The Changing Landscape of Neuroscience Research, 2006–2015: A Bibliometric Study

Abstract

Background: It is beneficial to evaluate changes in neuroscience research field regarding research directions and topics over a defined period. Such information enables stakeholders to quickly identify the most influential research and incorporate latest evidence into research-informed education. To our knowledge, no study reported changes in neuroscience literature over the last decade. Therefore, the current study determined research terms with highest citation scores, compared publication shares of research areas and contributing countries in this field from 2006 to 2015 and identified the most productive journals.Methods: Data were extracted from Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Only articles and reviews published in journals classified under the JCR “Neurosciences” category over the period of interest were included. Title and abstract fields of each included publication were extracted and analyzed via VOSviewer to identify recurring terms with high relative citation scores. Two term maps were produced for publications over the study period to illustrate the extent of co-occurrence, and the impact of terms was evaluated based on their relative citation scores. To further describe the recent research priority or “hot spots,” 10 terms with the highest relative citation scores were identified annually. In addition, by applying Bradford's law, we identified 10 journals being the most productive journals per annum over the survey period and evaluated their bilbiometric performances.Results: From 2006 to 2015, there were 47 terms involved in the annual lists of top 10 terms with highest relative citation scores. The most frequently recurring terms were autism (8), meta-analysis (7), functional connectivity (6), default mode network (4) and neuroimaging (4). Neuroscience research related to psychology and behavioral sciences showed an increase in publication share over the survey period, and China has become one of the major contributors to neuroscience research. Ten journals were frequently identified (≥8 years) as core journals within the survey period.Discussion: The landscape of neuroscience research has changed recently, and this paper provides contemporary overview for researchers and health care workers interested in this field's research and developments. Brain imaging and brain connectivity terms had high relative citation scores.

At the Leading Front of Neuroscience: A Bibliometric Study of the 100 Most-Cited Articles

“…This difference was consistent with general bibliometric findings that basic science researches often received more citations than did specific clinical researches (Van Eck et al, 2013; Yeung et al, 2017b). It should be noted that there was also opposite information which stated that clinical papers were more frequently cited than basic science papers, at least in the field of cardiovascular research.…”

Publication trends in spine research from 2007 to 2016: Comparison of the Orthopaedic Research Society Spine Section and the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine

“…For both societies, only 10% of journals published more than one ORS/ISSLS article per year and the remaining articles were spread across hundreds of journals (Tables S1 and S3). This distribution of articles, with articles concentrated in a core group of journals and the rest spread across a diverse group of journals, is typical of a scientific field and has been documented previously as Bradford's law of scattering, which describes the distribution of research literature in other medical fields . The number of distinct journals increased over time (Figure B); this may reflect the growing diversity of research interests in the spine field which is becoming more inter‐ and cross‐disciplinary.…”

Are coronectomy studies being cited? A bibliometric study

“…General noun phrases were removed via an algorithm . The term “coronectomy” and generic terms were excluded after a visual inspection of the initial map generated . The bubble size indicated the number of papers containing the term.…”

“…22 The term "coronectomy" and generic terms were excluded after a visual inspection of the initial map generated. 15,23 The bubble size indicated the number of papers containing the term. The bubble color indicated its citation per paper.…”

“…One useful metric to be evaluated would be the citation count of coronectomy papers. A bibliometric study identifies and evaluates the relevance of scientific publications with citation analysis, thus enabling a better understanding of the overall research landscape of a particular field . Instead of a qualitative evaluation of existing evidence or an investigation of the overall effect size, a bibliometric study on coronectomy literature can evaluate the influence of the body of the literature as a whole and identify the seminal works within it.…”