Single-authored Papers Research Articles

Scientometric Analysis of Global Scientific Production on Dragon Fruit in the Food Nutrition Industry: Dynamicity, Emerging Patterns, and Thematic Evolution

The objective of the study was to perform a scientometric analysis of the scientific production of dragon fruit in the food industry. A descriptive study was conducted based on the scientific production published between January 2018 and April 2024. Papers were identified through a search in the Scopus database, resulting in 266 manuscripts. Several scientometric indicators were used to analyse the scientific output, including author, affiliation, country, academic output, citations per publication, field-weighted citation impact, and h-index. Despite an annual growth rate of −14.72%, the average age of the papers was 2.91 years, with an average of 9015 citations per paper. The papers contained 14,614 references, 1792 Keywords Plus, and 907 Author’s Keywords. There were 1273 authors involved, with 12 authors of single-author papers. International collaborations accounted for 23.31% of the collaborations. The papers comprised 175 articles, 2 books, 21 book chapters, 28 conference papers, 2 conference reviews, 2 errata, and 36 reviews. This study provides a comprehensive view of the scientific production in this field of study, allowing the identification of patterns and trends in the scientific literature. The results highlight the importance of dragon fruit in the food industry and underscore the need for future research in this field.

Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Collaboration in Quantum Dots Literature

The field of quantum dots has grown significantly in recent years. A quantitative and comprehensive analysis of this research domain is essential for understanding current trends and future directions. Given the progress made so far, this work aims to facilitate scientific collaboration in the field of quantum dots through a systematic review of 4,176 scientific articles published in the Web of Science database between 2014 and 2023. The study utilized various bibliometric methods, including year-wise publications, annual growth, relative growth rate, doubling time, citation analysis, authorship pattern, collaborative index, identifying co-authorship and collaboration country, top most bibliographic coupling document, and most cited reference. The study period from 2014-2023 has evinced a mean relative growth rate of 0.84 and a doubling time of 3.89. Secured the topmost publication, 519 (2018), simultaneously with a relative growth rate of 12.43.18%. As predicted by the highest citation rate of 25094, an average citation per paper of 51.74% was produced in 2014. The trend of multi-authored papers has significantly increased to 4187 (97.87%), compared to just 89 (2.31%) single-authored papers. Notably, the degree of collaboration was recorded at 0.12% from 2014 to 2018. Additionally, the highest collaboration coefficient, 17.37, was observed in 2023. China had the highest number of publications during this study period. The USA secured the first position in co-authorships and country collaboration at the international level. In addition, the top bibliographic coupling documents are Lim, 2015 and the most cited reference Murray CB, 1993, Journal of the American Chemical Society, VII5, P8706 2023.

Exploring the Scientific Literature Between Ultraprocessed Foods and Cancer: A Scientometric Mapping.

Objective: The objective of the study is to explore the scientific literature between ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and cancer using a scientometric mapping. Materials and Methods: A Scopus search was conducted on February 4, 2024, limited to papers published between 2018 and 2023. We found 662 articles, 189 reviews, 68 book chapters, 13 conference papers, and 9 notes. The whole analysis included the evaluation of scholarly output by country/region, the number of scholarly papers produced (scholarly output), the number of views (view count), the field-weighted citation impact (FWCI). Results: In the analysis conducted for the period 2018-2023, a dataset was examined where the annual growth rate was 5.96%, indicating a sustained expansion of the literature. The average number of citations per paper was 18.56, underlining the impact and relevance of the publications. Sixty-six single-authored papers were identified, and international collaborations accounted for 27.23% of the collaborative efforts. The most prominent authors were Inge Huybrechts, Marc J.R. Gunter, and Edward Luciano Giovannucci. In terms of impact and visibility, Harvard University leads with 52 contributions and a field-weighted impact of 3.39. Conclusions: The literature in the field of UPFs and cancer has experienced a sustained expansion. The scientometric indicators reveal a high activity of recent academic contributions with significant impact.

The expansion of team size in library and information science (LIS): Is bigger always better?

The increasing prevalence of large research teams in contemporary science has prompted an investigation into the trends of team size in library and information science (LIS). In this study, we analysed 103,299 LIS publications written by 129,560 unique authors between 2000 and 2020 sourced from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) data sets. We conducted a temporal analysis from multiple dimensions, including journal quartiles, research topics and researchers with varying impact levels. In addition, we employed two multivariate linear regression models – with and without author fixed effects – to scrutinise the relationship between team size and publication impact. Our findings reveal continuous growth in LIS team size. Notably, publications in higher-quartile journals tend to have larger teams; the team size of technical topic publications is generally larger than that of theoretical topic publications; and researchers with a higher h-index are able to assemble larger teams. Although we observed that co-authored papers have a higher average citation impact than single-authored papers, the overall positive impact of team expansion on citation growth is not always significant within the common LIS team size range (three to six authors). Our research suggests that indiscriminately increasing the size of a team may not be a prudent decision.

Scientific Publication of Dengue Fever Research in India based on the Web of Science Database

This study investigated the research productivity of dengue fever literature in India extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) core collection database with the purpose of giving Scientometric description on numerous parameters which include subject explosion, ranks and publications, citation impact, global collaborative papers, most productive journals, authors and countries with their citation, on dengue fever research of Indian publications. There were 960 publications during 2009-2018. A result of the research shows an average citation of 11.25 per paper. The degree of collaboration has been arrived at 0.96 at some stage. The value of Co-Authorship Index (CAI) for single author papers suggests a declining mode from one year period to every other block. On the other hand, it is greater than two authored papers; the co-Authorship Index displays a growing trend.

Determining the Characteristics of Papers That Garner the Most Significant Impact: A Deep Dive into Mexican Engineering Publications

Engineers make things, make things work, and make things work better and easier. This kind of knowledge is crucial for innovation, and much of the explicit knowledge developed by engineers is embodied in scientific publications. In this paper, we analyze the evolution of publications and citations in engineering in a middle-income country such as Mexico. Using a database of all Mexican publications in Web of Science from 2004 to 2017, we explore the characteristics of publications that tend to have the greatest impact; this is the highest number of citations. Among the variables studied are the type of collaboration (no collaboration, domestic, bilateral, or multilateral), the number of coauthors and countries, controlling for a coauthor from the USA, and the affiliation institution of the Mexican author(s). Our results emphasize the overall importance of joint international efforts and suggest that publications with the highest number of citations are those with multinational collaboration (coauthors from three or more countries) and when one of the coauthors is from the USA. Another interesting result is that single-authored papers have had a higher impact than those written through domestic collaboration.

The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior

This paper contributes to the literature on differences in publication behavior of male and female scientists by examining two natural experiments in Germany that exogenously varied the attractiveness of journals. As a result of transformative open access publication agreements, journals published by Springer Nature and Wiley became more attractive as outlets for authors in Germany, while Elsevier journals lost some of their attractiveness within Germany due to substantial cancellations by university libraries. Studying 243,375 published articles in economics between 2015 and 2022, our findings suggests that men tend to seek reputation, while women favor visibility through open access, at least at the margin. While authorship in teams can dilute these behavioral patterns, female economists publish more single-authored papers. Overall female researchers appear to contribute more to the public good of open science, while their male colleagues focus on private reputation. These findings may offer an additional explanatory channel for the academic gender gap.

Collaborative authorship patterns in computer science publications

Based on the analysis of data we observe that the share of single-authored papers was significantly high in theoreticalcomputer science, while collaborative efforts dominate computer science system research like PL, AI, ML, etc.Collaborative authorship is higher in journals over conferences. Further, values of collaborative indicators are also high forjournals except for the Machine Learning (ML) subfield. In addition, the author distribution patterns are different forconferences and journals. The findings also exhibited diversity in authorship trends across sub-fields of CS research. Ourresults show collaboration trends in conferences and journals of major CS subfields. Such collaborative patterns benefit thefunding agency, policymakers, scientific community, and researchers to plan and execute their research.

Pandemic and Gender Influences on Submissions to Epidemiology.

Pandemic and Gender Influences on Submissions to Epidemiology.

Forty years of invasion research: more papers, more collaboration...bigger impact?

Scientific research has become increasingly collaborative. We systematically reviewed invasion science literature published between 1980 and 2020 and catalogued in Clarivate Analytics Web of Science to examine patterns of authorship and the relationship between co-authorship and annual citation rates. This study analysed 27,234 publications across 1,218 journals and demonstrated that, as the number of publications in invasion science has exponentially increased, the number of authors publishing per year and the average number of authors per paper have also increased. The rising number of authors per paper coincides with a marked decline of single-authored publications; approximately 92% of publications in this dataset were multi-authored, with single-authored papers comprising less than 4% of all papers published in 2020. The increase in multi-authored papers is likely driven by multiple factors, including the widespread perception that collaboration increases scientific quality. The number of authors is positively correlated with perceived research impact; papers with two or more authors produce research that is more frequently cited compared to single-authored papers, and papers with five or more authors have annual citation rates almost double that of single-authored papers. The complexity, context-dependence and urgency of biological invasions contributed to the rise of the highly collaborative field of modern invasion science.

H-type indices for multiple authorship papers based on “relative first author” principle

Recently, the number of multiple authorship and collaborative papers has been growing rapidly. This number differs significantly according to various scientific fields. Known that h-type indices (h-index, gindex, A-index, etc.) are used to evaluate the performance of researchers, which do not distinguish between single-author and multi-author papers in the evaluation process. In other words, a citation received from multi-authored papers is applied to all co-authors (as in the single-authored paper). To solve this problem, several weighted version of the h-index have been proposed. Most of these versions are indices and are based on the division principle of citations based on the co-author’s position in the authors’ order. In other words, according to the position of the co-authors order, the weight is assigned to the co-authors, and the citations are proportionally divided according to co-authors in these weights. Obviously, the calculation of weights is important in this case. h-type indices proposed in the paper are based on the “relative first author” (or “local first author”) principle. “Relative first author” means the co-authors being in the first position relative to the co-authors after him. Based on this principle, existing weighting schemes were modified, and then new weighted h-type indices were proposed for multiple authorship papers according to these weighting schemes. In other words, the “local first author” approach was proposed instead of the “global first author” approach in calculating the h-type indices for multiple authorship papers. The suggested indices were calculated for 30 researchers selected from the Google Scholar database and compared with other relevant h-type indices.

Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia

ABSTRACT Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the “publish or perish policy” by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.

Scientometric Analysis of the Research Paper Output on Artificial Intelligence: A Study

The purpose of this study was to measure the number of contributions and highlight the contributions made by the researchers in the field of Artificial Intelligence and published on the Web of Science database ten years during 2011-2021 using scientometric analysis. Data were interpreted by using software such as Bibexcel, Vosviewer, and tabulated using MS Excel. The results indicated that 26822 papers were published during 2011 - 2021 and the highest number of publications 10712 (39.94%) was produced in 2020. The trends in multi-authored papers have tremendously increased (87.32%) compared to (12.68%) single-authored papers. The relative growth rate (1.46) and degree of collaboration (0.87) is noted significantly and the highest no of papers (18.97%) was contributed by the collaboration of three authors and source wise most of the records were published an article 20741. It also noted that the value of the highest degree of collaboration was (0.89) in 2020. The Zhang Y author (111) contributed more numbers of papers in the domain of Artificial Intelligence with USA (6491) being the country producing more research papers followed by China, the UK, and the India. More than 1600 papers had been published in Model, and Prediction. The study inferred that the rate of growth is relation by the year wise publications of Artificial Intelligence research.

An Overview of Fifty Years of Appropriate Technology Research Using Bibliometric Analysis

Appropriate technology (AT) has developed from an economic theory in the early 1970s into a broad multidisciplinary research methodology that is incorporated into many sustainable development fields. AT is an important tool in the fight against current global challenges, such as climate change and poverty. Hence, a bibliometric analysis of the AT research field over the last fifty years was performed to provide insights into the field and its current hot topics. Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid increase in the number of papers and citations in the AT field, indicating that the AT methodology is increasingly applied in research. Over time, the fraction of single-author papers has decreased (and the number of authors per paper has increased), indicating that AT topics are attracting the interest of larger research groups. Although AT is often applied in developing countries, the most influential countries with respect to research were generally the English-speaking countries (e.g., USA, UK, and India), along with China, Germany, and Spain. This was attributed to English being the lingua franca of research, more than an accurate representation of the application of AT. A keyword analysis identified that economic development, environment, health, and agriculture were the most popular AT topics over the last fifty years. Since 2005, topics such as computing and telemedicine began increasing in popularity, while in the past three years, automation-and-control, and smart-city topics have emerged. Bibliometric analysis is a valuable research tool for providing insight into the overall AT field.

A Decade of Activity of the Medical Journal of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences through Scientometric Method (2010-2019)

A Decade of Activity of the Medical Journal of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences through Scientometric Method (2010-2019)

Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science

The research discipline of computer science (CS) has a well-publicized gender disparity. Multiple studies estimate the ratio of women among publishing researchers to be around 15–30%. Many explanatory factors have been studied in association with this gender gap, including differences in collaboration patterns. Here, we extend this body of knowledge by looking at differences in collaboration patterns specific to various fields and subfields of CS. We curated a dataset of nearly 20,000 unique authors of some 7000 top conference papers from a single year. We manually assigned a field and subfield to each conference and a gender to most researchers. We then measured the gender gap in each subfield as well as five other collaboration metrics, which we compared to the gender gap. Our main findings are that the gender gap varies greatly by field, ranging from 6% female authors in theoretical CS to 42% in CS education; subfields with a higher gender gap also tend to exhibit lower female productivity, larger coauthor groups, and higher gender homophily. Although women published fewer single-author papers, we did not find an association between single-author papers and the ratio of female researchers in a subfield.

Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony.

Peer-review of manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals for publication dates back ~ 350years and this process represents the foundation of scientific publishing. After a manuscript has undergone and survived a rigorous peer-review, this conveys a stamp of approval, because it signifies the work has been checked by independent experts in the scientific discipline concerned. The publication and citation track records of people instructed to appear as expert witness in civil and criminal litigation are important considerations. Using a publically available database, the most highly cited scientists in the discipline legal and forensic medicine were identified. For each scientist, a composite score was calculated based on six different citation metrics; (i) Total number of citations, (ii) H-index, (iii) Hm-index, which modifies the H-index for multi-authored papers, (iv) Citations to single-author papers, (v) Citations to single and first author papers and (vi) citations to single, first and last author papers. The top 100,000 most highly cited scientists from all disciplines were identified along with the top 2% of the most highly cited in each of 176 sub-fields. The latest version of the citation databases, up to the end of 2020, classified 14.163 people as having legal and forensic medicine as their primary research discipline. Of these, there were 29 names listed among the top 100,000 most highly cited in all disciplines and 299 were among the top cited 2% in their particular sub-field. More than 50% of the highly cited forensic practitioners resided in four countries (USA, Germany, UK and Australia). The top-ten most highly cited individuals were the same in all four versions of the database (2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) and represented the sub-disciplines of toxicology (n = 3), genetics/DNA/heredity (n = 3), whereas two specialized in pathology/toxicology and two in pathology/genetics.

A Foot Soldier in Cardiac Metabolism: A Conversation With Heinrich Taegtmeyer, MD, DPhil.

A Foot Soldier in Cardiac Metabolism: A Conversation With Heinrich Taegtmeyer, MD, DPhil.

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS FOR THE ASIAN ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL FROM 2015 TO 2019

Journal publications on AAJM since 1996 until 2019 that total published 24 volume consisting of 20 countries. This study is to identify of publication journals on Asia Academy of Management Journal (AAMJ) from 2015 to 2019. The general topics published in AAJM journals such as Banking, Corporate Governance, Economics, Human Resource, Internationalization, Leadership and Work Values, Marketing, SME and Entrepreneurship, Technology Management, and other areas related to management. This study only 77 articles were published up to 27 September 2019. The data were transferred into an MS Excel file and major facets like authorship pattern, country-wise distribution of contributions, ranking of authors and contributions by affiliations were analysed using appropriate bibliometric measures. The analysis result of 77 papers revealed that there were only 54 articles that were cited by other researchers based on the Scopus index and Google Scholar. Majority authorship patterns of AAMJ was led by three-authors more than three-author papers, two-author papers, and followed by single-author papers. The research methodology most used in AAMJ is quantitative method, followed by Literature Review (LR) method, Qualitative method, and mix method. The keywords used by author in AAMJ are “Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)”, “Performance”, and “Organisational commitment”. The contributed of identification AAJM journal can help researchers and guide people over the world in field of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics.

Research funding is an important factor for public science. Funding may affect which research topics get addressed, and what research outputs are produced. However, funding has often been studied simplistically, using top-down or system-led perspectives. Such approaches often restrict analysis to confined national funding landscapes or single funding organizations and instruments in isolation. This overlooks interlinkages, broader funding researchers might access, and trends of growing funding complexity. This paper instead frames a ‘bottom-up’ approach that analytically distinguishes between increasing levels of aggregation of funding instrument co-use. Funding of research outputs is selected as one way to test this approach, with levels traced via funding acknowledgements (FAs) in papers published 2009–18 by researchers affiliated to Denmark, the Netherlands or Norway, in two test research fields (Food Science, Renewable Energy Research). Three funding aggregation levels are delineated: at the bottom, ‘funding configurations’ of funding instruments co-used by individual researchers (from single-authored papers with two or more FAs); a middle, ‘funding amalgamations’ level, of instruments co-used by collaborating researchers (from multi-authored papers with two or more FAs); and a ‘co-funding network’ of instruments co-used across all researchers active in a research field (all papers with two or more FAs). All three levels are found to include heterogenous funding co-use from inside and outside the test countries. There is also co-funding variety in terms of instrument ‘type’ (public, private, university or non-profit) and ‘origin’ (domestic, foreign or supranational). Limitations of the approach are noted, as well as its applicability for future analyses not using paper FAs to address finer details of research funding dynamics.