Very good. I have a doubt. I would love to hear your comment on it. In recent months, I have been reflecting on the apparent prevalence of certain predatory mega-journals, in particular MDPI's Sustainability, which stands out as the journal with the most publications on various topics, according to various tourism bibliometrics. However, this observation has led me to consider the need for further analysis. Specifically, it has caught my attention that when using the percentage of publications in relation to the specific research topic in percentage terms (number of articles on a topic divided by the total number of articles published), the magnitude of the contribution decreases drastically. To illustrate this point, let me present a hypothetical example: Journal A has published 10 articles on prospect theory in the last five years, but its total output is 600 articles. In comparison, Journal B has published 25 articles on prospect theory in the same period, but its total publication volume exceeds 49,000 articles. Some bibliometrics would say that Journal B is the one that publishes the most, however, it is just a matter of gaining by quantity. I gave the journals weights based on their percentages (Weight of journal = Percentage of Journal / Highest Percentage among journals) then I did the min-max normalisation (Normalised weight = (Weight of Journal−Min Weight) / (Max Weight−Min Weight)), Then I created a Weighted Metric with Normalisation (multiplying the normalised * their weight). The use of min-max normalisation in this one is correct? Do you think there is a better approach?
