Dataset Information

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.

SUBMITTER: Yeung AW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5360093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo summarize global research trends and activities on multimorbidity; then to assess the knowledge gaps and to identify implications for knowledge exchange between high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle- income countries (LMICs).MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted to identify research publications on multimorbidity in the Web of ScienceTM, as well as diabetes, depression, hypertension, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The time frame for the search was from 1900 to June, 2016. Information (such as publication date, subject category, author, country of origin, title, abstract, and keywords) were extracted and the full texts were obtained for the co-citation analysis. Data were linked with the life expectancy at birth (years) and Gross National Income (GNI). Co-citation and hierarchal clustering analysis was used to map the trends and research networks with CiteSpace II (JAVA freeware, copyright Chaomei Chen, http://cluster.cis.drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/).FindingsWe identified 2864 relevant publications as at June 2016, with the first paper on this topic indexed in 1974 from Germany, but 80% were published after 2010. Further analysis yielded two knowledge gaps: (1) compared with single conditions (diabetes, hypertension, depression, and COPD), there is a mismatch between the high prevalence of multimorbidity and its research outputs (ratio of articles on multimorbidity vs other four single conditions is 1:13-150); (2) although a total of 76 countries have contributed to this research area, only 5% of research originated from LMICs where 73% of non-communicable disease (NCD) related deaths had occurred. Additional analysis showed the median year of first publication occurred 15 years later in the LMICs compared with HICs (2010 vs 1995); and longer life expectancy was associated with exponentially higher publication outputs (Pearson correlation coefficient r?=?0.95) at the global level. The life expectancy at the median year (1994) of first publication was 66.1, with the gap between LMICs and HICs 7.9 (68.4 vs 76.3).ConclusionsThis study confirms substantial knowledge gaps in the research agenda on multimorbidity, with input urgently needed to move us forward worldwide, especially for and in LMICs. There is the possibility that LMICs can learn from and collaborate with HICs in this area.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing evidence shows that health inequalities exist between and within countries, and emphasis has been placed on strengthening the production and use of the global health inequalities research, so as to improve capacities to act. Yet, a comprehensive overview of this evidence base is still needed, to determine what is known about the global and historical scientific production on health inequalities to date, how is it distributed in terms of country income groups and world regions, how has it changed over time, and what international collaboration dynamics exist.MethodsA comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the global scientific production on health inequalities, from 1966 to 2015, was conducted using Scopus database. The historical and global evolution of the study of health inequalities was considered, and through joinpoint regression analysis and visualisation network maps, the preceding questions were examined.Findings159 countries (via authorship affiliation) contributed to this scientific production, three times as many countries than previously found. Scientific output on health inequalities has exponentially grown over the last five decades, with several marked shift points, and a visible country-income group affiliation gradient in the initiation and consistent publication frequency. Higher income countries, especially Anglo-Saxon and European countries, disproportionately dominate first and co-authorship, and are at the core of the global collaborative research networks, with the Global South on the periphery. However, several country anomalies exist that suggest that the causes of these research inequalities, and potential underlying dependencies, run deeper than simply differences in country income and language.ConclusionsWhilst the global evidence base has expanded, Global North-South research gaps exist, persist and, in some cases, are widening. Greater understanding of the structural determinants of these research inequalities and national research capacities is needed, to further strengthen the evidence base, and support the long term agenda for global health equity.

Dataset Information

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets