A Meta-Bibliometric Analysis: Mapping Open-Access Bibliometric Research
Keywords:
Bibliometric Analysis, Meta-bibliometric, Open Access, Bradford’s Law, Core Journals, Altmetric Attention Score, Citation Analysis.Abstract
This study presents a meta-bibliometric analysis of open-access (OA) bibliometric literature to examine its growth patterns, intellectual structure, collaboration networks, and research impact. A dataset of 10,338 English-language open-access journal articles indexed in the Scopus database (1976-2024) was analysed using Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny, VOSviewer, and Microsoft Excel. Traditional bibliometric indicators were employed to identify the most productive countries, institutions, authors, and publications, while Bradford's Law was applied to identify core journals. Collaboration networks, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic evolution were analysed to reveal the intellectual structure of the field. Scholarly and societal impact were assessed using citation counts and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS). The findings reveal a substantial growth in open-access bibliometric research, with China emerging as the leading contributor and Central South University and Huazhong University of Science and Technology among the most productive institutions. Bradford's Law identified a small group of multidisciplinary and information science journals as the core publication sources. Network visualisation further demonstrated strong international collaboration and highlighted major research themes related to open science, research evaluation, citation analysis, and science mapping. The findings suggest that open-access publishing has significantly enhanced the visibility, collaboration, and scholarly influence of bibliometric research. By integrating traditional bibliometric indicators with Altmetric Attention Scores, this study provides a comprehensive perspective on the intellectual and societal impact of open-access bibliometric research and offers insights for researchers, librarians, research managers, and policymakers.
Downloads
References
A, S., Taj, A., & Nair, A. R. (2025). Advancing Open Science: A Bibliometric study of Scholarly Metadata Research (1995–2024). Science & Technology Libraries, 45(1), 100–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262x.2025.2517089
Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001
Altmetric. (2020). What is the Altmetric Attention Score? Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com
Arencibia-Jorge, R., Vega-Almeida, R. L., & González-Benito, O. (2016). The structure of bibliometric indicators: A meta-bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1823–1837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2110-y.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Basumatary, B., Verma, A.K. & Verma, M.K. Global research trends on aquaponics: a systematic review based on computational mapping. Aquacult Int 31, 1115–1141 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-022-01018-y
Basumatary, B., Verma, A.K., Kushwaha, S. et al. Global research trends and performance measurement on biofloc technology (BFT): a systematic review based on computational techniques. Aquacult Int 32, 215–240 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-023-01162-z
Bautista-Puig, N., Lopez-Illescas, C., de Filippo, D., & Moed, H. F. (2020). Do altmetrics favor open access? An analysis of the attention received by open access and non-open access publications. Scientometrics, 122(2), 1165–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03308-4
Bonitz, M. (1982). Scientometrie, Bibliometrie, Informetrie. Zent Bibliothekswesen 96, 19–24
Borgohain, D. J., Yuvaraj, M., & Verma, M. K. (2023). Analysing the relationship between altmetric attention score (AAS) and citation: a correlational study. Information Discovery and Delivery, 52(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/idd-05-2022-0035
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a changing research landscape. EMBO Reports, 15(12), 1228–1232. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439608.
Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal, 137, 85–86.
Brookes, B. (1985). “Sources of information on specific subjects” by S.C. Bradford. Journal of Information Science, 10(4), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158501000406
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Cao, C. (2014). China’s rising research productivity in context. Nature, 513(7519), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/513034a
Coalition S. (2018). Plan S: Making full and immediate open access a reality. Retrieved from https://www.coalition-s.org
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
C, V., & H, R. B. (2023). Evaluating the citations and social attention difference between open access and paywalled LIS literature. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 43(06), 426–431. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.43.06.18984
Dagli, N., Haque, M., & Kumar, S. (2023). Bibliometric Analysis of Bibliometric Analyses on Oral Health Literature (1999-2024): A Meta-Bibliometric Approach. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v23i4.76501
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Egghe, L. (1986). An improvement of the law of Bradford. Journal of Documentation, 42(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026797
Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., ... & Barabási, A. L. (2018). Science of science. Science, 359(6379), eaao0185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159502100104
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 257–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12
González-Alcaide, G., Park, J., Huamaní, C., & Ramos, J. M. (2017). Dominance and leadership in research activities: Collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182513. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182513
Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Holmberg, K., Hedman, J., Bowman, T. D., Didegah, F., & Laakso, M. (2019). Do articles in open access journals have more frequent altmetric activity than articles in subscription-based journals? An investigation of the research output of Finnish universities. Scientometrics, 122(1), 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03301-x
Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017919924342
Hu, A. G. Z., & Jefferson, G. H. (2008). Science and technology in China. In Cambridge University Press eBooks (pp. 286–336). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511754234.010
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PLOS ONE, 9(7), e101698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101698
Joshi, S. B., Mamdapur, G. M. N., & Rajgoli, I. U. (2015). Application of Bradford’s Law of Scattering to the literature of Stellar Physics. Pearl a Journal of Library and Information Science, 9(3), 133. https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-6922.2015.00018.2
Karlstrøm, H., Aksnes, D. W., & Piro, F. N. (2024c). Benefits of open access to researchers from lower-income countries: A global analysis of reference patterns in 1980–2020. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515241245952
Khan, A., Goodell, J. W., Hassan, M. K., & Paltrinieri, A. (2021). A bibliometric review of finance bibliometric papers. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102520
Kumar, A., Verma, S., & Dixit, K. (2022). Bibliometric study of lis doctoral thesis submitted to the Panjab University, Chandigarh with special emphasis on application of bradford’s law. Gyankosh- the Journal of Library and Information Management, 13(1and2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-3182.2022.00007.7
Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of electronic resources in medical libraries, 7(3), 196-217.
Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 819–841.
Mejia, C., Wu, M., Zhang, Y., & Kajikawa, Y. (2021). Exploring topics in bibliometric research through citation networks and semantic analysis. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.742311
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3714-7
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2015). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Nicolaisen, J., & Hjørland, B. (2007). Practical potentials of Bradford’s law: a critical examination of the received view. Journal of Documentation, 63(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710743298
OECD (2023). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org
Oraon, A. D., Saikia, S., & Verma, M. K. (2025). Exploring emerging trends and performance metrics in internet gaming disorder (IGD): a systematic review based on computational mapping. Global Knowledge Memory and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-06-2024-0377
Patra, S. K., Bhattacharya, P. P., & Verma, N. (2006). Bibliometric study of literature on bibliometrics. E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II), 26(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.26.1.3672
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. In PeerJ (Vol. 6, p. e4375). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
Price, D. J. de S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2012). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.
Quan, W., & Wei, M. (2026). Structural characteristics and impact factors of international scientific research collaboration networks in open-access publications: An empirical analysis based on PLoS ONE. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515251400547
R Core Team. R (2019). A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Found Stat Comput.
Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2017). Being metric-wise: Heterogeneity in bibliometric knowledge. El Profesional De La Informacion, 26(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.may.14
Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., and Guns, R. (2018). Becoming Metric-Wise:A Bibliometric Guide for Researchers. Chapter 1.
Schotten, M., Aisati, M. E., Meester, W. J. N., Steiginga, S., & Ross, C. A. (2017). A brief history of Scopus: the world’s largest abstract and citation database of scientific literature. In Auerbach Publications eBooks (pp. 31–58). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315155890-3
Sengupta, I. N. (1992). Bibliometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics and Librametrics: An Overview. Libri 42, 75–98. doi:10.1515/libr.1992.42.2.75
Shenton, A. K., & Hay-Gibson, N. V. (2011). Bradford’s Law and its relevance to researchers. Education for Information, 27(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-2009-0882
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5, 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Wagner, C. S., Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in Research: a conundrum for national governments. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0131816. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131816
Wang, X., Xu, S., Wang, Z., Peng, L., & Wang, C. (2012). International scientific collaboration of China: collaborating countries, institutions and individuals. Scientometrics, 95(3), 885–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0877-4
Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., ... & Johnson, B. (2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
Xie, Q., & Freeman, R. B. (2019). Bigger than you thought: China’s contribution to scientific publications and its impact on the global economy. China & World Economy, 27(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12265
You, X. (2025). China leads research in 90% of crucial technologies — a dramatic shift this century. Nature, 649(8095), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-04048-7
Yuvaraj, M., & Borgohain, D. J. (2024). Evaluating the relationship between altmetric attention and scholarly visibility in open access research communication. Information Discovery and Delivery, 52(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-05-2022-0035
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Indian Library Association
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
