​​​

Increasing the 'quantity' of research should not be the ultimate goal for promoting any research field. Unfortunately, while other indicators of publication impact (eg, the h index) are being used to assess a scholar's eminence in his or her field, the absolute number of publications remains a key measure of a researcher's competency, affecting recruitment to academic positions, grant funding, and even job security. The pressure to publish or perish has decreased the value of research outcomes, as researchers tend to spend time scrambling to publish whatever they can manage, rather than spending time developing a significant and impactful research agenda. The increased focus on the number of publications has even been linked to (a) unethical research practices, such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, fraud, and ghost authors; (b) wasting resources and full studies; and (c) the growth of predatory journals. Academic institutions should curb these practices by giving adequate attention to the quality of scholarly work.

This research group is interested in the analysis of bibliographic information to evaluate various aspects of scholarly communication. It examines patterns of publication, citation, and collaboration within a particular field or across multiple disciplines. Researchers use bibliometric methods to measure the impact of publications, identify influential authors or journals, track trends in research topics, and assess the productivity of individuals, institutions, or countries.

​We welcome researchers keen on innovative approaches to explore bibliometric analyses. If you're passionate about exploring publication and citations patterns, uncovering trends, or creating new metrics, join us! Together, let's decode the world of scholarly data and uncover new horizons in research.