Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in chronic pain research: A decade of bibliometric analysis and network visualization

Chronic pain research, with a specific focus on the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), has made impressive progress in the past decade, as evident in the improved research quality and increased publications. To better understand this evolving landscape, a quantitative approach is needed. The main aim of this study is to identify the hotspots and trends of BDNF in chronic pain research. We screened relevant publications from 2013 to 2022 in the Scopus database using specific search subject terms. A total of 401 documents were selected for further analysis. We utilized several tools, including Microsoft Excel, Harzing's Publish or Perish, and VOSViewer, to perform a frequency analysis, citation metrics, and visualization, respectively. Key indicators that were examined included publication growth, keyword analyses, topmost influential articles and journals, networking by countries and co-citation of cited references. Notably, there was a persistent publication growth between 2015 and 2021. "Neuropathic pain" emerged as a prominent keyword in 2018, alongside "microglia" and "depression". The journal Pain® was the most impactful journal that published BDNF and chronic pain research, while the most influential publications came from open-access reviews and original articles. China was the leading contributor, followed by the United States (US), and maintained a leadership position in the total number of publications and collaborations. In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive list of the most influential publications on BDNF in chronic pain research, thereby aiding in the understanding of academic concerns, research hotspots, and global trends in this specialized field.

Analysing the Influence of WHO Initiatives on the Scientific Discourse of Noncommunicable Diseases through a Bibliometric Approach

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) present a major public health challenge, prompting their inclusion in the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In response, the World Health Organization (WHO) has implemented various initiatives, including a comprehensive monitoring framework with global targets and indicators. However, the extent to which these initiatives have shaped the scientific discourse remains unclear. This article addresses this knowledge gap through a two-fold approach. Firstly, a bibliometric analysis of 14,187 studies spanning over 60 years is conducted, identifying key contributors and trends. Secondly, the content analysis compares these trends to the goals established by the WHO. The findings indicate that the WHO initiatives have accelerated scientific research, and elevated global targets and indicators as central themes in scholarly discussions, since 2011. This study takes an innovative approach that contributes to the advancement of knowledge in this field, by providing valuable insights into the impact of WHO initiatives on the scientific debate surrounding NCDs, and offering guidance for policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders engaged in combating these diseases.

Leadership of AAAP scientists and journals in animal science: achievements, limitations, and challenges

The Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (AAAP), the only international scientific organization in animal science representing Asia and Pacific region, showed a remarkable development since its inception in 1980. The number of member countries increased from 8 to 19 while 19 congresses were held in 11 different member countries. The AAAP also helped creating the official journal, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences in 1988 with the title being changed to Animal Bioscience in 2021. It is an open access journal indexed by most global databases and has become one of the most respected global journals in animal science. Through scientific meetings and journal publication, the AAAP has made a tremendous contribution to the advancement of animal science and industry throughout its member countries over the last 40 years. This paper summarizes the advances in animal science in the Asia-Pacific region, together with the roles of the AAAP scientists and journals in developing animal science.

Can we use link-based indicators to find highly cited publications? The case of the Trust Flow score

The Majestic’s Trust Flow (TF) is a link-based score aimed at measuring the influence of online objects (e.g. scientific publications) by considering the weighted number of links received from trusted websites. This study describes the bibliographic characteristics and impact of those publications with the highest TF score. In order to do this, 20,810 URL-based Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) were identified and analysed. The results show that these DOIs mainly represent recent publications (57.1% of publications were published between 2010 and 2020), journal articles (93.75%) published in the first SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) quartile (81.7%), written with international collaboration (40.4%) and biased towards the field of medicine (36.9%). While the TF score is a discovering tool with the potential to be used in webometric studies to find influential publications, a few technical limitations jeopardise the general applicability of this indicator for research evaluation at the publication level.

Knowledge Production: Analysing Gender- and Country-Dependent Factors in Research Topics through Term Communities

Scholarly publications are among the most tangible forms of knowledge production. Therefore, it is important to analyse them, amongst other features, for gender or country differences and the incumbent inequalities. While there are many quantitative studies of publication activities and success in terms of publication numbers and citation counts, a more content-related understanding of differences in the choice of research topics is rare. The present paper suggests an innovative method of using term communities in co-occurrence networks for detecting and evaluating the gender- and country-specific distribution of topics in research publications. The method is demonstrated with a pilot study based on approximately a quarter million of publication abstracts in seven diverse research areas. In this example, the method validly reconstructs all obvious topic preferences, for instance, country-dependent language-related preferences. It also produces new insight into country-specific research focuses. It emerges that in all seven subject areas studied, topic preferences are significantly different depending on whether all authors are women, all authors are men, or there are female and male co-authors, with a tendency of male authors towards theoretical core topics, of female authors towards peripheral applied topics, and of mixed-author teams towards modern interdisciplinary topics.

Winners and runners-up alike?-a comparison between awardees and special mention recipients of the most reputable science award in Colombia via a composite citation indicator

The research agenda on global academic elites (e.g., those awarded the Nobel Prize) has overlooked academic awards and elites from developing countries and the public symbolic recognition of scientific elites by research awards. In this study, we examine the bibliometric features of individual researcher profiles of those participants who received a special mention in Colombia's most prestigious prize in the sciences: the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Prize (AAEP). First, we chart the citation per article trend of Colombia's most prolific researchers before and after receiving the special mention and the AAEP. We then compare the special mention group with those awarded the AAEP, using a composite citation indicator of six scientific impact and productivity indices to estimate (1) bulk impact (number of citations and h index) and (2) authorship order adjusted impact (Schreiber hm index; total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single author; total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single or first author; and total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single, first, or last author). Results show that there is no overall halo effect in citation per article after receiving the special mention or the AAEP. Such recognition comes after an academically productive career marked by multiple citations per article peaks. There is no clear-cut division between the composite citation indicator of those awarded a special mention and those awarded the AAEP. Findings place the profile of local authors in an adjusted and inclusive framework that takes full cognisance of the scientific elites in developing countries.

Publishing international library and information science journals: The changing landscape

This study aimed to examine the publication trends of Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)-indexed library and information science (LIS) journals by examining publication share growth by country and region. For this study, we used LIS journals indexed in the SJR in 2000, 2010, and 2020. The results showed that the most frequent publishers of SJR-indexed LIS journals are large commercial publishers. The top three publishers since 2000 were Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and Springer Nature, despite their publication share among SJR-indexed journals declining since this period. The top three countries in journal publishing were the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. As the large commercial publishers have established themselves in these countries, the publication shares of these countries have also declined slightly because of the slowing growth rate of their publishers. Similarly, publication shares in both Northern America and Western Europe have declined slightly since 2000. However, the large commercial publishers, based mainly in the United Kingdom and the United States, are likely to take the lead in publishing SJR-indexed international LIS journals over the next decade. The results suggest that publishers from non-Western countries will need to publish significantly more international LIS journals indexed in the major databases to achieve a significant publication share. In conclusion, more innovative ways to support journals published in non-Western countries are needed in order to meet the essential selection criteria of the Scopus and Web of Science journal indexes.

Research Co-authorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

Research co-authorship is useful to combine different skillsets, especially for applied problems. Whilst it has increased over the last century, it is unclear whether this increase is universal across academic fields and which fields co-author the most and least. In response, this article assesses changes in the rate of journal article co-authorship 1900–2020 for all 27 Scopus broad fields and all 332 Scopus narrow fields. Whilst all broad fields have experienced reasonably continuous growth in co-authorship, in 2020 there were substantial disciplinary differences, from Arts and Humanities (1.3 authors) to Immunology and Microbiology (6 authors). All 332 Scopus narrow fields also experienced an increase in the average number of authors. Immunology and Classics are extreme Scopus narrow fields, as exemplified by 9.6 authors per Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer article, whilst 93% of Trends in Classics articles were solo in 2020. The reason for this large difference seems to be the need for multiple complementary methods in Immunology, making it fundamentally a team science. Finally, the reasonably steady and universal increases in academic coauthorship over 121 years show no sign of slowing, suggesting that ever expanding teams are a central part of current professional science.