Guidance list improves reporting quality for bibliometric analyses
Guidance List for repOrting Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL): A Reporting Guideline Informed by a Two-Round Modified Delphi Study
Digital Libraries
Summary
Many studies analyze research papers using numbers and patterns, but there was no clear guide on how to report these analyses well. The authors created a list of 28 important items, called GLOBAL, to help researchers report bibliometric studies clearly and fully. They developed this list through expert feedback and testing. This guide aims to make these studies easier to understand and trust.
What this means in practice
- •For journal editors: Use the GLOBAL checklist to evaluate completeness and transparency of submitted bibliometric manuscripts.
- •For science communication teams: Standardize reporting of bibliometric studies to improve clarity and credibility in research impact assessments.
Authors
Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Niveen Syed, Dalia Zubashev, Michel Sabe, Marco Solmi, Dimity Stephen, Jens Peter Andersen, Lutz Bornmann, Rodrigo Costas, Marianne Gauffriau, Wolfgang Glänzel, Sybille Hinze, Cameron Neylon, Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, Alexander Schniedermann, Gunnar Sivertsen, Stephan Stahlschmidt, Thed van Leeuwen, Verena Weimer, Simon Willemin, Erija Yan, Alesia Zuccala, David Moher, Ludo Waltman, Stefanie Haustein
Abstract
Background: Despite the growth of bibliometric analyses, few studies offer guidance on how to report them, resulting in a lack of research transparency and completeness. To address this gap, we developed the Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL). Methods: An initial list of items for the GLOBAL was generated through a scoping review and refined through a modified two-round Delphi, as recommended by the EQUATOR Network. The guideline was finalized through a pilot test, where participants assessed their manuscripts using the checklist and Elaboration and Explanation (E&E) document, which outlines item expectations and provides examples. Results: The scoping review resulted in 32 items. In Round 1, 24 items reached consensus and thematic content analysis resulted in one additional item. This item, along with the eight items that did not reach consensus, were discussed in detail in Round 2. During the in-person meeting, one item was split into two, totalling ten voting items. Eight out of ten items reached consensus, five for inclusion and three for exclusion. Conclusions: The finalized 28-item GLOBAL (and its accompanying E&E document) provides users with a framework to report bibliometric analyses, aimed at promoting high-quality reporting of bibliometric analyses in scholarly literature.