Abstract
Since 1990, systematic reviews are growing exponentially with thousands being published each year. The objectives of this study were to determine both their temporal characteristics in terms of growth per year, subject areas, and publishing affiliations as well as their scientific impact. In this study we used 106,038 systematic reviews collected from Web of Science in 2019. These articles were analyzed to identify topics and publishing institutions, scientific impact and more. Our data shows that while the number of systematic reviews grows each year, their scientific impact diminishes. This can be seen in both citations and usage metrics. The journals that publish the most systematic reviews are below the normal Impact Factor for journals in the medical and biomedical arenas. There are very few institutions around the world, that produce most of the systematic reviews. Topics vary from one institution to another. The sheer number of systematic reviews publications is not an indication of quality or of impact. In fact, our data show that these are on the decline. There seems to be saturation in this area, which results in less interest in and utility of systematic reviews.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
