Maritime traffic risk is increasing rapidly with the growth of marine traffic volume and construction of marine facilities, water bridges, port development, marine wind farm, etc. Given this emerging trend, this paper presents a bibliometric analysis and mapping of the broad academic literature related to maritime traffic safety, focusing on the influences of international collaborations and knowledge sources on the developments of this research domain. To identify trends, patterns and the knowledge distribution of the research on maritime traffic safety, the visualisation of similarities (VOS) viewer software, the bibliometric analysis, and scientometric mapping of the literature have been performed from the perspectives of publication and citation distribution over time, leading authors, countries (regions), institutions, the corresponding collaboration networks, most cited publications and references, focused research fields and topics, research trend evolution over time, etc. The paper provides a comprehensive and quantitative overview and significant picture representation of the domain's leading and evolutionary trends by employing specific aforementioned bibliometric analysis factors. In addition, by reviewing the evolutionary trends of the journals and the proposed investigated factors, such as the influential works, main research topics, and the research frontiers, this paper reveals the scientific literature's main research objectives and directions that could be addressed and explored in future studies.

While research into responsible innovation is not new, there have been recent calls to explore responsible product development, across different development stages and pillars of responsible innovation. In this paper, we use scientometric analysis to explore how the responsible innovation knowledge structure has evolved over the past 50 years. Our aim is to explore the relevance of the topic and propose future research orientations. Findings show that responsible innovation is an emerging topic warranting further investigation.

For years, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has thrived as an interdisciplinary subfield, linking applied linguistics and educational technology. Despite its significance and a number of syntheses, CALL research has not yet undergone a comprehensive scientometric synthesis. This study synthesizes CALL research over a period of 42 years by employing a scientometric analysis of sources and document co-citation analyses. Scopus was used to retrieve original articles with a timespan limit from 1980 to 2021. Our records identified 4,631 articles representing CALL-based research, which were published in 63 peer-reviewed journals and collectively contained 186,589 references. The findings indicate that CALL research is supported by robust theoretical frameworks, grounded in socio-cultural and second language acquisition theories. Our research findings have revealed several significant clusters of interest within the realm of CALL, with a pronounced focus on writing among CALL scholars. Additionally, the study identified emerging research areas such as mobile-assisted language learning, synchronous computer-mediated communication, and data-driven learning in CALL literature. Notably, “CALL-core” journals exhibited high productivity, with Language Learning & Technology, Computer Assisted Language Learning, and Computers & Education standing out as top-ranked journals in terms of the Hirsch index (h-index) and co-citation. Suggestions for future research are outlined in the conclusion.

A bibliometric analysis was undertaken to chart the development of animal welfare (AW) science as a whole, and of the individuals, organisations and countries that have had most academic impact to date. Publication data were collected from the Web of Science for the year range 1968-2017 and by-hand pre-processing of the data was undertaken to identify reviews and original research articles on AW. VOSviewer was used to create bibliometric networks. There has been a 13.3% annual growth in AW publications in the last 50 years with Animal Welfare and Applied Animal Behaviour Science the most frequent publishers of AW publications. Farm animals continue to dominate the subject of AW research and comparison of network visualisations for five key species suggested possible gaps in the research, such as relatively little emphasis on emotion research for some farm animals and little research on inherited disorders in dogs. However, keyword analysis indicated a recent broadening of AW findings to include other international contexts, such as conservation and sustainability. Highly cited review articles were grouped into five clusters with affective state (ie emotions, moods) and fish welfare the most recent topics. Almost all core authors of original research articles study farm animals, though in the last ten years other topics, such as consumer attitudes and wildlife, have emerged as highly cited areas of original research articles. Network analysis of organisations revealed the University of Bristol, UK as the main publisher of original research articles. Citation analysis indicated that many low-cited articles were originating from Germany and were published in German journals, suggesting that many worthwhile results and opinions on AW may be being missed by other researchers due to a language barrier. Several limitations of bibliometric analysis to generate an overview of AW science were identified, including the challenge of how to search and extract all the relevant publications in this discipline. In conclusion, animal welfare science is still in an exponential phase of growth which will bring opportunities, such as for the publication of new journals, but also challenges. The insights generated by this study suggest bibliometric analysis to be a useful addition to other approaches investigating the trends and concepts of animal welfare.

We analyzed the publication productivity supported by the Puerto Rico Consortium for Clinical and Translational Research (PRCTRC) using the structured process of scientometrics. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the research and collaborations as presented in publications. Manuscripts published from 2010 to 2018 and that had the PRCTRC award number and a PMCID number were retrieved from the Science Citation Index database. Scientometric indicators included h-index (HI), average citation (AC), collaboration coefficient (CC), collaboration index (CI), and degree of collaboration (DC) analysis, and relative citation ratio (RCR) was done with Web of Science Platform, iCite, and Stata software. Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software was used to calculate the annual percent change (APC). From 2010 to 2018, 341 publications were identified with an average of 38 publications per year and a total of 3569 citations excluding self-citations. A significant growth (APC: 17.76%, P < 0.05) of scientific production was observed. The overall HI was 31, and the AC per item was 11.04. The overall CC was 0.82, the CI was 8.59, and the DC was 99.1%. This study demonstrates a statistically significant increase in the PRCTRC scientific production. Results allow for the assessment of the progress resulting from the provided support and to plan further strategies accordingly.

In this paper we comparatively explore three claims concerning the disciplinary character of economics by means of citation analysis. The three claims under study are: (1) economics exhibits strong forms of institutional stratification and, as a byproduct, a rather pronounced internal hierarchy; (2) economists strongly conform to institutional incentives; and (3) modern mainstream economics is a largely self-referential intellectual project mostly inaccessible to disciplinary or paradigmatic outsiders. The validity of these claims is assessed by means of an interdisciplinary comparison of citation patterns aiming to identify peculiar characteristics of economic discourse. In doing so, we emphasize that citation data can always be interpreted in different ways, thereby focusing on the contrast between a “cognitive” and an “evaluative” approach towards citation data.

This paper argues that the economics discipline is highly concentrated, which may inhibit scientific innovation and change in the future. The argument is based on an empirical investigation of six dimensions of concentration in economics between 1956 and 2016 using a large-scale data set. The results show that North America accounts for nearly half of all articles and three quarters of all citations. Twenty institutions reap a share of 42 percent of citations, five journals a share of 28.5 percent, and 100 authors a share of 15.5 percent. A total of 2.8 percent of citations may be attributed to heterodox schools of thought. Also top articles are concentrated along these dimensions. Overall, concentration has strongly increased over the last six decades.

In this article, the trends in human parasitology have been studied through the analysis of the number of publications in this area. The parameters studied were: number of articles, language, countries and institutions with the highest number of publications, and keywords with greater presence in the articles of human parasitology. The results of the analysis confirm the growing interest in this area, observing an exponential growth in the number of publications in the last decades. We also verified that the main country in terms of scientific production is the USA, although among the most important institutions, we find non-US centres such as the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. For observing the relative importance of the journals that publish articles in this specific topic, an index has been created based on the h-index of the journal with publications related to human parasitology and divided by every 100 items. This rank is led fist by ‘Journal of Medical Entomology’ closely followed by ‘Parasitology’. The analysis of the keywords allows to draw conclusions about the great importance of malaria in the current world research. A change in analytical methodology is also observed, and molecular techniques are now being imposed. These techniques, in the near future, have to influence in an improvement in the treatments and prevention of the diseases caused by parasites. Finally, it can be seen that diseases traditionally studied as helminthiasis and amebiasis are currently as well studied as others such as toxoplasmosis or leishmaniasis.

This paper examines the appropriation of French sociologists by US sociologists over the last four decades. Taking cues from scientometrics and from developments in the sociology of reception, it proposes a blueprint for the study of reception in times of mass digital data. Through this approach, the paper reveals two salient traits. First, out of the 200 authors of the sample, a small minority received considerable attention, while the others are virtually invisible. Second, when cited in the US, French authors are mobilized almost only as social theorists. The article then accounts for this peculiar reception by considering three levels: the intellectual structures of both fields, the local logics at play in the receiving field, and the “multiple lives” of a cited author.

One of the most popular indicators is the Impact Factor. This paper examines the coming into being of this highly influential figure. It is the offspring of Eugene Garfield’s experimentation with the huge amounts of data available at his Institute for Scientific Information and the result of a number of attempts to find appropriate measurements for the success (“impact”) of articles and journals. The completely inductive procedure was initially adjusted by examining the data thoughtfully and by consulting with experts from different scientific disciplines. Later, its calculation modes were imposed on other disciplines without further consideration. The paper demonstrates in detail the inopportune consequences of this, in particular for sociology. Neither the definition of disciplines, nor the selection of journals for the Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index follows any comprehensible rationale. The procedures for calculating the impact factor are inappropriate. Despite its obvious unsuitability, the impact factor is used by editors of sociological journals for marketing and impression management purposes. Fetishism!