This study applied the bibliometric method to analyse the research trend in Architecture Education studies. The database provides published information on the publications, including their type, year, language, subject matter, source title, keywords, abstract, country, affiliation, citations, and authorship. Data analysis and data visualisation were performed using Microsoft Excel, Harzing’s Publish or Perish, and VOSviewer tools.
3.1. Publication Trends
To answer RQ1 (What is the current publication trend in architecture education?), we analysed the publication trend in architecture education using a total publication by document type, source type, languages, subject area, year, country, journal, and organisation. In order to analyse the data for this research, we used bibliographic information gathered from the Scopus database.
3.1.1. Document Type
The acquired data is initially examined depending on the source types and document types. Document type is the classification of a document based on its originality, such as an article, conference paper, or book chapter, to name a few. Meanwhile, source type is the classification of a source document, such as a journal, conference proceedings, book series, book, or trade publication.
The document published on architecture education was divided into ten different document types, as summarised in Table 2. As further evidence, almost half of the total publications take the form of articles (49.74%), followed by conference papers (32.52%) and book chapters (6.57%). Compared to the entire publication, other publications made up less than 4% respectively.
Table 2 Document Type
Document Type
|
Total Publications (TP)
|
Percentage (%)
|
Article
Conference Paper
Book Chapter
Review
Book
|
568
360
75
38
15
|
49.74
32.52
6.57
3.33
1.31
|
Total
|
1109
|
100.00
|
3.1.2. Documents’ Languages
According to Table 3, there are 17 various languages used for publication in this area of study. Most publications in this field of study are written in English (1050; 92.67%). At the same time, Spanish (23; 2.03%), Japanese (11; 0.97%), and Korean (11; 0.97%) are other regularly used languages. There have been 83 documents have been published in dual languages.
Table 3 Languages
Language
|
Total Publications (TP)*
|
Percentage (%)
|
English
|
1050
|
92.67%
|
Spanish
|
23
|
2.03%
|
Japanese
|
11
|
0.97%
|
Russian
|
11
|
0.97%
|
Korean
|
9
|
0.79%
|
Chinese
|
7
|
0.62%
|
Turkish
|
4
|
0.35%
|
Italian
|
3
|
0.26%
|
Portuguese
|
3
|
0.26%
|
Croatian
|
2
|
0.18%
|
French
|
2
|
0.18%
|
Hungarian
|
2
|
0.18%
|
Slovak
|
2
|
0.18%
|
Estonian
|
1
|
0.09%
|
Moldavian
|
1
|
0.09%
|
Moldovan
|
1
|
0.09%
|
Romanian
|
1
|
0.09%
|
Total
|
1133
|
100.00
|
*83 documents have been published in dual languages
3.1.3. Subject Area
Table 4 summarises the classification of the published documents based on the subject area. More than half of the total publications retrieved are in engineering (63.12%) and social science (51.67%). Other dominant subject areas are arts and humanities (24.89%) and computer science (22.72%).
Table 4 Subject Area
Subject Area
|
Total Publications (TP)
|
Percentage (%)
|
Engineering
|
700
|
63.12%
|
Social Sciences
|
573
|
51.67%
|
Arts and Humanities
|
276
|
24.89%
|
Computer Science
|
252
|
22.72%
|
Environmental Science
|
95
|
8.57%
|
Energy
|
70
|
6.31%
|
Mathematics
|
43
|
3.88%
|
Earth and Planetary Sciences
|
34
|
3.07%
|
Business, Management and Accounting
|
33
|
2.98%
|
Materials Science
|
27
|
2.43%
|
Psychology
|
20
|
1.80%
|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
|
18
|
1.62%
|
Physics and Astronomy
|
17
|
1.53%
|
Medicine
|
16
|
1.44%
|
Multidisciplinary
|
9
|
0.81%
|
Chemical Engineering
|
8
|
0.72%
|
Economics, Econometrics and Finance
|
6
|
0.54%
|
Health Professions
|
5
|
0.45%
|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
|
4
|
0.36%
|
Decision Sciences
|
4
|
0.36%
|
Neuroscience
|
3
|
0.27%
|
Chemistry
|
2
|
0.18%
|
*Some documents have multiple subject areas
3.1.4. Publication by Year and Annual Growth
The number of publications and citations per year is the most prominent measure for performance analysis in bibliometric analysis [9]. The researcher can track the development and evolution of the research subject over time by examining the documents according to the year of publication [8]. The year with the most papers produced was 2022, with a total of 111 documents (10%). The quantity of published documents exhibits ups and downs; however, overall publication trending has increased over the study period (see Figure 2).
Table 5 summarises the detailed citation statistics per year within the study period. The highest number of citations per publication (C/P) was in 2004 (15.5 citations per publication), and the number of cited publications (NCP) was highest in 2020 (69 cited publications). Meanwhile, publications in architecture education had the highest h-index in 2020 (11 h-index), while the g-index had the highest in 2019 (17 g-index).
Table 5 Total publications per year and citation matrix
Year
|
TP
|
%
|
NCP
|
TC
|
C/P
|
C/CP
|
h
|
g
|
2003
|
9
|
0.81
|
4
|
66
|
7.33
|
16.50
|
3
|
8
|
2004
|
4
|
0.36
|
3
|
62
|
15.50
|
20.67
|
2
|
4
|
2005
|
25
|
2.25
|
16
|
124
|
4.96
|
7.75
|
5
|
10
|
2006
|
21
|
1.89
|
15
|
112
|
5.33
|
7.47
|
6
|
10
|
2007
|
17
|
1.53
|
13
|
82
|
4.82
|
6.31
|
5
|
8
|
2008
|
22
|
1.98
|
11
|
129
|
5.86
|
11.73
|
3
|
11
|
2009
|
23
|
2.07
|
14
|
135
|
5.87
|
9.64
|
7
|
11
|
2010
|
37
|
3.34
|
23
|
232
|
6.27
|
10.09
|
6
|
14
|
2011
|
39
|
3.52
|
24
|
122
|
3.13
|
5.08
|
7
|
10
|
2012
|
43
|
3.88
|
26
|
288
|
6.70
|
11.08
|
7
|
16
|
2013
|
54
|
4.87
|
29
|
169
|
3.13
|
5.83
|
6
|
11
|
2014
|
51
|
4.60
|
29
|
166
|
3.25
|
5.72
|
7
|
11
|
2015
|
48
|
4.33
|
33
|
162
|
3.38
|
4.91
|
6
|
11
|
2016
|
55
|
4.96
|
35
|
191
|
3.47
|
5.46
|
8
|
11
|
2017
|
57
|
5.14
|
40
|
235
|
4.12
|
5.88
|
9
|
12
|
2018
|
75
|
6.76
|
57
|
383
|
5.11
|
6.72
|
10
|
15
|
2019
|
95
|
8.57
|
59
|
379
|
3.99
|
6.42
|
10
|
17
|
2020
|
106
|
9.56
|
69
|
380
|
3.58
|
5.51
|
11
|
15
|
2021
|
103
|
9.29
|
60
|
250
|
2.43
|
4.17
|
7
|
10
|
2022
|
111
|
10.0
|
40
|
160
|
1.44
|
4.00
|
6
|
10
|
2023
|
105
|
9.47
|
18
|
41
|
0.39
|
2.28
|
4
|
4
|
2024
|
9
|
0.81
|
0
|
0
|
0.00
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
1109
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: TP=total number of publications; NCP=number of cited publications; TC=total citations; C/P=average citations per publication; C/CP=average citations per cited publication; h=h-index; and g=g-index.
3.1.5 Publication by country and institution
In total, scholars from 77 distinct nations have contributed to the publication in the field of architecture education. The top 10 countries that contributed to the publications and citations in this study area are narrowed in Table 6. United States topped the list in terms of total publication (TP) and citation (TC) with a total of 162 (TP) and 631 (TC), also highest for h-index (13) and g-index (24). Meanwhile, Egypt was leading in average citations per publication (6.03).
Table 6 Top 10 Countries contributed to the publications
Country
|
TP
|
NCP
|
TC
|
C/P
|
C/CP
|
h
|
g
|
United States
|
162
|
82
|
631
|
3.90
|
7.70
|
12
|
22
|
Turkey
|
101
|
57
|
335
|
3.32
|
5.88
|
11
|
15
|
United Kingdom
|
89
|
57
|
459
|
5.16
|
8.05
|
11
|
19
|
Poland
|
67
|
47
|
217
|
3.24
|
4.62
|
8
|
10
|
Spain
|
52
|
42
|
285
|
5.48
|
6.79
|
8
|
15
|
Malaysia
|
45
|
25
|
123
|
2.73
|
4.92
|
6
|
9
|
China
|
43
|
10
|
43
|
1.00
|
4.30
|
4
|
6
|
Egypt
|
38
|
21
|
229
|
6.03
|
10.90
|
9
|
14
|
Australia
|
37
|
23
|
210
|
5.68
|
9.13
|
9
|
13
|
India
|
33
|
12
|
32
|
0.97
|
2.67
|
4
|
4
|
Notes: TP=total number of publications; NCP=number of cited publications; TC=total citations; C/P=average citations per publication; C/CP=average citations per cited publication; h=h-index; and g=g-index.
Table 7 provides a summary of the top 10 most productive institutions with at least 11 publications, which contributed to 14.61% (162) of total publications on architecture education in this study period. The majority of the particular institutions are from European countries, and the others are from North America (US) and Asia (Malaysia). With a total of 27 publications, the Politechnika Krakowska from Poland was the most productive university. This was followed by the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava from Slovakia (25 publications), with two other institutions from Malaysia and one from Spain, Turkey, the Netherlands, the United States, and Portugal, respectively. Notably, Taylor’s University Malaysia and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia from Malaysia are the only Asian representatives on the list.
Table 7 Top 10 most productive institutions with a minimum of eleven publications
Affiliation
|
Country
|
Total Publication
|
Politechnika Krakowska
|
Poland
|
27
|
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
|
Slovakia
|
25
|
Gdańsk University of Technology
|
Poland
|
18
|
Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya
|
Spain
|
16
|
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
|
Turkey
|
15
|
Delft University of Technology
|
Netherland
|
14
|
Taylor’s University Malaysia
|
Malaysia
|
13
|
La Salle
|
United States
|
12
|
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
|
Malaysia
|
11
|
Universidade de Lisboa
|
Portugal
|
11
|
3.1.6. Publications by Journal Title
Table 8 summarises the top 10 journals on architecture education research from 2003 to 2024. The first rank of total publication is World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education with 60 documents, followed by Global Journal of Engineering Education with 21 documents, and Open House International with 16 documents. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education also has the highest total citation (221) within the study period. In contrast, Sustainability Switzerland has the highest cite score (5.8 average citations received per document published in the journal).
Table 8 Top 10 publishing journal on architecture education research
Journal Title
|
TP
|
TC
|
Publisher
|
Cite Score
|
SJR 2021
|
SNIP 2021
|
World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education
|
60
|
221
|
World Institute for Engineering and Technology Education (WIETE)
|
2.1
|
0.307
|
0.424
|
Global Journal of Engineering Education
|
21
|
92
|
World Institute for Engineering and Technology Education (WIETE)
|
3.1
|
0.839
|
0.821
|
Open House International
|
16
|
45
|
Emerald
|
1.5
|
0.188
|
0.625
|
Archnet IJAR
|
15
|
154
|
Emerald
|
4.5
|
0.787
|
1.531
|
Frontiers of Architectural Research
|
14
|
161
|
Elsevier
|
4.7
|
0.592
|
1.643
|
Sustainability Switzerland
|
14
|
170
|
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
|
5.8
|
0.664
|
1.198
|
International Journal of Art and Design Education
|
11
|
82
|
Wiley-Blackwell
|
1.9
|
0.424
|
0.766
|
AIJ Journal of Technology and Design
|
10
|
4
|
Architectural Institute of Japan
|
0.3
|
0.23
|
0.871
|
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
|
9
|
74
|
Wiley-Blackwell
|
4.7
|
0.841
|
2.264
|
Project Baikal
|
9
|
1
|
Japan Architects Co., Ltd
|
0.5
|
0.158
|
0.891
|
Notes: TP = total number of publications; TC=total citations; CiteScore = average citations received per document published in the source title; SJR = SCImago Journal Rank measures weighted citations received by the source title; SNIP = source normalised impact per paper measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the source title’s subject field.
3.2. Citation pattern on architecture education
The second RQ (What are the current citation patterns for publication on architecture education?) attempts to discover the most significant papers on architecture education and visualise the publication’s citation patterns using the information we have acquired from the Scopus database. To respond to RQ2, we displayed the citation metrics and analysed the citation network of 1,109 documents using Harzing’s Publish and Perish and VOSviewer software. Accordingly, utilising the number of citations made by other works, citation analysis allows us to gauge the influence of the documents on architecture education.
3.2.1. Citation metrics
Table 9 summarises the citation metrics for the documents retrieved as of 4 February 2024. As observed, 3,868 reported citations for the 1,109 papers were retrieved, with an average of 184 citations per year.
Table 9 Citations metrics
Metrics
|
Data
|
Papers
|
1109
|
Citations
|
3868
|
Years
|
21
|
Cites_Year
|
184.19
|
Cites_Paper
|
3.49
|
Cites_Author
|
2298.46
|
Papers_Author
|
672.98
|
Authors_Paper
|
2.21
|
h_index
|
27
|
g_index
|
37
|
3.2.2. Highly cited articles
Meanwhile, Table 10 displays the top 20 articles that have been cited the most (based on the number of times being cited) during the research period (2003 – 2024). The table includes the total number of citations reported by Scopus. The article by Reinhart and Weissman [19] titled “The daylit area - Correlating architectural student assessments with current and emerging daylight availability metrics,” which was published in the Building and Environment currently has the most citations with 102 citations or an average of 23.75 per year. The second most cited article was “Global Architects: Learning and Innovation through Communities and Constellations of Practice,” published by Faulconbridge [20] in Environmental and Planning journal with a total of 92 citations and an average of 6.57 per year. The latest publication in the list was produced by Megahed and Hassan [21] titled “A Blended Learning Strategy: reimagining the post-COVID-19 Architectural Education,” which was published in Archnet-IJAR (38, or an average of 19 per year), ranked 15th.
Table 10 Top 20 highly cited articles
No.
|
Authors (Year)
|
Title
|
Cites
|
Cites
per Year
|
1
|
Reinhart & Weissman (2012) [19]
|
The daylit area - Correlating architectural student assessments with current and emerging daylight availability metrics
|
102
|
8.5
|
2
|
Faulconbridge (2010) [20]
|
Global architects: Learning and innovation through communities and constellations of practice
|
92
|
6.57
|
3
|
Faulconbridge (2019) [22]
|
The application of virtual reality technology in architectural pedagogy for building construction
|
69
|
13.8
|
4
|
Mills & Fullagar (2008) [23]
|
Motivation and flow: Toward an understanding of the dynamics of the relation in architecture students
|
63
|
3.94
|
5
|
Sánchez Riera et al. (2015) [24]
|
Geo-located teaching using handheld augmented reality: good practices to improve the motivation and qualifications of architecture students
|
51
|
5.67
|
6
|
Ellsworth (2005) [25]
|
Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy
|
48
|
2.4
|
7
|
Chu et al. (2019) [26]
|
Effects of formative assessment in an augmented reality approach to conducting ubiquitous learning activities for architecture courses
|
46
|
9.2
|
8
|
Rodriguez et al. (2018) [27]
|
Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects
|
44
|
7.33
|
9
|
Celani (2012) [28]
|
Digital Fabrication Laboratories: Pedagogy and Impacts on Architectural Education
|
43
|
3.58
|
10
|
Wright (2003) [29]
|
Introducing sustainability into the architecture curriculum in the United States
|
43
|
2.05
|
11
|
Boarin et al. (2020) [30]
|
Understanding students’ perception of sustainability in architecture education: A comparison among universities in three different continents
|
41
|
10.25
|
12
|
Webster (2005) [31]
|
The Architectural Review: A study of ritual, acculturation, and reproduction in architectural education
|
41
|
2.16
|
13
|
Embaby (2014) [32]
|
Heritage conservation and architectural education: “An educational methodology for design studios”
|
39
|
3.9
|
14
|
Canizaro (2012) [33]
|
Design-build in architectural education: Motivations, practices, challenges, successes and failures
|
39
|
3.25
|
15
|
Megahed & Hassan (2022) [21]
|
A blended learning strategy: reimagining the post-COVID-19 architectural education
|
38
|
19
|
16
|
Lymer (2009) [34]
|
Demonstrating professional vision: The work of critique in architectural education
|
37
|
2.47
|
17
|
Iranmanesh & Onur (2021) [35]
|
Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic
|
35
|
11.67
|
18
|
Ivarsson (2010) [36]
|
Developing the construction sight: Architectural education and technological change
|
35
|
2.5
|
19
|
Milovanović et al. (2020) [37]
|
Transferring COVID-19 challenges into learning potentials: Online workshops in architectural education
|
34
|
8.5
|
20
|
Milovanović et al. (2018) [38]
|
Factors affecting creativity in the architectural education process based on computer-aided design
|
30
|
5
|
3.2.3. Citation analysis by countries
The network visualisation map by countries of the citations is another intriguing aspect of them. The number of citations a document has obtained, or the total number of citations received by all documents published by a source, an author, an affiliation, or a country, is demonstrated by the citations attribute [39,40]. Figure 3 displays the network visualisation map of 40 countries based on the five-minimum number of documents and citations of an author. This network visualisation can also be observed in Table 7, which lists the number of citations each country has obtained. We can observe that the countries where architecture education studies obtained a significant number of citations were the United States, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Poland, and Spain.
3.2.4. Citation analysis by source
Figure 4 illustrates a network visualisation map of the citation of 19 sources based on the five-minimum number of documents of a source title and five minimum number of citations of a source title for the architecture education research. However, this visual only exhibits seven top source titles with the most total publications during the study period. Meanwhile, according to Table 11, currently, the five most highly cited source titles are Archnet Ijar (182), World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education (170), Global Journal of Engineering Education (134), Frontier of Architectural Research (128) and Sustainability Switzerland (120).
3.3. Themes in architecture education research
To answer the RQ3 (Which themes involving architecture education are the most well-liked among academics?), we conducted the co-occurrence analysis of the author’s keywords of the data retrieved from the Scopus dataset. The term “co-occurrence analysis” refers to the pairing or presence of two or more terms next to one another in the dataset [40]. When vital “words” from the publication’s implications and future study directions are incorporated into the analysis, it can allow scholars to expound on the substance of each theme cluster and foresee future research on the subject [9].
3.3.1. Top author’s keywords
The analysis of the author’s keywords is unquestionably essential for scholars searching for study trends [41] and monitoring the evolution of research topics [42]. Moreover, the content of an article is adequately reflected by an author’s keywords [43]. The analysis demonstrates (see Table 11) the most popular author’s keywords in two decades from 2003 to 2024 after eliminating duplicates caused by spelling variation (e.g., architectural education, architecture education, design studio, design studios). The top 5 most popular keywords identified in this study are Architecture education (420), Architecture (259), Students (219), Architectural Design (209) and Curriculum (186).
Table 11 Top author’s keywords
Author Keywords
|
Total Publications (TP)
|
Percentage (%)
|
Architecture Education
|
420
|
37.87
|
Architecture
|
259
|
23.35
|
Students
|
219
|
19.75
|
Architectural Design
|
209
|
18.85
|
Curriculum
|
186
|
16.77
|
Education
|
147
|
13.26
|
Studio
|
167
|
15.06
|
Teaching
|
82
|
7.39
|
Sustainable Development
|
52
|
4.69
|
Pedagogy
|
57
|
5.14
|
E-learning
|
40
|
3.61
|
Engineering Education
|
37
|
3.34
|
Sustainability
|
37
|
3.34
|
Design Process
|
36
|
3.25
|
Education Computing
|
36
|
3.25
|
Design Education
|
32
|
2.89
|
Surveys
|
28
|
2.52
|
Virtual Reality
|
26
|
2.34
|
Sustainable Architecture
|
36
|
3.25
|
Creativity
|
25
|
2.25
|
Higher Education
|
25
|
2.25
|
3.3.2. Network visualisation of author’s keywords
Further analysis was performed using VOSviewer, a programme for creating and visualising bibliometric networks, to map all the keywords provided for each document. Fig. 5 displays the network visualisation of the author keywords in architecture education research in this study period by considering the co-occurrence of each keyword that occurs at least five times. Accordingly, 53 keywords were identified. The network visualisation in Figure 5 indicates the strength of the relationship among keywords by displaying a variation in circle size, colours, font size, and thickness of the connecting lines. Note that keywords that are related to each other are indicated by the same colours. For instance, the terms architecture education, virtual reality, augmented reality, e-learning, urban design, architectural pedagogy, active learning, virtual design studio, and COVID-19 are in red because they are closely related and often co-occur together.
This map of visualisation contains eight clusters. Cluster 1 (highlighted in red) contains 15 keywords mostly related to digital-based learning in architectural education. Meanwhile, Cluster 2 (highlighted in green) consists of ten keywords related to CAD, Cluster 3 (highlighted in dark blue) contains nine keywords organised around the theme of sustainability, and Cluster 4 (highlighted in yellow) consists of six keywords related to student performance. In addition, Cluster 5 (highlighted in purple) contains six keywords that fall under the theme of the design studio. At the same time, Cluster 6 highlighted in turquoise) contains five keywords that fall under the theme of technology in architecture design education, and finally, Cluster 7 (highlighted in orange) consists of one keyword related to architectural practice.
3.4. Co-authorship Analysis
To answer the last RQ4 (What is the collaboration state of authorship in the architecture education research?), we analyse the number of authors per document, the most productive author with a minimum of 5 publications, co-authorship by authors, and co-authorship by countries.
3.4.1. Authorship Analysis
Based on our dataset, 32 authors from various affiliations published on the subject of architecture education from 2003 to 2024. Table 12 summarises the number of authors per document. There were 399 (35.98%) documents produced by a single author, while the remaining documents (703; 63.39%) are listed as multi-authored publications with between two and ten authors.
The top 17 most productive authors with a minimum of 5 publications are listed in Table 14. Fonseca D. from Universitat Ramon Lull was the most productive author (11 publications; 113 citations), followed by Redondo E. from Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (9 publications; 106 citations). Both of them were from Spain and had the highest h-index (6 h-index respectively). Meanwhile, Celani, G. topped for the average citation per publication,
Table 12 Number of Author(s) per document
Author Count
|
Total Publications (TP)
|
Percentage (%)
|
*0
|
7
|
0.63%
|
1
|
399
|
35.98%
|
2
|
344
|
31.02%
|
3
|
210
|
18.94%
|
4
|
76
|
6.85%
|
5
|
46
|
4.15%
|
6
|
10
|
0.90%
|
7
|
5
|
0.45%
|
8
|
6
|
0.54%
|
9
|
5
|
0.45%
|
12
|
1
|
0.09%
|
Total
|
1109
|
100.00
|
* No author is listed.
Table 13 Most productive authors with a minimum of 5 publications
Author’s Name
|
Affiliation
|
Country
|
TP
|
NCP
|
TC
|
C/P
|
C/CP
|
h
|
g
|
Fonseca, D.
|
Universitat Ramon Llull
|
Spain
|
11
|
11
|
113
|
10.27
|
10.27
|
6
|
10
|
Redondo, E.
|
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
|
Spain
|
9
|
9
|
106
|
11.78
|
11.78
|
6
|
9
|
Mari, T.S.
|
Taylor’s University Malaysia
|
Malaysia
|
7
|
2
|
9
|
1.29
|
4.50
|
1
|
3
|
Navarro, I.
|
Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya
|
Spain
|
7
|
7
|
51
|
7.29
|
7.29
|
4
|
7
|
Špaček, R.
|
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
|
Slovakia
|
7
|
6
|
29
|
4.14
|
4.83
|
4
|
5
|
Gunasagaran, S.
|
Taylor’s University Malaysia
|
Malaysia
|
6
|
1
|
6
|
1.00
|
6.00
|
1
|
2
|
Hassanpour, B.
|
Eastern Mediterranean University
|
Turkey
|
6
|
5
|
29
|
4.83
|
5.80
|
3
|
5
|
Kuppusamy, S.
|
University of Reading Malaysia
|
Malaysia
|
6
|
3
|
15
|
2.50
|
5.00
|
2
|
3
|
Utaberta, N.
|
UCSI University
|
Malaysia
|
6
|
4
|
15
|
2.50
|
3.75
|
2
|
3
|
Celani, G.
|
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
|
Brazil
|
5
|
4
|
63
|
12.60
|
15.75
|
3
|
5
|
Che-Ani, A.I.
|
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
|
Malaysia
|
5
|
5
|
13
|
2.60
|
2.60
|
2
|
3
|
Gregor, P.
|
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
|
Slovakia
|
5
|
5
|
20
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
3
|
4
|
Ilkovič, J.
|
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
|
Slovakia
|
5
|
5
|
23
|
4.60
|
4.60
|
3
|
4
|
Legény, J.
|
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
|
Slovakia
|
5
|
4
|
15
|
3.00
|
3.75
|
3
|
3
|
Olweny, M.R.O.
|
University of Lincoln
|
United Kingdom
|
5
|
3
|
13
|
2.60
|
4.33
|
3
|
3
|
Salama, A.M.
|
University of Northumbria
|
United Kingdom
|
5
|
4
|
16
|
3.20
|
4.00
|
1
|
4
|
Shareef, S.S.
|
Tishk International University
|
Iraq
|
5
|
4
|
33
|
6.60
|
8.25
|
3
|
5
|
Notes: TP=total number of publications; NCP=number of cited publications; TC=total citations; C/P=average citations per publication; C/CP=average citations per cited publication; h=h-index; and g=g-index.
3.4.2. Co-authorship by author
Figure 6 presents authors with a minimum productivity of one document and a minimum publication of one document, resulting in 27 circles representing one author, respectively.
3.4.3. Co-authorship by countries
The network visualisation map across nations in terms of co-authorship is portrayed in Figure 7. A total of 52 countries have met these standards based on each country having at least five documents and five citations, respectively.