.62 81 138 4.04 4.93 0.88 0.78 2003-2007 468 911 6.81 0.72 0.96 6.09 350 488 4.93 6.19 1.26 0.55 2008-2012 520 1431 7.27 0.45 1.53 6.81 559 1047 6.19 6.95 0.76 0.91 126
Table 5.2 discussed the relative growth rate and doubling time of the publications during the study period. It has been observed that, the relative growth rate was downward trend up to 1993-1997 and thereafter the relative growth rate is fluctuating trend while the doubling time has shown an upward trend on India. In China the relative growth rate and also doubling time has shown fluctuating trend at the whole period of the study. It could be deduced from the above discussion that the relative growth rate of publications output has shown a fluctuating trend of both countries. Figure 2- RGR & Doubling Time on F&N literature in India and China 5.3 Food and Nutrition literature on India and China: comparison by publication type An analysis of data according to the publication type indicates that there were eight types of Publications, namely, articles, conference papers, reviews, short surveys, article in press, letters notes and books. Articles consisted of 1099 records on India and 864 on China making a total of 1963 (79.22 percent), while conference papers comprised of 191 on India and 87 on China. The total number of reviews was fiftyfour (3.77 percent) on India and eighty-three (7.93%) on China, while short surveys comprised of thirty-five on India and seven on China. Table 5.3 shows that article in press totalled 21 (0.85 percent) with India s and China s shares being eighteen and three respectively. Table 5.3- F&N research on India and China: comparison by publication type F&N research on F&N research on India Publication type China Total No % No % No % Articles 1099 76.80 864 82.52 1963 79.22 Conference Papers 191 13.35 87 8.31 278 11.22 Reviews 54 3.77 83 7.93 137 5.53 Short Survey 35 2.45 7 0.67 42 1.69 127
Article in Press 18 1.26 3 0.29 21 0.85 Letters 16 1.12 1 0.10 17 0.69 Notes 12 0.84 1 0.10 13 0.52 Books 6 0.42 1 0.10 7 0.28 Total 1431 100 1047 100 2478 100.00 5.4 F&N research on India and China: comparison by nature of author collaboration In the recent years, collaborative research is very much a characteristic particularly in the field of library and information science. Table 5.4, which illustrates the nature of co authorship or collaboration, provides the number of publications that were each authored by x number of authors. Table 5.4 - F&N research on India and China: comparison by nature of author collaboration F&N research on F&N research on Total Type of Authorship India China No % age No % age No % age Single 207 14.47 42 4.01 249 10.05 Double 402 28.09 98 9.36 500 20.18 Multiple 822 57.44 907 86.63 1729 69.77 Total 1431 100 1047 100 2478 100 Of the 2478 records that provided the authors names, 69.77 percent were each jointly authored by multiple authors and 20.18 percent were each two authored while only 10.05 percent were each single authored. India s multiple author publication was 822 (57.44 percent) and China s 907 (86.63 percent) while double more authors wrote 28.09 percent of India s and 20.18 percent of China s total publications. However, India s single-authored publication was 207 (14.47 percent) and China s totaled (10.05 percent). 5.5 Degree of Collaboration Table 5.5 shows the degree of collaboration in (India) authorship trend, which works out to be 0.76 and above. It gives a picture of extent of collaborations among the authors. The degree of collaboration for different years in China calculated as per the equation proposed by Subramanian. The degree of collaboration (China) over the years varies from 0.50 to 1.00 and the mean value is found to be 0.96 (Table 5.5). 128
Table 5.5 Degree of colloboration among authors in India and China Degree of Collaboration among authors Degree of Collaboration among in India authors in China Year Total Total N S N m DC N (N S +N M ) S N m DC (N S +N M ) Before-1982 26 84 110 0.76 1 1 2 0.50 1983-1987 18 56 74 0.76 0 5 5 1.00 1988-1992 8 72 80 0.90 2 6 8 0.75 1993-1997 16 64 80 0.80 4 38 42 0.90 1998-2002 30 165 195 0.85 5 78 83 0.94 2003-2007 52 387 439 0.88 10 338 348 0.97 2008-2012 57 396 453 0.87 20 539 559 0.96 Total 207 1224 1431 MV=0.83 42 1005 1047 MV=0.86 Figure 3- Degree of colloboration among authors in India and China 5.6 Co-Authorship Index For calculating the co-authorship index for authors, countries have been replaced with blocks. For this study, the authors have been classified into three blocks. Vz. Single, Two, and multiple authors and period of the study has been divided into 7 blocks during the period 1982-2012 and the two countries (India & china) are taken in this study. Table 5.6 - Co-Authorship Pattern among Indian and China authors Patt ern amo Block Period Single Author 129 Before- 1982 26 (163.40) 1983-1987 18 (161.87) 1988-1992 8 (66.55) 1993-1997 16 (133.09) 1998-2002 30 (102.38) 2003-2007 52 (78.82) 2008-2012 57 (83.73) Total 207
CAI Two Authors 84 53 67 31 94 67 6 402 CAI (292.54) (274.37) (320.83) (148.45) (184.67) (58.47) (5.07) > Two 320 390 Authors 0 3 5 33 71 (135.60 (160.15 822 CAI (0.00) (7.54) (11.63) (76.73) (67.73) ) ) Total 110 74 80 80 195 439 453 1431 Single Author 1 0 2 4 5 10 20 42 CAI (1246.43) (0.00) (166.37) (63.38) (40.09) (19.12) (23.81) Two Authors 1 28 49 98 Co-Authorship Pattern among China authors CAI > Two Authors 0 5.7 Food and Nutrition literature: comparison by publication size The size of each retrieved document was calculated using the source field. Majority of the documents (921; 35.17 percent) were between four-six and Seven - Nine pages long (see Table 5.7). Of these, 344 were on India while those on China totalled 196 publications. Documents that were between Seven - Nine pages long totalled 564 (22.76 percent), while One three pages long totalled 540 (21.79 percent) which therefore indicates that 2025 (81.72 percent) documents were less than ten pages long. Table 5.7- F& N research on India & China: comparison by publication size 5.8 F&N research: distribution of publications by publishing source Table 5.8 compares the sources publishing Food & Nutrition literature on India and China. There are a total number of one-sixty publication sources. The table illustrates that the nutrition is the most used source in publishing F&N literature on the two 130 2 (153.23) 1 (47.89) 5 (45.61) 12 (55.39) (191.54) (30.82) (33.58) 310 490 3 5 33 66 (165.71 (163.06 907 CAI (0.00) (111.61) (116.26) (146.16) (147.92) ) ) Total 2 5 8 42 83 348 559 1047 Size of publication in India pages China Total % age One - three 344 196 540 21.79 Four - Six 503 418 921 37.17 Seven - Nine 288 276 564 22.76 >10 leaves 296 157 453 18.28 Total 1431 1047 2478 100
countries. In Indian researchers prefer to publish their research papers to the Journal of Food Science and Technology (n=114, 20.92%) while the China researchers prefer to publish their research papers to Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition (n=46, 13.77%). In the second positions are the Indian Pediatrics and Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation which published 60 and 38, respectively. The rest published no more than ten percent of documents on total research output. Table 5.8- F&N research: distribution of publications by publishing source (n=2478) F&N research in India F&N research in China Name of Source No. of No. of Name of Source Records Records Journal of Food Science and Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical 114 (20.92%) Technology Nutrition 46 (13.77%) Indian Pediatrics 60 (11.01%) Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation 38 (11.38%) Indian Journal of Pediatrics 53 (9.72%) Poultry Science 29 (8.68%) Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 53 (99.72%) Journal of Nutrition 29 (8.68%) Journal of Medicinal Food 52 (9.54%) Journal of Medicinal Food 27 (8.08%) Indian Journal of Medical American Journal of Clinical 38 (6.97%) 26 (7.78%) Research Nutrition Food and Nutrition Bulletin 26 (4.07%) Archives of Animal Nutrition 26 (7.78%) European Journal of Clinical Nutrition British Journal of Nutrition 20 (3.67%) Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 21 (3.85%) Public Health Nutrition 17 (5.09%) Chinese Journal of Endemiology 16 (4.09%) 20 (3.67%) British Journal of Nutrition 15 (4.49%) 5.9 F&N research: comparison by institutional affiliation Table 5.9 compares the top ten institutions that contributed to the publication of F&N literature on India and China. On its part, India s food and Nutrition research was more concentrated at the National Institute of Nutrition. Overall, 160 institutions contributed to the total number of publications on Food and Nutrition research in India. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences was published fifty-seven papers and CCS Haryana Agricultural University was contributed fifty-one papers respectively. The university was followed by the Central Food Technological Research Institute with forty-seven (3.28 percent) publications, the Punjab Agricultural University with thirty-five (2.45 percent) and other institutions were contributed less than thirty papers. In China s food and Nutrition research was more concentrated at the China Agricultural University (eightyfive; 8.12 percent) followed by Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (eighty-two; 7.83 percent) and Zhejiang University (sixty-two; 5.92 percent). 131
Table 5.9: F&N research: comparison by institutions/organizations (N = 1431 for India, 1047 for China) F&N research in India F&N research in China Institutions/organizations No % Institutions/organizations No % 7.6 China Agricultural University, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad 110 85 8.12 9 Beijing All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 3.9 Chinese Center for Disease Control 57 82 7.83 New Delhi 8 and Prevention, Beijing CCS Haryana Agricultural University, 3.5 51 Zhejiang University, Zhejiang 62 5.92 Haryana 6 Central Food Technological Research 3.2 Chinese Academy of Sciences, 47 39 3.72 Institute, Karnataka 8 Beijing 2.4 Chinese Academy of Agricultural Punjab Agricultural University, Punjab 35 33 3.15 5 Sciences, Beijing 1.8 The University of North Carolina at Annamalai University, Chidambaram 26 30 2.87 2 Chapel Hill, North Carolina National Dairy Research Institute, 1.6 23 Peking University, Haidian 25 2.39 Karnataka 1 1.4 University of Delhi, Delhi 20 Ocean University, Shandong 24 2.29 0 King Edward Memorial Hospital, 1.2 Sun Yat-Sen University, 18 21 2.01 Mumbai 6 Guangdong Indian Agricultural Research Institute, 1.2 Nanjing Agricultural University, 18 16 1.53 New Delhi 6 Nanjing 6. Conclusion One of the interesting features of bibliometrics/ scientometrics/ informetrics, is the fact there are three related terms used to describe part or all of this discipline. Each of these terms has a particular historical origin which is generally well documented and these terms have a range of definitions that have been applied to them by the authors who are working in this field. Over time, the usage of the terms has changed, with the older term bibliometrics fairly stable and the newer terms, informetrics and scientometrics gaining in usage. India is the world s largest producer of food, next to China, and has the potential of being the largest with the potential of being the largest with the food and agricultural sector. There is an opportunity for large investments in food and food processing technologies, skills and infrastructure, especially in areas of canning, dairy packaging, frozen food / refrigeration and thermo processing (Poornima, et al.) The present study concluded that India is found to be the predominant country as it tops the rank list of Food & Nutrition research compared to China and other countries. The scientometric 132
indicators used to measure in order to obtain a more balanced view of the scientific production of researchers and that minimizes some of the problems which were present. References 1. Seeman and Sivaraman (2013). Research Trends and Collaboration Pattern Among Environmental Science Researchers in Selected Universities in South India: A Scientometric Analysis International Journal of Library and Information Science Research and Development, 2 (1), 18-25. 2. Virgil Diodato, Dictionary of Bibliometrics. New York: Haworth Press, 1994. 3. Nattar S. (2009). Indian Journal of Physics: A Scientometric Analysis. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 1(4), 55-61. 4. Surwase, G., Mohan, L., Kademani, B. S., & Bhanumurthy, K. (2014). Research Trends on Food Preservation: A Scientometric Analysis. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 34 (3), 257-264. 5. Jeyshankar, R., Rao, P.N. & Vellaichamy, A. (2014). Mapping of research output of food and nutrition literature in India. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 4(1), 34-41. 6. Sm, Z. A., & Rahman, M. A. (1970). Nutrition Literature of Bangladesh: A Bibliometric Study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 13 (1), 35-43. 7. Alfaraz, P., & Calvino, A. (2004). Bibliometric study on food science and technology: Scientific production in Iberian-American countries (1991-2000). Scientometrics, 61(1), 89-102. 8. Zhou, P., Zhong, Y., & Yu, M. (2013). A bibliometric investigation on China UK collaboration in food and agriculture. Scientometrics, 97(2), 267-285. 9. Sweileh, W. M., Al-Jabi, S. W., Sawalha, A. F., & Zyoud, S. E. H. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of nutrition and dietetics research activity in Arab countries using ISI Web of Science database. Springer Plus, 3(1), 7-18. 10. Mahapatra, M (1985). On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature. Proceedings of the 15 th IASLIC Conference, Bangalore (pp. 61-70). Bangalore. 11. Subramanian, K (1983), Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A Review, Journal of Information Science, 6 (1), 33-38. 12. Poornima, A., Surulinathi, M., Amsaveni, N. & Vijayaragavan, M. (2011). Mapping the Indian research productivity of food science and technology: A scientometric analysis. Food Biology, 1(1), 36-41. Follow us on: IRJLIS, Facebook, Twitter 133