Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2022): "Ethics and Deontology" Journal

About ethics: Scientometric Research in WoS Core Collection (2011-2021)

https://doi.org/10.52744/RED.2022.02.02
Victor VELTER
Laura MANEA
Transilvania University of Brașov
Cristina SALCĂ ROTARU
Universitatea Transilvania din Brașov

"Ethics and Deontology" Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2 (2022): "Ethics and Deontology" Journal

Abstract

Cercetările actuale despre etică sunt în mare parte punctuale, încercând să identifice o problemă sau să găsească o soluție. Chiar și cercetările scientometrice despre etică urmează acest model. Considerăm că este necesar să aruncăm o privire mai atentă și să avem o imagine de ansamblu asupra a ceea ce reprezintă etica astăzi și spre ce se îndreaptă, în ceea ce privește literatura de specialitate din ultimii ani (2011-2021). Folosind metoda cercetării scientometrice, prin interogarea bazei de date Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, au fost stabilite două grupuri de cercetare asupra cărora au fost aplicate 10 criterii de analiză aferente noii interfețe WoS (lansată în 2021). Rezultatele studiului sunt prezentate în 22 de tabele care sunt interpretate printr-o abordare calitativă. Noutatea cercetării este evidențiată de interpretarea celor 31 de articole din Tabelul S1, care reprezintă studii scientometrice de etică și care se regăsesc grupate în 7 tabele în cadrul articolului. Concluziile care se desprind ne indică o creștere substanțială a interesului pentru etică, o acoperire aproape generală a domeniilor de cercetare cu subiecte etice, o largă distribuție teritorială (pe țară) și instituțională (pe afiliere) a autorilor, o finanțare substanțială de cercetare în acest domeniu dar și o disponibilitate a revistelor și a autorilor de a acorda acces gratuit la aceste studii. Aceste rezultate pot sta la baza viitoarelor cercetări scientometrice și/sau rafinate calitativ, pe oricare dintre domeniile și subdomeniile de cercetare evidențiate, pentru orice autor care este interesat de etică în propriul domeniu de cercetare.

Keywords

Ethics scientometrics Clarivate analytics Web of Science VOS Viewer Etică scientometrie Clarivate analytics Web of Science VOS Viewer
VELTER, V., MANEA, L., & SALCĂ ROTARU, C. (2023). About ethics: Scientometric Research in WoS Core Collection (2011-2021). "Ethics and Deontology" Journal, 2(2), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.52744/RED.2022.02.02
References
  1. Abalkina, A. (2021). Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7123–7148. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11192-021-04056-0
  2. Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Härdtle, W., Heinrichs, H., Klein, A. M., Lang, D. J., Martens, P., & Walmsley, D. (2014). Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 103, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012
  3. Al-Shahi Salman, R., Beller, E., Kagan, J., Hemminki, E., Phillips, R. S., Savulescu, J., Macleod, M., Wisely, J., & Chalmers, I. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. The Lancet, 383(9912), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7
  4. Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M. (2020). Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals, 10(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385
  5. Avram, S., Velter, V., & Dumitrache, I. (2014). Semantic analysis applications in computational bibliometrics. Control Engineering and Applied Informatics, 16(1), 62–69.
  6. Balatsky, E., & Yurevich, M. (2016). The Misalignment of Russian Economists’ Scientometric Indicators in RISC. Zh. Novaya Ekon. Assotsiatsiya, 2, 176–180.
  7. Bedessem, B. (2020). Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science. Research Evaluation, 29(2), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz034
  8. Beskow, L. M., & Weinfurt, K. P. (2019). Exploring Understanding of „Understanding”: The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension. American Journal of Bioethics, 19(5), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1587031
  9. Borgoyakova, K., & Zemskov, A. (2018). Bibliometrics and hunting the predators. Nauchnye Tek. Bibl., 2, 89–100.
  10. Braidotti, R. (2019). A Theoretical Framework for the Critical Posthumanities. Theory, Culture and Society, 36(6), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418771486
  11. Brey, P. (2017). Ethics of Emerging Technology. The Ethics of Technology Methods and Approaches.
  12. Brey, P. A. E. (2012). Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0141-7
  13. Burget, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1
  14. Chang, C. H. (2011). The Influence of Corporate Environmental Ethics on Competitive Advantage: The Mediation Role of Green Innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0914-x
  15. Chang, V. (2021). An ethical framework for big data and smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165(December 2020), 120559. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.techfore.2020.120559
  16. Chenail, R. J., Cooper, R., & Desir, C. (2010). Strategically Reviewing the Research Literature in Qualitative Research. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 4(2).
  17. Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with meta‐analysis. Journal of Personality, 48(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-6494.1980.tb02379.x
  18. Dawson, A., & Jennings, B. (2012). The Place of Solidarity in Public Health Ethics. Public Health Reviews, 34(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03391656
  19. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mills, A., & Pattnaik, D. (2021). Journal of Marketing Education: A Retrospective Overview Between 1979 and 2019. Journal of Marketing Education, 43(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475321996026
  20. Esmailzadeh, M., Bahrami, M., & Soleymani, M. (2020). Competences of academic librarians in providing health research services: A qualitative study. J EDUC HEALTH PROMOT, 9(1).
  21. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2017). Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Ethics, 21(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2
  22. Funder, D. C., Levine, J. M., Mackie, D. M., Morf, C. C., Sansone, C., Vazire, S., & West, S. G. (2014). Improving the Dependability of Research in Personality and Social Psychology: Recommendations for Research and Educational Practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313507536
  23. García-Zorita, C., Marugán, S., De Filippo, D., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2021). Highly Cited Papers at the Spanish Domestic Level. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6(April), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.651991
  24. Garfield, E. (2006). of the Journal Impact Factor. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93.
  25. Garfield, E. (2011). Full Text downloads and citations: Some reflections. Keynote Lecture at the Seminar „Scientific Measurement and Mapping.” http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/ papers/santafe2011.pdf
  26. Garnett, A., Lee, G., & Illes, J. (2013). Publication trends in neuroimaging of minimally conscious states. PeerJ, 1.
  27. Gavrilova, L., & Voronova, N. (2019). Journals of Musical Art and Education in Scientometric Database Scopus: Netnographic Analysis. Interdiscip. Stud. Complex Syst., 15, 88–103.
  28. Gelinas, L., Pierce, R., Winkler, S., Cohen, I. G., Lynch, H. F., & Bierer, B. E. (2017). Using Social Media as a Research Recruitment Tool: Ethical Issues and Recommendations. American Journal of Bioethics, 17(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1276644
  29. Génova, G., Astudillo, H., & Fraga, A. (2016). The Scientometric Bubble Considered Harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9632-6
  30. Ghazavi, R., Taheri, B., & Ashrafi-Rizi, H. (2019). Article quality indicator: Proposing a new indicator for measuring article quality in scopus and web of science. Journal of Scientometric Research, 8(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.8.1.2
  31. Glanzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little Scientometrics, Big Scientometrics ... and Beyond. Scientometrics, 30(2–3), 375–384.
  32. Goldstein, L., & Kintigh, K. (1990). Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity, 55(3), 585–591.
  33. Greiner, R., & Gregg, D. (2011). Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2010.06.006
  34. Gureev, V. N., Lakizo, I. G., & Mazov, N. A. (2019). Unethical Authorship in Scientific Publications (A Review of the Problem). Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 46(4), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688219040026
  35. Guskov, A., & Kosyakov, D. (2020). National fractional calculations and evaluating organization’s science efficiency. Nauchnye Tek. Bibl., 9, 15–42.
  36. Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2017). Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of ‘Scientific Integrity.’ Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1461–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y
  37. Hu, Z., Cui, Y., Zhang, J., & Eviston-Putsch, J. (2020). Shalosh B. Ekhad: a computer credit for mathematicians. Scientometrics, 122(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03305-7
  38. Humberto Reyes, B., Bustos-González, A., Andresen, M. H., & Palma, J. H. (2013). La Revista Médica de Chile en el ano 2012. Rev Med Chile, 141, 1049–1056.
  39. Jacobs, N., & Huldtgren, A. (2018). Why value sensitive design needs ethical commitments. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(1), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9467-3
  40. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). „Utilitarian” judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
  41. Kalachikhin, P. A. (2019). Evaluating Researchers Based on the Criteria of Reputation Responsibility. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 46(4), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688219040117
  42. Laacke, S., Mueller, R., Schomerus, G., & Salloch, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence, Social Media and Depression. A New Concept of Health-Related Digital Autonomy. American Journal of Bioethics, 21(7), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1863515
  43. Leefmann, J., Levallois, C., & Hildt, E. (2016). Neuroethics 1995-2012. A bibliometric analysis of the guiding themes of an emerging research field. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(July), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00336
  44. Mahieu, R., van Eck, N. J., van Putten, D., & van den Hoven, J. (2018). From dignity to security protocols: a scientometric analysis of digital ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9457-5
  45. Mazov, N. A., & Gureev, V. N. (2016). The editorial boards of scientific journals as a subject of scientometric research: A literature Review. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 43(3), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688216030035
  46. Mazov, Nikolay A., & Gureev, V. N. (2020). Publications by editorial board of science journals as translated into bibliometric indicators (library and information science). Nauchnye Tek. Bibl., 11, 33–58.
  47. Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable : leniency towards ghost journals may. J Pak Med Assoc, 66(12), 1643–1647. https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/beinformed%0A https://www.edanzediting.com/journal-selector%0Ahttps://journalfinder.elsevier. com /%0A https://journalsuggester.springer.com/%0Ahttps://www.journalguide.com%0A http://jane.biosemantics.org%0Ahttps://endnote.com
  48. Minx, J. C., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Fuss, S., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., De Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Lenzi, D., Luderer, G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente Vicente, J. L., Wilcox, J., & Del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M. (2018). Negative emissions - Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b
  49. Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(3), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0008-0
  50. Nadeem, W., Juntunen, M., Hajli, N., & Tajvidi, M. (2021). The Role of Ethical Perceptions in Consumers’ Participation and Value Co-creation on Sharing Economy Platforms. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04314-5
  51. Negahdary, M. (2017). Identifying Scientific High Quality Journals and Publishers. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9541-4
  52. Noorhidawati, A., Aspura, M. K. Y. I., Zahila, M. N., & Abrizah, A. (2017). Characteristics of Malaysian highly cited papers. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 22(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol22no2.6
  53. Noruzi, A. (2017). Hot papers in library and information science from the point of view of research methods. Webology, 14(2), 1–5.
  54. Patra, S. K., & Das, A. K. (2019). Finding facets of academic integrity and plagiarism through the prism of a citation database. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 39(2), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.14163
  55. Qin, X., Wang, Z., Zhao, H., & Lars Bo, K. (2016). The focus and frontier of corporate social responsibility: a co-word analysis of articles in SSCI, 2001-2014. Nankai Business Review International, 7(2), 130–149.
  56. Saberi, S., Karamzadeh, R., Moghadam, P., Kadivari, M., Behbahani, B., Heydari, Z., Baharvand, H., Aminpour, F., & Vosough, M. (2019). Research Performance in Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine in Iran: A National Comprehensive Observation. ARCH IRAN MED, 22(6), 318–327.
  57. Sasvári, P., & Urbanovics, A. (2019). The Journals on the Domestic Lists of the IX Section of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Light of the Requirements of International Journal Selection. Public Financ. Q.-Hung., 64(3), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.35551/ PFQ_2019_3_4
  58. Savulescu, J., Persson, I., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics, 34(6), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12771
  59. Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.obhdp.2011.02.001
  60. Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-Serving Justifications: Doing Wrong and Feeling Moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414553264
  61. Shinyaeva, T. S., & Tarasevich, Y. Y. (2017). Scientometric Indicators and Collaboration Network as a Potential Tool for Gift Author Detection. Procedia Computer Science, 106(June 2016), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.03.002
  62. Sikes, R. S., & Gannon, W. L. (2011). Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy, 92(1), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-F-355.1
  63. Singh, S. K., Chen, J., Del Giudice, M., & El-Kassar, A. N. (2019). Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: Role of environmental training. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146(May), 203–211. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.032
  64. Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied Energy, 142, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy. 2015.01.002
  65. Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D., & Goldthau, A. (2016). Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy, 1(May). https://doi.org/10.1038/ nenergy.2016.24
  66. Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
  67. Taeihagh, A., & Lim, H. S. M. (2019). Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks. Transport Reviews, 39(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1494640
  68. Tarazona, A. M., Ceballos, M. C., & Broom, D. M. (2020). Human relationships with domestic and other animals: One health, one welfare, one biology. Animals, 10(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010043
  69. Teixeira, R. C., & Souza, C. (2017). Evoluão da inteligência competitiva com base em estudo métrico de sua literatura. Perspectivas Em Ciencia Da Informacao, 22(1), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/2037
  70. Truc, A., Claveau, F., & Santerre, O. (2021). Economic methodology: a bibliometric perspective. Journal of Economic Methodology, 28(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X. 2020.1868774
  71. Tsalikis, J., & Fritzsche, D. J. (2013). Business ethics: A literature review with a focus on marketing ethics. In Citation classics from the journal of business ethics (pp. 337–404).
  72. Tzafestas, S. (2018). Ethics and Law in the Internet of Things World. Smart Cities, 1(1), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities1010006
  73. Vărzaru, A. A., Bocean, C. G., & Nicolescu, M. M. (2021). Rethinking corporate responsibility and sustainability in light of economic performance. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052660
  74. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Niehaves, B., Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the Giant : on the Importance of. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2009), 1–12.
  75. Zemskov, A. (2016). Science Online XX Anniversary Conference. Personal impressions. Nauchnye Tek. Bibl., 12, 128–138.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 278 Download : 138