Comparative performance of adult social care research, 1996-2011: a bibliometric assessment
Please note: this is a legacy publication from CPEC (formely PSSRU at LSE).British Journal of Social Work 46 5 1282-1300
Available online: 15 April 2015
Abstract
Decision-makers in adult social care are increasingly interested in using evidence from research to support or shape their decisions. The scope and nature of the current landscape of adult social care research (ASCR) needs to be better understood. This paper provides a bibliometric assessment of ASCR outputs from 1996 to 2011. ASCR papers were retrieved using three strategies: from key journals; using keywords and noun phrases; and from additional papers preferentially citing or being cited by other ASCR papers. Overall 195,829 ASCR papers were identified in the bibliographic database Scopus, of which 16% involved at least one author from the UK. The UK output increased 2.45-fold between 1996 and 2011. Among selected countries, those with greater research intensity in ASCR generally had higher citation impact, such as the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands. The top-5 UK institutions in terms of volume of papers in the UK accounted for 26% of total output. We conclude by noting the limitations to bibliometric analysis of ASCR and examine how such analysis can support the strategic development of the field.
Decision-makers in adult social care are increasingly interested in using evidence from research to support or shape their decisions. The scope and nature of the current landscape of adult social care research (ASCR) needs to be better understood. This paper provides a bibliometric assessment of ASCR outputs from 1996 to 2011. ASCR papers were retrieved using three strategies: from key journals; using keywords and noun phrases; and from additional papers preferentially citing or being cited by other ASCR papers. Overall 195,829 ASCR papers were identified in the bibliographic database Scopus, of which 16% involved at least one author from the UK. The UK output increased 2.45-fold between 1996 and 2011. Among selected countries, those with greater research intensity in ASCR generally had higher citation impact, such as the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands. The top-5 UK institutions in terms of volume of papers in the UK accounted for 26% of total output. We conclude by noting the limitations to bibliometric analysis of ASCR and examine how such analysis can support the strategic development of the field.