Subtopic Deep Dive
Bibliometric Analysis of Psychology Publications
Research Guide
What is Bibliometric Analysis of Psychology Publications?
Bibliometric analysis of psychology publications applies citation metrics, h-index calculations, and co-authorship networks to evaluate research productivity, impact, and collaboration trends in psychological sciences.
This subtopic examines databases like Web of Science and Scopus for psychology journal outputs, identifying top producers and thematic shifts. Key studies analyze over 108,000 psychology documents for country rankings and journal impacts (Navarrete-Cortés et al., 2010). Approximately 10 major papers from 2006-2024, with citations ranging from 35 to 115, focus on comparative database evaluations and regional productions.
Why It Matters
Bibliometric analysis reveals country-level disparities in psychology research output, such as Latin American coverage gaps in Web of Science versus Scopus (Santa & Herrero-Solana, 2010). It informs journal selection criteria for funding bodies, as detailed in ISI standards applied to Spanish journals (Ruíz-Pérez et al., 2006). These insights guide policy on research priorities and equity in psychological sciences, tracking subfield growth like cognitive psychology.
Key Research Challenges
Database Coverage Disparities
Web of Science and Scopus show inconsistent coverage of psychology publications from regions like Latin America, affecting global rankings (Santa & Herrero-Solana, 2010). Comparative studies highlight varying citation counts and journal inclusions (Delgado López-Cózar & Repiso, 2013).
Indicator Standardization Gaps
Lack of uniform reporting for bibliometric metrics like h-index and impact factors complicates cross-study comparisons in psychology (Mayta-Tovalino et al., 2024). Proposals like RAMIBS aim to standardize health sciences bibliometrics but need psychology adaptation.
Regional Production Biases
Psychology output analyses reveal dominance by certain countries, underrepresenting emerging producers like Peru and Ecuador (Limaymanta et al., 2020). Weighted impact factors expose visibility inequalities (Navarrete-Cortés et al., 2010).
Essential Papers
The impact of scientific journals of communication: Comparing Google Scholar Metrics, Web of Science and Scopus
Emilio Delgado López‐Cózar, Rafael Repiso · 2013 · Comunicar · 115 citations
Google Scholar Metrics' launch in April 2012, a new bibliometric tool for the evaluation of scientific journals by means of citation counting, has ended with the duopoly exerted by the Web of Scien...
Comparación entre Web of Science y Scopus, Estudio Bibliométrico de las Revistas de Anatomía y Morfología
Vicenç Hernández‐González, Nuria Sans-Rosell, M.C. Jové-Deltell et al. · 2016 · International Journal of Morphology · 75 citations
El objetivo de este trabajo es comparar los indicadores bibliométricos básicos del área de anatomía y morfología \ndentro de las bases de datos de Web of Science (en adelante WoS) y Scopus. La ...
El profesional de la información (EPI): Bibliometric and thematic analysis (2006-2017)
José-Ricardo López-Robles, Javier Guallar, José-Ramón Otegi-Olaso et al. · 2019 · El Profesional de la Informacion · 71 citations
The current research conducts a bibliometric performance and intellectual structure analysis of El profesional de la información (EPI) from 2006 to 2017. On the one hand, the EPI's performance is a...
Global psychology: a bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications
José Navarrete Cortés, Juan Antonio Fernández-López, Alfonso López-Baena et al. · 2010 · Universitas Psychologica · 67 citations
In this study, we carried a classification by country based on the analysis of the scientific production of psychology journals. We analyzed a total of 108,741 documents, published in the Web of Sc...
Criterios del Institute for Scientific Information para la selección de revistas científicas. Su aplicación a las revistas españolas: metodología e indicadores
Rafael Ruíz-Pérez, Emilio Delgado López‐Cózar, Evaristo Jiménez‐Contreras · 2006 · Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) · 57 citations
Las bases de datos del ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) se han \nconvertido no sólo en un instrumento imprescindible para la búsqueda y recuperación \nde información científica si...
<i>Clasificación integrada de revistas científicas (CIRC)</i>: propuesta de categorización de las revistas en ciencias sociales y humanas
Daniel Torres‐Salinas, María Bordons, Elea Giménez‐Toledo et al. · 2010 · El Profesional de la Informacion · 43 citations
[EN] A proposal for a qualitative classification of scientific journals specialized in social sciences and humanities is presented. The main objective of CIRC (in Spanish, “Clasificación integrada ...
Cobertura de la ciencia de América Latina y el Caribe en Scopus vs Web of Science
Samaly Santa, Víctor Herrero-Solana · 2010 · Investigación Bibliotecológica Archivonomía Bibliotecología e Información · 39 citations
El propósito del presente trabajo es analizar y comparar el grado de cobertura de las revistas, la producción científica y la visibilidad que tienen los mayores productores de América Latina y el C...
Reading Guide
Foundational Papers
Start with Navarrete-Cortés et al. (2010) for global psychology Web of Science analysis of 108k documents, then Delgado López-Cózar & Repiso (2013) for database comparisons establishing core metrics.
Recent Advances
Study Mayta-Tovalino et al. (2024) for RAMIBS standardization guidelines and Limaymanta et al. (2020) for Peru-Ecuador psychology production trends.
Core Methods
Core techniques: h-index and Weighted Impact Factor from Web of Science (Navarrete-Cortés et al., 2010), journal classification via CIRC (Torres-Salinas et al., 2010), and coverage comparisons between Scopus and Web of Science (Hernández-González et al., 2016).
How PapersFlow Helps You Research Bibliometric Analysis of Psychology Publications
Discover & Search
Research Agent uses searchPapers and exaSearch to retrieve psychology bibliometric papers like 'Global psychology: a bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications' by Navarrete-Cortés et al. (2010). citationGraph maps collaboration networks from 250M+ OpenAlex papers, while findSimilarPapers identifies comparative database studies.
Analyze & Verify
Analysis Agent employs readPaperContent to extract metrics from Delgado López-Cózar & Repiso (2013), then runPythonAnalysis with pandas to compute h-index trends across 108,000+ documents. verifyResponse via CoVe and GRADE grading ensures citation accuracy, verifying regional biases with statistical tests.
Synthesize & Write
Synthesis Agent detects gaps in psychology coverage analyses, flagging contradictions between Scopus and Web of Science. Writing Agent uses latexEditText, latexSyncCitations for 10 key papers, and latexCompile to generate formatted reports with exportMermaid for co-authorship diagrams.
Use Cases
"Compute h-index trends for top psychology journals from Web of Science data 2010-2024"
Research Agent → searchPapers → Analysis Agent → runPythonAnalysis (pandas h-index calc on extracted citations) → matplotlib plot export.
"Draft LaTeX report comparing psychology output in Scopus vs Web of Science"
Research Agent → citationGraph (Navarrete-Cortés et al., 2010) → Synthesis Agent → gap detection → Writing Agent → latexSyncCitations + latexCompile → PDF report.
"Find GitHub repos with code for bibliometric psychology networks"
Research Agent → paperExtractUrls (Mayta-Tovalino et al., 2021) → Code Discovery → paperFindGithubRepo → githubRepoInspect → runPythonAnalysis sandbox.
Automated Workflows
Deep Research workflow conducts systematic review of 50+ psychology bibliometric papers, chaining searchPapers → citationGraph → GRADE-verified report on trends. DeepScan applies 7-step analysis with CoVe checkpoints to validate database comparisons from Delgado López-Cózar & Repiso (2013). Theorizer generates hypotheses on future psychology collaboration shifts from network data.
Frequently Asked Questions
What defines bibliometric analysis of psychology publications?
It uses citation counts, h-index, and networks to assess productivity and impact in psychology journals from databases like Web of Science (Navarrete-Cortés et al., 2010).
What are common methods in this subtopic?
Methods include Weighted Impact Factor calculations and country classifications from 108,741 Web of Science psychology documents (Navarrete-Cortés et al., 2010), plus Google Scholar Metrics comparisons (Delgado López-Cózar & Repiso, 2013).
What are key papers?
Top papers: 'Global psychology' (Navarrete-Cortés et al., 2010, 67 citations) analyzes 108k documents; 'The impact of scientific journals' (Delgado López-Cózar & Repiso, 2013, 115 citations) compares databases.
What open problems exist?
Standardizing metrics across databases for psychology (Mayta-Tovalino et al., 2024) and addressing Latin American underrepresentation (Santa & Herrero-Solana, 2010) remain unresolved.
Research Psychology Research and Bibliometrics with AI
PapersFlow provides specialized AI tools for Psychology researchers. Here are the most relevant for this topic:
Systematic Review
AI-powered evidence synthesis with documented search strategies
AI Literature Review
Automate paper discovery and synthesis across 474M+ papers
Find Disagreement
Discover conflicting findings and counter-evidence
Deep Research Reports
Multi-source evidence synthesis with counter-evidence
See how researchers in Social Sciences use PapersFlow
Field-specific workflows, example queries, and use cases.
Start Researching Bibliometric Analysis of Psychology Publications with AI
Search 474M+ papers, run AI-powered literature reviews, and write with integrated citations — all in one workspace.
See how PapersFlow works for Psychology researchers