Search

The emergence of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious global public health problem. The mystery around the causative agent was revealed on 7 January 2020 when the pathogen was isolated by Chinese scientists and named as novel coronavirus-2019 (2019-nCoV). With quicker reaction to the contagion, the number of scholarly research publications have increased exponentially, which calls for bibliometric analysis and review of the incipient studies. Therefore on 7 Feb 2020, the English language and Chinese publications on COVID-19 were retrieved from PubMed and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). A retrospective bibliometric analysis was performed to gauge the output, language, document type, journal, authorship, geographical distribution, research focus, resulting in a total of 154 papers comprising 100 papers in English and another 54 in Chinese. There were 30 journals published at least 2 papers, and the Journal of Medical Virology published the most papers (11). China and USA were the most productive countries, and there were 24 international collaborative papers. Fudan University contributed the most papers. Isaac I. Bogoch, Kunling Shen, Xingguang LI, Hongzhou Lu were the most active authors as first authors, with 2 papers respectively. Among the 154 publications, 35 were opinions papers, and 30 were research articles. Papers were categorized by research areas, and five research foci were identified. Our study offers an overview of the incipient publications and quantitative information for future research on coronavirus. Besides, Chinese publications were also retrieved for an integrated data analysis and diversity comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The five economies in Asia that invest the most in research and development, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), are Israel, South Korea, Japan, Singapore and China. Nevertheless, the results in the number of scientific output in terms of research publications, and the citations received by them, reveal a whole different reality among those countries. Furthermore, the intellectual production based on quantitative research methods used to be much more popular and defended than that on qualitative methods. However, three of these five countries mentioned trust more in the qualitative paradigm, represented by grounded theory, than in the quantitative one, represented by structural equation modeling. The current study investigates 25 years of scientific production available in the Web of Science and shows that, even though China is undoubtedly Asia's leader in intellectual production, measured by publication productivity and scientific impact, the scientific community trusts the least on China's papers regarding grounded theory, placing China in fifth place among the studied countries for qualitative studies, and third place for quantitative studies. The paper also deepens on the concept of trust as a replacement of impact, and projects the near future for the five studied countries regarding quantitative and qualitative intellectual production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, Open Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) represent a substantial part of the scholarly communication system. The current research is conducted with the aim of providing better insights into the increasingly important OAMJ phenomenon through investigation of eight reputable titles using established bibliometric methods. Results of the study showed that eight studied OAMJs were responsible for 1.87% of the total number of publication indexed in Web of Science during 2012-2016. Despite the decline in publication count of PLOS ONE over the past couple of years, it was the biggest journal in the world till 2017, when Scientific Reports overtook PLOS ONE as the most productive journal. Over 88% of the papers published in eight selected OAMJs were cited at-least once at the point in time of analysis. The highest proportions of cited and un-cited documents were seen in Scientific Reports and SpringerPlus, respectively. With regard to the three indicators, namely share of highlycited papers, the category normalized citation impact as well as the JIF percentile, IEEE Access had by far the best performance among eight examined OAMJs. Results of the study revealed that Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Neurosciences, Oncology and Immunology were the most commonly assigned subject categories to OAMJs' content. The National Natural Science Foundation of China was the most important funding agency that supported the publication of around 26000 articles in eight studied OAMJs. Investigation of the geographic distribution of authors showed that the United States and China by far had the highest contribution in the content of eight studied OAMJs. There were, however, notable variations between different OAMJs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]