Dataset Information

Intellectual Structure of Coronavirus Research: A Perspective From an Author Cocitation Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The present study examines the intellectual structure of research on coronavirus, as revealed from an author co-citation analysis using citation data retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection and mapped to the PubMed database. Four major dimensions are identified: I) outbreaks, II) viral structure and function, III) vaccine and therapeutic development, and IV) coronaviruses found in a range of animals. The "outbreaks" dimension is by far the most prominent, dominated by reports on the three recent major outbreaks: COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome. The focus of research on major outbreaks is on public health and clinical research, with focus on disease characterization, diagnosis, transmission, and clinical course. Notably, certain clinically important areas, such as mental health during outbreaks and viral surveillance, among others, did not stand out as identifiable specialties or topics in the coronavirus research landscape. Results from this study should contribute to the understanding of the coronavirus research landscape and to the identification of strengths and weaknesses of current research on COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Mei J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8025971 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intellectual Structure of Coronavirus Research: A Perspective From an Author Cocitation Analysis.

Mei Junyi J Zhao Dangzhi D Strotmann Andreas A

Frontiers in research metrics and analytics 20201110

The present study examines the intellectual structure of research on coronavirus, as revealed from an author co-citation analysis using citation data retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection and mapped to the PubMed database. Four major dimensions are identified: I) outbreaks, II) viral structure and function, III) vaccine and therapeutic development, and IV) coronaviruses found in a range of animals. The "outbreaks" dimension is by far the most prominent, dominated by reports on the th ...[more]

PMID: 33870058

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt has been argued that science and society are in the midst of a far-reaching renegotiation of the social contract between science and society, with society becoming a far more active partner in the creation of knowledge. On the one hand, new forms of knowledge production are emerging, and on the other, both science and society are experiencing a rapid acceleration in new forms of knowledge utilization. Concomitantly since the Second World War, the science underpinning the knowledge utilization field has had exponential growth. Few in-depth examinations of this field exist, and no comprehensive analyses have used bibliometric methods.MethodsUsing bibliometric analysis, specifically first author co-citation analysis, our group undertook a domain analysis of the knowledge utilization field, tracing its historical development between 1945 and 2004. Our purposes were to map the historical development of knowledge utilization as a field, and to identify the changing intellectual structure of its scientific domains. We analyzed more than 5,000 articles using citation data drawn from the Web of Science. Search terms were combinations of knowledge, research, evidence, guidelines, ideas, science, innovation, technology, information theory and use, utilization, and uptake.ResultsWe provide an overview of the intellectual structure and how it changed over six decades. The field does not become large enough to represent with a co-citation map until the mid-1960s. Our findings demonstrate vigorous growth from the mid-1960s through 2004, as well as the emergence of specialized domains reflecting distinct collectives of intellectual activity and thought. Until the mid-1980s, the major domains were focused on innovation diffusion, technology transfer, and knowledge utilization. Beginning slowly in the mid-1980s and then growing rapidly, a fourth scientific domain, evidence-based medicine, emerged. The field is dominated in all decades by one individual, Everett Rogers, and by one paradigm, innovation diffusion.ConclusionWe conclude that the received view that social science disciplines are in a state where no accepted set of principles or theories guide research (i.e., that they are pre-paradigmatic) could not be supported for this field. Second, we document the emergence of a new domain within the knowledge utilization field, evidence-based medicine. Third, we conclude that Everett Rogers was the dominant figure in the field and, until the emergence of evidence-based medicine, his representation of the general diffusion model was the dominant paradigm in the field.

Project description:Researchers seek to identify optimal journals for submission based on their studies but tend to rely on journal impact factors or scientific journal rankings. We investigated research trends by selecting high-frequency words from author keywords (AKs), analyzing subject areas, and performing quantitative data analysis of Korean dental journals. Consequently, we suggest a method for choosing journals that fit a specific subject area.We used a corpus of 9 Korean dentistry journals regarded in Korea as quality internationally approved journals. AKs occurring more than 10 times were assigned to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and subcategories, which were then categorized using the MeSH tree structure. KnowledgeMatrix Plus and VOSviewer were used to analyze network relationships, density, and clustering.The AKs were of 7527 types, 15,960 terms, and formed 54 clusters. The AKs with 10+ occurrence were 199 types, 4289 terms, and formed 9 clusters. Assigning the AKs with 10+ occurrence to MeSH terms led to expanding 732 types of AK terms into 249 types with 9 clusters and 4268 links. Core study areas over the past 10 years were facial asymmetry, a topic under oral surgery and medicine, and orthognathic surgery focused on mandibular fractures, followed by shear bond strength of zirconia. Analyzing 16 MeSH subject categories, we found that the "analytical, diagnostic and therapeutic techniques and equipment" category had the largest distribution of AKs (40.7%). This was followed by "diseases" (21.2%) and "anatomy" (14.90%). The orthognathic surgery cluster was the largest, followed by the shear bond strength cluster. Dental implants is a core area with strong links to high-occurrence words, such as cone-beam computed tomography and mandible, which were distributed in the order of The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics (37.8%) and Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science (30.6%). Five clusters were closely packed in the center, 2 clusters were formed above the center, 1 cluster was formed below the center, and a cluster on the right was widespread.Cluster analysis using AKs and MeSH may be a good analytic method for researchers to determine expanding research areas and select optimal journals for paper submission.

Dataset Information

Intellectual Structure of Coronavirus Research: A Perspective From an Author Cocitation Analysis.

Publications

Intellectual Structure of Coronavirus Research: A Perspective From an Author Cocitation Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets