Dear Editor,
In Chen et al. (Citation2015), under “Material and Methods,” the authors noted that, “For the research on MSW, author keyword and word cluster analyses were made using Microsoft Excel 2007, and the Global Citation Scores (GCS) and Local Citation Scores (LCS) were acquired by using HistCite.” Katz and Hicks (Citation1997) pointed out that, “the latest releases of PC software, such as Microsoft Excel, make it possible to develop graphical user interfaces into complex bibliometric data for a wide spectrum of researchers and policy analysts.” Microsoft Excel has been applied in the last decade by my coworkers and me for the analysis of scientific outputs, subject categories, journals, authors, countries, institutes, keywords, and word cluster analyses (Li and Ho Citation2008; Mao, Wang, and Ho Citation2010; Xie, Zhang, and Ho Citation2008; Zhang, Xie, and Ho Citation2010).
In Research emphasis: Author keywords, words in title, and KeyWords Plus, authors presented three figures including “Table 3. Top 30 most frequency of author keywords, 1997–2014.”, “Table 5. Top 20 most used single words in title, 1997–2014.”, and “Table 6. Top 30 most frequency of KeyWords Plus, 1997–2014.” Again, in the last decade, my coworkers and I proposed the distribution of words in the article title and abstract, author keywords, and KeyWords Plus in different periods (Xie, Zhang, and Ho Citation2008; Zhang, Xie, and Ho Citation2010); for example, a 2-year (Fu et al., Citation2014), a 4-year (Li et al. Citation2009), a 5-year (Ho and Ho Citation2015), and a 6-year (Ho, Satoh, and Lin Citation2010) interval, to evaluate trends in research topics.
Furthermore, “word cluster analysis” based on results of word analysis were also proposed (Mao, Wang, and Ho Citation2010) and applied in several research topics (Fu, Wang, and Ho Citation2013; Li et al. Citation2009). The concept of Tables 3, 5, and 6 in the original article (Chen et al. Citation2015) was presented in several research topics (Ho, Satoh, and Lin Citation2010; Li et al. Citation2009; Xie, Zhang, and Ho Citation2008). In recent years, similar rebuttals have also been published in Environmental Earth Sciences (Ho Citation2016a) and Scientometrics (Ho Citation2016b).
Similar comments have been reported (Ho Citation2016a, Citation2016b) that citing the original article is always recommended; it is not only respecting authors who presented a novel idea in research but also to read the original idea in the detail of the work (Ho Citation2014). When a scientific publication duplicates previously published idea, text, equations, or figures without any citations, it is frequently regarded as a sign of possible plagiarism (Hunter Citation1994; Noè and Batten Citation2006). In my view, Chen et al. (Citation2015) should have cited the original article for what they mentioned in their article, thereby providing greater accuracy and information details about the idea and the methods that they employed.
References
- Chen, H. B., W. Jiang, Y. Yang, Y. Yang, and X. Man. 2015. Global trends of municipal solid waste research from 1997 to 2014 using bibliometric analysis. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 65 (10):1161–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2015.1083913.
- Fu, H. Z., X. Long, and Y. S. Ho. 2014. China’s research in chemical engineering journals in Science Citation Index Expanded: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 98 (1):119–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1047-z.
- Fu, H. Z., M. H. Wang, and Y. S. Ho. 2013. Mapping of drinking water research: A bibliometric analysis of research output during 1992-2011. Sci. Total Environ. 443:757–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.061.
- Ho, H. C., and Y. S. Ho. 2015. Publications in dance field in Arts & Humanities Citation Index: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 105 (2):1031–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1716-1.
- Ho, Y. S. 2014. Comments on “Adsorption characteristics and behaviors of graphene oxide for Zn(II) removal from aqueous solution”. Appl. Surf. Sci. 301:584. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.02.040.
- Ho, Y. S. 2016a. Rebuttal to: “A bibliometric review on carbon cycling research during 1993–2013” by Zhi et al., (Environ Earth Sci 2015, 74 (7):6065–6075). Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (9):819. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5645-y.
- Ho, Y. S. 2016b. Rebuttal to: Liu et al., “Progress in global parallel computing research: A bibliometric approach”, vol. 95, pp 967–983. Scientometrics 108 (3):1693–94. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1993-3.
- Ho, Y. S., H. Satoh, and S. Y. Lin. 2010. Japanese lung cancer research trends and performance in Science Citation Index. Internal Med. 49 (20):2219–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.49.3687.
- Hunter, T. B. 1994. Point-counterpoint. Plagiarism: What is it, whom does it offend, and how does one deal with it? Acad. Radiol. 1 (2):191–93.
- Katz, J. S., and D. Hicks. 1997. Desktop scientometrics. Scientometrics 38 (1):141–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461128.
- Li, J. F., Y. H. Zhang, X. S. Wang, and Y. S. Ho. 2009. Bibliometric analysis of atmospheric simulation trends in meteorology and atmospheric science journals. Croat. Chem. Acta 82 (3):695–705.
- Li, Z., and Y. S. Ho. 2008. Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate contingent valuation research. Scientometrics 75 (1):97–110. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1838-1.
- Mao, N., M. H. Wang, and Y. S. Ho. 2010. A bibliometric study of the trend in articles related to risk assessment published in Science Citation Index. Hum Ecol. Risk Assess. 16 (4):801–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2010.501248.
- Noè, L. F., and D. J. Batten. 2006. ‘Publish or perish’: The pitfalls of duplicate publication. Palaeontology 49 (6):1365–67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00617.x.
- Xie, S. D., J. Zhang, and Y. S. Ho. 2008. Assessment of world aerosol research trends by bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 77 (1):113–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1928-0.
- Zhang, G. F., S. D. Xie, and Y. S. Ho. 2010. A bibliometric analysis of world volatile organic compounds research trends. Scientometrics 83 (2):477–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0065-3.