Bibliometric analysis of scientific productivity performance of International journal of engineering and geosciences WOS example (2016-2024)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to reveal the scientific productivity performance of the International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences (IJEG) in internationally published scientific research. For this purpose, a filtering process was applied in the Web of Science (WoS) database to identify the scientific components associated with the journal, resulting in the retrieval of 182 scientific articles published between 2016 and 2024. Relevant tables and a BibTex data file containing qualitative and quantitative indicators of these articles' scientific components were obtained. Tables and graphs were generated from the WoS database, and the BibTex data file was analyzed using the Bibliometrix R (RStudio) statistical software. Based on the findings, a performance analysis was conducted within the scope of bibliometric analysis to assess IJEG's scientific productivity performance. Key findings include: IJEG published the most articles in *2024* and the fewest in *2016*. Selcuk University was the most affiliated institution, while the fewest articles were associated with 81 universities (listed as U₄₃-U₁₂₃ in the relevant table).Turkey was the most frequently associated country, while the fewest articles were linked to 15 countries (listed as V₉-V₂₃ in the relevant table). Additionally:In terms of average citations per article, IJEG performed best in 2018 and weakest in 2024. Regarding annual average citation count, the highest performance was in 2023, while the lowest was in 2024. Notably:The article titled “Avcı C, 2023, Int J Eng Geosci” with the Doi 10.26833/ijeg.987605 received the highest number of global citations, demonstrating the journal's strongest scientific productivity performance. Regarding the journal's impact factor: In both 2023 and 2024, IJEG's JIF Quartile (Q) value was Q₂.The JIF/JCI impact factor was 3.1 in 2023 and 2.5 in 2024.The JIF percentile was 65.9 in 2023 and 53.1 in 2024. In both years, the journal's publication categories were "Engineering" and "Geological". This analysis highlights IJEG's evolving impact and productivity trends in the fields of engineering and geosciences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.072 | 0.103 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".