Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Scientometrics›Bibliometric Analysis — Quantitative Mapping of Scientific Literature
Process / pipelineReview / evidence synthesis

Bibliometric Analysis — Quantitative Mapping of Scientific Literature

Bibliometric Analysis · Also known as: bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis

Bibliometric analysis applies statistical and mathematical methods to bibliographic records — publications, citations, authors, journals, and keywords — to measure and map the structure, output, and intellectual evolution of a research field. It is widely used to identify influential works, prolific authors, productive journals, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes across any academic discipline.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic CouplingCo-Citation AnalysisCo-word AnalysisScience MappingScientometric AnalysisSystematic Literature Re…bibliometrix-assisted bi…bibliometrix-assisted ci…bibliometrix-assisted co…bibliometrix-assisted ma…

+38 more

When to use it

Use bibliometric analysis when you need a systematic, reproducible overview of a large body of literature — typically 200 or more publications — and when your primary goal is to measure output, map influence, or trace the intellectual structure of a field rather than to synthesise the substantive content of individual studies. It is the preferred method for literature overviews in management, information science, economics, engineering, and health sciences when the corpus is too large for a full systematic review. Do not use it as a substitute for reading primary sources when a qualitative or content-based synthesis is required; bibliometrics describes the structure of knowledge but does not evaluate the quality or validity of individual studies.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Handles very large corpora (hundreds to tens of thousands of documents) that are impractical to read in full.
  • Reproducible and transparent: the search string, database, and indicators can be reported precisely and replicated.
  • Reveals macro-level patterns — growth trends, influential authors, seminal papers, collaboration networks — that are invisible when reading individual studies.
  • Versatile across disciplines and adaptable to different research questions by choosing appropriate indicators and visualisation methods.
  • Software tools (VOSviewer, bibliometrix, CiteSpace) automate the most labour-intensive computational steps.
Limitations
  • Counts publications and citations, not quality or validity; a highly cited paper may be influential because it is wrong or controversial.
  • Coverage is database-dependent: papers not indexed in Web of Science or Scopus are invisible to the analysis, creating systematic bias against non-English, non-journal, or open-access literature.
  • Citation lag means recent publications appear underrepresented relative to older ones, distorting trend analyses unless age-normalized indicators are used.
  • Author name disambiguation and institutional name variants require careful manual cleaning; errors propagate into all network analyses.

Frequently asked

What is the difference between bibliometrics and scientometrics?

Bibliometrics applies statistical methods to any body of literature, including books and grey literature. Scientometrics is a narrower sub-field focused specifically on measuring scientific and technological output — typically using journal articles and patents. In practice the terms are often used interchangeably in the literature, but scientometrics carries a stronger connotation of science policy and evaluation.

Which database should I use — Web of Science or Scopus?

Both are the most widely accepted sources for citation-based bibliometric research. Web of Science has a longer historical record (back to 1900 for some indices) and is traditionally preferred in natural sciences. Scopus covers more journals, particularly in social sciences and engineering, and has better coverage of non-English sources. Using both and combining the deduplicated results improves completeness. The choice should be justified in the methods section and its coverage limitations acknowledged.

How large does my corpus need to be?

There is no strict minimum, but bibliometric analysis adds most value when the corpus is too large to read in full — typically 200 or more documents. With fewer than 50 documents, a narrative or systematic review that reads each paper is usually more informative. Network analyses (co-citation, co-word) require a sufficient density of connections, so very small corpora produce sparse, uninterpretable networks.

Can I combine bibliometric analysis with a systematic review?

Yes, and increasingly this is recommended. A bibliometric overview can precede the systematic review to characterise the landscape, identify high-impact papers to prioritise, and reveal thematic clusters. The full-text reading phase of the systematic review then provides the qualitative content that bibliometrics cannot supply. This combined approach is sometimes called a 'systematic bibliometric review' or 'SBAR'.

Is bibliometrix or VOSviewer better?

They serve complementary functions. bibliometrix is an R package that provides a comprehensive suite of performance indicators, trend analyses, and network computations with scripted, reproducible workflows. VOSviewer is a standalone visualisation tool optimised for producing high-quality, interactive network maps. Many researchers use both: bibliometrix for indicator computation and VOSviewer for final map production.

Sources

  1. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349. link ↗
  2. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Bibliometric Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/bibliometric-analysis

Related methods

Bibliographic CouplingCo-Citation AnalysisCo-word AnalysisScience MappingScientometric AnalysisSystematic Literature Review

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Bibliographic CouplingBibliometrics↔ compare
  • Co-Citation AnalysisBibliometrics↔ compare
  • Co-word AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare
  • Science MappingBibliometrics↔ compare
  • Scientometric AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare
  • Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

bibliometrix-assisted bibliometric analysisbibliometrix-assisted citation analysisbibliometrix-assisted co-citation analysisbibliometrix-assisted mapping reviewbibliometrix-assisted narrative reviewbibliometrix-assisted PRISMA-based reviewbibliometrix-assisted rapid reviewbibliometrix-assisted science mappingbibliometrix-assisted scientometric analysisbibliometrix-assisted systematic literature reviewbibliometrix-assisted thematic evolution analysisCo-word AnalysisField-mapping Scientometric AnalysisField-mapping Scoping reviewIntegrative ReviewMapping ReviewMeta-Regression-Based Co-Word Analysismeta-regression-based meta-analysisNarrative ReviewNetwork-based Co-citation AnalysisNetwork-based Mapping reviewNetwork-based Meta-analysisNetwork-based Scientometric analysisPRISMA-compliant Co-citation analysisScientific Text MiningScientometric AnalysisScoping ReviewSystematic Literature ReviewThematic Evolution AnalysisTime-sliced Bibliographic couplingTime-sliced Bibliometric AnalysisTime-sliced Citation analysisTime-sliced Mapping reviewTime-sliced Meta-analysisTime-sliced Scientometric AnalysisTime-sliced Systematic literature reviewTime-sliced Thematic Evolution AnalysisVOSviewer-assisted citation analysisVOSviewer-assisted co-citation analysisVOSviewer-assisted co-word analysisVOSviewer-assisted meta-analysisVOSviewer-assisted science mappingVOSviewer-assisted scoping reviewVOSviewer-assisted systematic literature reviewVOSviewer-assisted thematic evolution analysis

Similar methods

Scientometric AnalysisNetwork-based Scientometric analysisbibliometrix-assisted bibliometric analysisField-mapping Scientometric AnalysisVOSviewer-assisted citation analysisVOSviewer-assisted systematic literature reviewTime-sliced Bibliometric AnalysisVOSviewer-assisted science mapping

Related reference concepts

BibliometricsCitation AnalysisScoping ReviewSystematic ReviewSystematic Review and Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review and Evidence Synthesis

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Bibliometric Analysis (Bibliometric Analysis). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/bibliometric-analysis · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)
Year
1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s
Type
Quantitative literature analysis
DataType
Bibliographic records (titles, authors, journals, citations, keywords)
Subfamily
Review / evidence synthesis
Related methods
Bibliographic CouplingCo-Citation AnalysisCo-word AnalysisScience MappingScientometric AnalysisSystematic Literature Review
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account