Simple export of journal citation data to Excel using any reference manager

Worldwide Research Trends in Landslide Science

Landslides are generated by natural causes and by human action, causing various geomorphological changes as well as physical and socioeconomic loss of the environment and human life. The study, characterization and implementation of techniques are essential to reduce land vulnerability, different socioeconomic sector susceptibility and actions to guarantee better slope stability with a significant positive impact on society. The aim of this work is the bibliometric analysis of the different types of landslides that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) emphasizes, through the SCOPUS database and the VOSviewer software version 1.6.17, for the analysis of their structure, scientific production, and the close relationship with several scientific fields and its trends. The methodology focuses on: (i) search criteria; (ii) data extraction and cleaning; (iii) generation of graphs and bibliometric mapping; and (iv) analysis of results and possible trends. The study and analysis of landslides are in a period of exponential growth, focusing mainly on techniques and solutions for the stabilization, prevention, and categorization of the most susceptible hillslope sectors. Therefore, this research field has the full collaboration of various authors and places a significant focus on the conceptual evolution of the landslide science.

A technical review of three clinical trials register resources indicates where improvements to the search interfaces are needed

Clinical trials registers form an important part of the search for studies in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness but the search interfaces and functionality of registers can be challenging to search systematically and resource intensive to search well. We report a technical review of the search interfaces of three leading trials register resources: ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registers Platform. The technical review used a validated checklist to identify areas where the search interfaces of these trials register resources performed well, where performance was adequate, where performance was poor, and to identify differences between search interfaces. The review found low overall scores for each of the interfaces (ClinicalTrials.gov 55/165, the EU Clinical Trials Register 25/165, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registers Platform 32/165). This finding suggests a need for joined-up dialogue between the producers of the registers and researchers who search them via these interfaces. We also set out a series of four proposed changes which might improve the search interfaces. Trials registers are an invaluable resource in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness. With the continued growth in systematic reviews, and initiatives such as 'AllTrials', there is an anticipated need for these resources. We conclude that small changes to the search interfaces, and improved dialogue with providers, might improve the future search functionality of these valuable resources.