A Scientometric Analysis of Neuroblastoma Research

Abstract

Background: There are thousands of research articles in the field of neuroblastoma that have been published over the past few decades. However, the heterogeneity and variable quality of scholarly data may challenge scientists or clinicians to survey all published articles. However, holistic measuring and analyzing of neuroblastoma related literature by sophisticated mathematical methods can provide a unique opportunity to gain deep insights into the global research performance and collaborative architectonical structure within the neuroblastoma scientific community. In this scientometric study, we aim to determine the extent of the scientific output related to neuroblastoma research, focusing on the time period between 1980 and 2018. Methods: We apply novel scientometric tools, including Bibliometrix R package, biblioshiny, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace IV for comprehensive science mapping analysis of extensive bibliographic metadata which was retrieved from the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection database. Results: We demonstrate the enormous proliferation of neuroblastoma research during last the 38 years, including 12,435 documents published in 1,828 academic journals by 36,908 authors from 86 different countries. We determine the proportion of highly cited and never cited papers, “occasional” and “core” authors and journals. We identify the six most important clusters of authors and their interactions. Further, we show 10 (11.6%) of 86 countries were responsible for the three quarters of NB-related research output. Conclusions: These findings are crucial for researchers, clinicians, journal editors, and consortiums working in neuroblastoma area to understand the strengths and potential gaps in neuroblastoma research and to plan future investments in data collection and science policy. This first scientometric study of global neuroblastoma research performance provides valuable insight into the scientific landscape, co-authorship network architecture, international collaboration, and interaction within the neuroblastoma community.

AI in marketing, consumer research and psychology: A systematic literature review and research agenda

“…Finally, we retrieved the metadata for these 4,488 articles which included author names, titles, country of corresponding author, total number of publications, citation counts (i.e., total citations, average article citations, and number of citing articles with and without selfcitations), journal sources, keywords, countries and regions, and author-level metrics (c.f., Martynov et al, 2020).…”

A Bibliometric Analysis for Global Trends and Full View of the Autophagy in Ischemic Stroke from 2006 to 2022

“…As a tool widely used for qualitative and quantitative analysis of global scientific literature, bibliometric analysis can effectively show the knowledge structure and possible development trend of specific fields through information visualization [16][17][18]. Bibliometric analysis has been performed in the research field of nervous system diseases [19,20]. However, the specific mechanism of autophagy in ischemic stroke is still unknown [21], and the role of autophagy in ischemic stroke cannot be ignored.…”

Oman's COVID-19 publication trends: A cross-sectional bibliometric study

“…Internationally, it was estimated that 4% of the world's research output was devoted to the coronavirus in 2020, but 2020 also observed an exponential increase in publications on all subjects submitted to scientific journals, perhaps many researchers had to stay at home and focus on writing up papers rather than conducting science [ [17] , [18] , [19] ]. Bibliometric studies provide interesting methods for measuring the scientific value of a particular field over a specific time [ [12] , [13] , [14] ].…”

“…The known increase in COVID-19 pandemic research productivity worldwide, requires attention to bibliometric analysis of the local publication patterns to shed light on where we stand. Bibliometric studies or scientometric assessment has been utilized to assess the scientific output of different world regions in several scientific fields [ [12] , [13] , [14] ]. Noteworthy, GCC countries bibliometric indicators suggested general paucity in productivity and reduced visibility compared to other countries [ 12 , 15 ].…”